Leaving him intact is so much easier, safer, cheaper, humane, logical, ethical, and better for his future sex life and health. And, after all, he can choose circumcision for himself at some point – although you’ll say he probably won’t – and I say, EXACTLY.
“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.
Coming out later this year is a documentary as important and ground-breaking as “The Red Pill,” and will be the equivalent game-changer for intactivists worldwide.
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?
