MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
"It's not circumcision that needs to be studied,
it's the circumcisers"
(Excerpts from letters)
John Erickson
I wish someone would just come out and say it, loud and clear, once and for all: that infant circumcision is an atrocity and a fraud; that it's cruel, outrageous and is an intolerable violation of a helpless human being's right to his own body; that it's the ugliest, saddest and most sickening scandal in medical history; and that anyone who cuts off a baby's foreskin is as guilty of contributing to human suffering and misery as the monsters of Auschwitz -- and in the name of humanity should be exposed, confronted and stopped.
The most damning and unanswerable indictment against circumcision and those who perform it on babies is the fact that the vast majority of uncircumcised men throughout the world choose to keep their foreskins intact - and the fact that so many circumcised men wish their foreskins were intact. Awareness of these two facts would make persons of good will refuse to destroy this sensitive, harmless part of a baby's body. The circumcisers of the world are aware of these two facts, but they continue to circumcise babies anyway, knowing that men who are given the choice overwhelmingly reject this operation.Can reason and persuasion change the minds of those who let themselves commit such an Act? It's not circumcision that needs to be studied. It's the circumcisers.
The article by attorney Richard Morris in your December "Forum" is more like it! Regardless of the reasons offered to justify cutting off a baby's foreskin (religious, medical, cultural, social, sexual, hygienic, esthetic, whatever), the fact remains that infant circumcision is foreskin amputation by force, deliberate, premeditated violence against a helpless, unwilling victim.Since not one baby in a hundred who reaches adulthood with his foreskin intact would let a doctor or anyone else cut it off, or wishes it ever had been cut off, circumcising a baby is exactly the same morally and ethically as cutting of any other healthy, functional; part of his body that hurts and bleeds when it's cut off and doesn't grow back, in other words an atrocity.
Victims of such an act have every right to seek retribution and redress any way they can, and the sooner more of them do, the sooner the racket of legalized, institutionalized mayhem known as infant circumcision will be where it belongs: out of business.
Most men who circumcise babies, like most men who want babies circumcised, were themselves circumcised as babies and therefore have no way of knowing how a foreskin feels, what it's like to have one, how the absence of a foreskin has affected our lives, or how it affects the lives of the babies they circumcise.If a man is so blind to his own blindness that he seeks, or is willing , to blind those who can see, shouldn't he be told that he's blind?
The best reason not to cut any of a baby's penis off is that he's almost sure to be glad you didn't.
TO THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Should the highest medical authority and court of appeals of a civilized country tolerate a healthy, normal, living, sensitive, functional part of a human being's body, that is rightfully his and that he instinctively wants to keep, at a time in his life when he can't understand what is being done to him and can't speak for or defend himself?
TO THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
How can a doctor justify amputate in part of a baby's body that the vast majority of men who are given the choice choose to keep? What would it take to impel the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a statement affirming the thoroughly documented but apparently little know fact that the foreskin is a normal, beneficial part of the human body and recommending positively, therefore that the foreskins of infants routinely be left intact?
TO PEDIATRICS
The enormity of the wrong done a baby by depriving him of his foreskin becomes clear if you talk with enough uncircumcised men to realize how much he might have valued it, had he been allowed to keep it intact. Some doctors who circumcise babies now acknowledge that when a baby screams, struggles, vomits, defecates and lapses into a coma when his foreskin is clamped, slit, torn, crushed and sliced, he's in pain.
TO PEDIATRICS IN REVIEW
Ask several men who are not circumcised how they feel about the fact, and why, and only the policy possible for a person of good will to have about the foreskin of a baby becomes very clear. If a baby about to be circumcised could understand what was about to be done to him and could speak, what would he say?
TO THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
The best reason to let a baby keep his foreskin intact is that it's almost a certainty he will be glad you did.
John Erickson
FRIENDS OF BABIES