Excellent work, thank you for so cogently expressing the ethical flaws in the practice of non-therapeutic male circumcision. Richard Duncker; Men do Complain
Superb video you guys and gals on the other side of the pond are showing us the way to take it to the streets in the U.K.
An excellent "name and shame". When the case against circumcision is put this well it is difficult to see how a profession that claims to "do no harm" can continue to excise healthy functional tissue form an individual not competent to consent.
To argue that circumcision is a child's religious right ignores the fact that children are not competent to form a considered opinion on religious belief and so a child has no religion he is just born into a community with certain beliefs which he may or may not share when he grows up.
Circumcision also ignores a child's right to ethical medical treatment. A child who is not competent to consent and has no disease or injury has no need of medical treatment.
Richard Duncker, London UK
There is no reason to remove the healthy foreskin from children as they cannot possibly catch a sexually transmitted disease before they are able to make up their own minds about how they would like to manage their sex lives. Education is an effective strategy not surgery on non-consenting children.
I think that Van Lewis may well be this movement's equivalent to Rosa Parks. What courage to protest against circumcision 40 years ago. Thank you Van.