Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Matt Walsh Should Be an Intactivist


I've been following Matt Walsh for a while now.

Why?

Because, although I know he is unpopular, particularly in leftist circles, he makes some very interesting points concerning children and their bodily autonomy.

From the get go, I want to make it clear that I do not agree with every single point Matt Walsh makes. He and I disagree on gun control, for instance. He believes there should be zero sex education in schools. He believes that nobody, even consenting adults, should be allowed to transition socially or medically.

Where he and I tend to agree is pushing back on this idea that children can give informed consent to be put on puberty blockers, such as Lupron, and that teens who aren't yet of the age of majority, can consent to life-altering surgery, such as double mastectomy and genital surgery.

*MY* stance in all of this parallels my views on male infant circumcision; a child cannot give informed consent to elective, cosmetic, permanent, irreversible surgery that radically changes the mechanics of his genitals for the rest of his life. An adult man who is of age of consent, however, should have the right to choose to get circumcised, if indeed, that's what he wants.

Matt and I diverge on this point; he believes that NO ONE should be allowed to alter their bodies radically, EVER. To which I say, at some point, you're going to have to let adults make their own decisions. I fully support an adult person's right to live as they want, and alter their body as they see fit. This includes circumcision, as well as surgery to alter one's genitals radically and even double-mastectomy. It's none of Matt's, or anyone else's business what a person wants to do to their body to live life as they want.

Matt Walsh has recently released a documentary called "What is a Woman?" where he questions gender ideology and the "affirmative treatment" of children, and it's causing waves on social media. Of course there are people who don't want you to see it. Some people don't want you to watch American Circumcision "because it's full of antisemitic hate." However, in my opinion, there being people who don't want you to see something is even all the more reason why people SHOULD see it.

Arguments stand or fall on their own. If Matt's arguments are weak, they'll be refuted. If they're not, then people will have to consider his points. The fact that people desperately want you to NOT see it, attack Matt with accusations of "transphobia" and "bigotry", before even watching the film, tells you that maybe, just maybe, the man might have something important to say. I see people attacking Matt as a "transphobic bigot" as no different than people attacking intactivists as "antisemitic nazis." All empty ad hominem meant to discredit and distract from the points being made.

Intactivists, I ask, what do we think about the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), or any other American medical institution that promotes the "medical benefits of male infant circumcision"? The CDC? The AMA? We insist that they're wrong because they contradict the consensus of medical institutions around the world; that male infant circumcision is unnecessary, and may even be harmful.

Matt Walsh is in a similar position; he stands and questions medical organizations who promote the idea that children who are gender non-conforming should be put on puberty blockers and on the path to medical transition before they can even give informed consent.

Medical organizations have been wrong before. Medical institutions taught Galen's mistaken works on anatomy for 1000 years before they were questioned, and anyone who did was ridiculed and labeled a heretic. For the longest time the WHO listed homosexuality as a mental illness, and now they don't.

Just because medical institutions condone, promote or otherwise recommend a practice does not necessarily mean that practice is correct or backed by science. Some practices may be in fact backed by pseudo-science as is the case with male infant circumcision. There may be financial incentive behind promoting "affirmative therapy" in children, and that's because transitioning a child early guarantees a medical patient for life, requiring a rash of surgery and hormones for life.

 

 "It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair

If we're going to stand up and question the practice of male infant circumcision, then surely, it stands to reason that we need to question double mastectomy, orchiectomy, hysterectomy, or radical surgery on otherwise healthy individuals who aren't yet of the age of consent. Surely giving children puberty blockers, drugs that are normally given to sex offenders to chemically castrate them, warrants introspection.

If removing a child's foreskin is a problem, because it's invasive, elective, removing normal, healthy tissue, then surely removing a teen's breasts and penis and testicles before they're even 18 is an even bigger problem.

Why isn't anyone questioning this? Why is everyone just smiling, nodding and going along? Is it because people are afraid of being vilified as "transphobic bigots?" In the same way people who question circumcision are called "antisemite nazis?" Is that what people are afraid of?

It shouldn't be "transphobic" or "bigoted" to want to question invasive medical treatment and radical surgery. It shouldn't be controversial to question chemically castrating, giving mastectomies and radical genital-altering surgery to healthy, minors who are incapable of giving informed consent.

One would think that before considering radical surgery a patient need to be equipped the the information, all the pros and cons, before making an informed decision, yet somehow suggesting this is controversial.

