“Two-faced” is just one way to describe people who’s Strategic Intent is to “put the experience & voice of the child at the centre” and then go ahead and mutilate those children’s genitals for no medical reason, and certainly without the child’s voice being heard.
Dr. Tarr must think of a baby boy as a dog needing to be fixed, just an animal with no human rights or self-determination.
Doctor, when you say “you decide what you want,” does that apply to the most precious and vulnerable of us all, infants? For them it’s ‘we decide, you lie there and submit.’
Did he really say he has a “special interest in Men’s Health?” “Special” as in amputating normal tissue of men-to-be?
Can we agree infant boys should have the same protection as animals, and heaven forbid, girls?
Dr. Rurik, “quality health care” does not include routine genital mutilation.
When you ritually and routinely circumcise a baby, you’re not “treating” the child or preventing “disease,” you’re abusing and mutilating him.
Dr. John Clapper continues to circumcise children, while Dr. Jumana Nagarwala has been arrested and prevented from doing so. Why is Clapper allowed and Nagarwala not?
On the contrary, Dr. Scranton is not “very knowledgeable” about the unnecessary harm and risk she brings to the patients she violates without their consent.
“In a complicated, sometimes frustrating medical environment, my job is to give the best care possible and advocate for my patients.”
Certainly not the “best care possible” from the patient’s point of view.
The doctor should really ask himself if the patient whom he just circumcised actually wanted this mutilation and if the boy is glad you took that choice away from him.
Kay unknowingly reveals that circumcision was done to minimize pleasure for men and boys when she shames intactivists in their quest for “erotic freedom,” believing male sexual pleasure would discourage “ethical mating”. I think that’s what feminism and the family courts are doing, not the foreskin.