One would think that doctors exploiting the transient naïveté of youth to get them to agree to radical surgery would be seen as medical fraud and deliberate child abuse.

And yet, here we are.

How far does Matt Walsh Buy his own arguments?

The above being said, however, I do wonder how consistent are Matt's arguments that we should not perform surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors. He is certainly insistent that healthy children cannot consent to chemical castration, double-mastectomy or radical genital altering surgery. And yet I wonder what his thoughts are on circumcision?

It is my surmisal that, given that he has rather conservative values, he either sees no problem with male infant circumcision, or actually advocates for it, and that cognitive dissonance and cultural blinders simply disallow him to see the inconsistency of condoning male infant circumcision, while opposing double-mastectomy and bottom surgery for underage individuals. In these conversations, conservatives often coin the term "genital mutilation" to express their disgust at genital surgery on minors.

In a very recent video (today is June 14th, 2022), Matt engages in a monologue that, were it about the foreskin, you'd think he was an intactivist. It is a response to a journalist who critiques his film "What is a Woman."

 



Here is the excerpt from the transcript:

"The primary complication of cutting off a woman's healthy breasts is that, *you've cut off a woman's healthy breasts.* The complication is that you've removed a piece of her body, a piece of her, and you've done it on the theory that it will help her be a man, even though, she could never be a man, and chopping off her breasts will bring her no closer to manhood, than she was when she still had them.

The fact that there are, allegedly "only," "additional complications in 12% of cases" does not rescue you from this fact, it's the surgery itself that's the problem. Even if everything goes "perfectly well" when you're cutting the breasts off of a woman, you're still cutting her breasts off, and that's the issue. You are removing healthy body parts, and often you're doing this to young girls who would not even be allowed to legally get tattoos, because they've been judged "too young" for it."

Though Matt would most likely be loathe to admit it, what he says parallels the issue of male infant circumcision. He's on to something. He's so close! He's nearly there. If only he would follow through with his own logic and condemn the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, he'd be consistent. If he actually believed what he said, I think he'd be an intactivist. 

Male infant circumcision advocates often cite the "low complication rates". That's not the problem. That you're cutting off healthy tissue from a child's penis IS the complication. This is precisely the point intactivists have been trying to drive home for decades. The fact that it's "only 2%" does not rescue circumcision advocates. 2% of 1.4 million babies is STILL 28,000 babies with complications. The risks include infectionpartial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

It's circumcision itself that is the problem. Even if everything "goes perfectly well" you're still cutting off part of a child's penis, you're removing healthy, functional flesh from children who aren't legally allowed to get tattoos, and that's the issue. 

This is the problem with male infant circumcision, and it would be nice if people like Matt Walsh followed through with his logic and applied it consistently. It's too bad that cultural blinders and cognitive dissonance will most likely disallow him apply his own logic.

Matt Walsh Trips Over Male Infant Circumcision and Fails to Recognize It as a Problem

In yet another video, Matt gives a speech at the Western Conservative Summit. 

 



He highlights the failure that was John Money's horrible experiment gone wrong (starts at 15:55), but somehow manages to gloss over the very procedure that resulted in David Reimer's castration.

Poor Matt, I feel so sorry for him.

There are so many things he gets right, and yet, he falls into his own trap of wanting to preserve his own world view.

"He (David Reimer) was circumcised for phimosis," he said. A condition that can't be observed in newborns because the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis in most newborns.


The Reimer twins were NOT born with "phimosis," no child ever is, as non-retractability of the foreskin is normal in 99% of boys at birth. The boys were not being "treated for a condition," they were perfectly healthy. The other twin was not circumcised. He mysteriously survived until his suicide.


It's almost studious; justify circumcision while condemning the resulting castration, which wasn't Money's fault. Money raising David as a girl? What a monster. The needless, elective, purely cosmetic procedure which resulted in losing David's penis? That's just fine.


There is nothing EVER wrong with boys at birth. That is, unless it's doctors wanting to offer their "solutions." Money's "solution" to turn David into a girl was a solution to a problem caused by another unneeded "solution" to a non-existent problem. To coin a phrase, "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul."


Circumcision is another elephant in the room, and Matt is not yet ready to address it.


He is so close. So darn close! And yet he misses it.


If mutilating the genitals of a child who cannot yet give his full consent is a problem, then male infant circumcision is RIGHT OUT.


Matt maligns parents who would let a doctors put their child on puberty blockers, give them bottom surgery etc. and rightfully so. But he glosses over the one procedure that produced a case like David Reimer in the first place.


Nothing screams cultural blinders, nothing screams cognitive dissonance, nothing screams willful ignorance than causally glossing over the one thing we do every day that can and does result in boys losing their penis, while protesting that gender affirming surgery is genital mutilation.


My only guess is that Matt is circumcised and has had any male children he has circumcised, so he must find some sort of justification for what he did and what was done to him, while at the same time condemning the despicable experiment that was John Money's forcible transition of David Reimer. At the same time, condemning parents making these "decisions" for their children. 


I'm not trying to defend parents "transing" their children; giving puberty blockers to kids and giving them " gender affirming surgery" when they can't actually give fully informed consent is horrendous. But if Matt seriously believes we shouldn't mutilate our children at a time when they're unable to give their informed consent, he has got to talk about the elephant in the room that is male infant circumcision.


In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. Without any medical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice."


The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation of the penis (see David Reimer), hemorrhage, sepsis and even death.


The same reasons why we shouldn't be giving puberty blockers or genital surgery to healthy minors are the same reasons we shouldn't be circumcising healthy, non-consenting newborns.


If Matt is serious about genital mutilation and the well-being and rights of children who are too young to consent to elective non-medical surgery, he has GOT to talk about the genital mutilation that goes on every day in this country.


Otherwise, he doesn't actually care about the rights of children, informed consent, medical fraud, or charlatans profiting off of pseudo-medicine, and his concern for child abuse rings hollow.


DISCLAIMER: 
I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor "cultural practice" of any kind. Please do not conflate my disdain for the forced circumcision of minors with a belittlement of circumcised men, or a hate for Jews.

In this blog I criticize circumcision advocates and expose information about them that is not always revealed to the public. Some may argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, I'm only pointing out conflicts of interest, and this is not ad hominem. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (4/22/2012):

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the sourceIdentification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

~Joseph4GI


Related Posts





 

External Links

 


Sunday, May 1, 2022

It Looks Like @Joseph4GI Is Back

 

It looks like my account at Twitter has been restored.

I wonder what could have happened?

Could it be Elon Musk is keeping his word?

Those of you who have been following me on here know that Twitter had suspended my account and it looked like I wasn't getting it back.

Well, following the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, I decided I would try logging back into my account, and lo and behold, it looks like I'm finally able to start tweeting again.

However, I'm not sure how active I'll be now that my account is back.

It was nice not having to worry about who was tweeting, responding to me, mentioning me etc.

Do I really want to go back to that?

Perhaps for now, I'll just stick to publishing any new posts I create on this blog.

My Thoughts on Elon Musk's Acquisition of Twitter

I'm of two minds regarding the recent series of events surrounding this social media platform.

On the one hand, I'm not sure how I feel about one man having the power to censor or allow information to be published.

That was the problem before, though.

It still IS the problem on platforms such as Facebook, who are owned by a single billionaire, namely Mark Zuckerberg.

Actually, as long as I've been an intactivst, there have always been people trying to label us "anti-Semites," and what we post "hate speech" or "disinformation."

How verifiable fact can be called any of these things is beyond me, and yet, for a while, it seems advocates of male infant circumcision were successful in having me silenced on Twitter.

It is not uncommon to hear from other intactivists that Twitter, Facebook or other social media platforms had suspended their accounts and put them on periodical bans.

 


 

It's rather sad, frustrating, scary, all of these things and more at the same time, that the factual information that intactivists have to share can be labeled "hate speech," "disinformation" etc. and banned, blocked, deleted, what have you.

So on the other hand, I'm glad that Twitter is now in the hands of someone that, at least for now, seems to be a champion of free speech.

It is a problem when truth and verifiable fact can be labeled "hate speech" and/or "disinformation" for the sake of censoring it.

It is my hope that Mr. Elon Musk is a man of his word and he protects the free speech of intactivists, although this would be construed as "hate speech" and/or "disinformation" by those who are inconvenienced by it and who would have us silenced.

WHO would be interested in silencing intactivists?

-Those who profit from this procedure performed on millions annually in the United States alone.

-Those who have religious or cultural conviction to protect what they see as an age-old custom.

-Those who have malpractice lawsuits for disseminating medical misinformation and reaping profit from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals to evade.

There are pocketbooks, reputations, religious beliefs and cultural customs to protect.

Arguments stand or fall on their own.

Given a proper hearing, it would be self-evident that arguments against male infant circumcision are robust, and arguments in favor collapse under their own weight.

The only way advocates of male infant circumcision *can* win is to find ways to make sure the conversation doesn't happen, whether it be by crying "hate speech," "disinformation" or by demanding platforms have us banned.

So I am glad that it sounds like we have a champion in Elon Musk.

 


 

A lot of people don't like this, but allowing the freedom of speech is a GOOD thing.

It allows us to have important, meaningful conversation, discuss difficult topics such as male infant circumcision, and to present the facts so people can see and verify them for themselves.

It's thanks to freedom of speech that we're allowed to question guidelines put out by male infant circumcision advocates at the CDC and AAP, which we know are deliberately misleading.

It is a logical fallacy to dismiss information when it's not being purported by "the experts" at medical organizations, and/or to prop it up when it is.

It's called "ad verecundiam," also known as "appeal to authority.

 

 

Information is either true or false based on its own merit, regardless of who is presenting it, and it is completely possible for even experts at prestigious organizations to be wrong.

It is those interested in suppressing information while maintaining a false narrative who are interested in having the power to decide what is "mis/disinformation" or not.

Intactivists have factual, verifiable information on our side, but what good does it do us if circumcision advocates on Twitter deem it "hate speech" or "disinformation?"

I'm SO glad Mr. Elon Musk decided to buy Twitter.

Only those who fear the truth need fear freedom of speech and eager to wield the power to silence others.

Those who fear actual lies and disinformation need not fret, for the truth shall set us free.

Related Posts:

The State of Affairs for Joseph4gi 
 
Twitter Censoring Joseph4GI
 
Circumcision Censorship at Twitter? 
 
Twitter Bans Award-Winning Circumcision Documentary Filmmaker
 
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide
 
OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected
 
 

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: 7yo Dies in Bishek, Kyrgyzstan Post-Circumcision

 

This happened last month, and I've been sitting on it because I've been busy with life and work, but I figured, better late than never.

I can't read the original news article anymore because it's now behind a paywall, but the opening line says it all; A 7-year-old boy died in the Bishkek Children's Hospital, Bishek, Kyrgyzstan on April 2nd this year.

The headline says that an autopsy was not performed.

Outside of the United States, circumcision is performed on boys of varying ages. In Muslim countries, such as Kyrgyzstan, circumcision is performed on children between the ages of 7 and 13.

Some circumcision advocates love to say "death doesn't happen when it's performed on newborns." Jewish advocates love to say "death never happens when performed on the 8th day." Of course, they say this because this is when Jewish boys are customarily circumcised.

None of this is true, however.

Death is a risk of circumcision, and it doesn't really matter at what age the circumcision is performed.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Quite possibly the most common of all complications is the child bleeding to death because the wound has failed to heal properly, and this will happen to any male, any age, whether it's performed by a ritual circumcisor or doctor.

Please see the long list of links below.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued their policy statement on male infant circumcision, where they state that "the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks," but at the same time, in the same policy statement, they say "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." The statement concluded that "the benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," while at the same time, that parents should be the ones to weight the risks and benefits for themselves, the risks of which are, by the AAP's own admission, unknown. In effect, the AAP absolves doctors who perform circumcisions on healthy minors of any responsibility, placing the onus on parents instead.

Because this is cosmetic, non-medical surgery, whether or not these risks are conscionable ought to be considered when performing it on healthy, non-consenting minors.

It is my view that, unless absolutely indicated, the decision of whether or not to circumcise should be left up to the individual in question, when he is of age, and after he has considered all the benefits and risks for himself.

The child was alive and well up until April 2nd last month, and had he not been circumcised he would still be alive.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are parents being properly informed about this?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing circumcision on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice?"

Isn't it medically fraudulent to be profiting from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

And if one of said individuals dies, should doctors not be held liable?

Related Posts: 

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

No World Record for "Circumcision Party"
 
External Link:
 
AKIPress:7yo in died in Bihsek after circumcision, autopsy not performed
 
Further Reading:
 
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: 13yo Bleeds to Death in the Philippines
 
AUSTRALIA: One Child Dies, Another Nearly Bleeds to Death Post Circumcision
 
 
 
Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: 13yo Bleeds to Death in the Philippines

 

A report published on March 25th 2022 tells of a 13yo who died in Lucena, Quezon, The Philippines following his circumcision.

According to another report "24 Oras," the boy bled to death after bleeding would not stop after being circumcised at a "free circumcision event" organized by the Scout Royale Brotherhood.

Circumcision is a custom in the Philippine Islands, thought to be a holdover from their Islamic past. While Filipinos are mostly Catholic now, and the Bible prohibits circumcision for gentiles (Galatians 5), circumcision continues to be ingrained in Filipino culture.

 

Boys being circumcised at a "circumcision party" in Marikina, The Philippines

Unlike the United States where male infant circumcision is performed on newborns, in the Philippines it is a rite of passage, often performed on older boys. In the Philippines, circumcision can happen at a hospital, or a doctor's office, but it often happens at mass circumcision events, where boys are gathered and circumcised by organizations dedicated to circumcising boys.

Because it is stigmatized to remain intact, or "supot" as they say in the Philippines, most boys are geared toward getting circumcised from a young age, in the summer before going back to school.

While most circumcisions are performed "successfully," where the destruction of the glanular hood is intentional, there are risks that attend the procedure.

Various kinds of infection, including MRSA and galloping gangrene can occur, part or full ablation of the penis can happen, and hemorrhage or sepsis can occur. The most common complication of circumcision is uncontrollable bleeding.

Not to mention that even a circumcision considered "successful" will not always be an aesthetically pleasing result, often resulting in too much or too little skin removed, skin tags, uneven scarring and other misshaping.

And yes, death is a risk of male circumcision.

These risks attend male circumcision at any age.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued their policy statement on male infant circumcision, where they state that "the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks," but at the same time, in the same policy statement, they say "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." The statement concluded that "the benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," while at the same time, that parents should be the ones to weight the risks and benefits for themselves, the risks of which are, by the AAP's own admission, unknown. In effect, the AAP absolves doctors who perform circumcisions on healthy minors of any responsibility, placing the onus on parents instead.

Because this is cosmetic, non-medical surgery, whether or not these risks are conscionable ought to be considered when performing it on healthy, non-consenting minors.

It is my view that, unless absolutely indicated, the decision of whether or not to circumcise should be left up to the individual in question, when he is of age, and after he has considered all the benefits and risks for himself.

Related Posts: 

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

No World Record for "Circumcision Party"
 
External Link:
 
GMA News Online: Circumcision causes 13-year-old to bleed to death in Lucena 
 
Further Reading:
 
AUSTRALIA: One Child Dies, Another Nearly Bleeds to Death Post Circumcision
 
 
 
Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Tuesday, February 1, 2022

January 24, 2022: Circumcision Sends Another Baby Boy to "Heaven"

 

It's happened before. And it will all happen again. But this time it happened in Texas.

I grow tired of writing these, so I'm just going to post the picture exactly as I found it on Facebook:

 


There's something cringe-worthy about parents who willingly allow their otherwise healthy child to have their genitals mutilated by a perfect stranger trying to somehow tie in their religion and "the will of god" into the picture.

"God needed him more than we did," the mother wrote. Yes. And apparently the doctor needed your child's foreskin more than he did. And you wanted your child to have a mutilated organ more than you wanted your child.

"He was always meant to be an angel." The deliberate justification of infanticide. So why don't we kill all children then? So that they all "get to heaven?"

And what do you mean "little did we know?" Did the doctors not explain the risks and complications of circumcision? Or he did and you signed the form anyway? One of these two things has to be true.

"Why do other babies get miracles but mine didn't? Why did this happen to us?"

So you wanted to have your child mutilated AND you wanted a miracle? Wonders never cease.

This is about as much as I can write on this. I'm not sure how long we intactivists have to say it or how many more babies have to die before we realize doctors shouldn't be doing this. The following is cut and paste. I can't anymore with this story.

Closing Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, hemorrhage, partial or full ablation of the penis and even death.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery, any death above "zero" is unconscionable.

May one day the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals be recognized for the medical fraud and violation of basic human rights that it is.

Related Posts:

NEW "STUDY": "Circumcision Risks Low in Newborns"

The Circumcision Blame Game
 
List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
 
 
 
 
Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch