"Ignorance is a Choice"

Yes, it is true: "Ignorance is a Choice".

Ignorance means: "Someone KNOWS the TRUTH but chooses to ignore it."

It is rong, !et "er#erse, to ignore the truth.
It is rong, !et "er#erse, to ignore inarguab$e %acts.

...but it is e#en more &'R('RS' to CIRCU)*T' +*)S', ,IS)'*-IN. IN+OR,*TION in s"ite o% /noing
the correct in%ormation.
*n0 !es in0ee0:
... those ho chose to create0 an0 circu$ate this +*))*CY te$$ing the &'R&'TR*TORS o% THIS CRI,' in
"articu$ar an0 the "ub$ic in genera$ , that TH' CHI)- *1US' o% +ORC'- CIRCU,CISION ""is $ega$ in
estern countries"" an0 that "on$! +., is out$ae0", ha#e CHOS'N to I.NOR' the TRUTH an0 thus
ha#e CHOS'N to CIRCU)*T' +*)S', ,IS)'*-IN. IN+OR,*TION.
Yes in0ee0:
... it is most ob#ious that those ho chose to create an0 circu$ate this +*))*CY are circu$ating the
#er! same +*))*CY 2 +*)S', ,IS)'*-IN. IN+OR,*TION, that "Intact *merica.org" an0 its "&resi0ent
.eorganne Cha"in" is circu$ating since o"ening her mouth b! stating in "Intact *merica.org3s
&rinci"$e Statement: "On$! +., is out$ae0, but bo!s are accor0e0 no such "rotection", an0 thus
rong$!, %a$$acious$!, im"$!ing: "",., is not out$ae0, but $ega$ in *merica"", an0 thus 2 1)*T*NT)Y
I.NORIN. the IN*R.U*1)' +*CT that both, ,., an0 +., are in0ee0 *)R'*-Y OUT)*W'- un0er
e4isting -emocratic Ru$e o% Constitutiona$ an0 Statutor! )a.

1UT:
Is *NYON' ... are .eorganne Cha"in o% Intact *merica.org an0 a$$ those ho circu$ate her +*)S',
,IS)'*-IN. &RINCI&)' ST*T','NT ab$e to "ro0uce inte$$igib$e e#i0ence 2 em"iric e#i0ence 2
e#i0ence that her statement is true5

NO ... o% course NOT6

The inarguab$e %act is, that NO "erson is ab$e to "ro0uce a US2)a that "$ega$i7es ,.,".
SUCH a )*W -O'S NOT '8IST6

The inarguab$e %act is, that TH' )*W '8ISTS un0er hich ,., an0 +., are *)R'*-Y '9U*))Y
OUT)*W'- un0er -emocratic Ru$e o% Constitutiona$ an0 Statutor! )a.

I am stating 2 b! shoing 2 THIS IN*R.U*1)' '(I-'NC' 2 b! a! o% shoing TH' *CTU*) )*W un0er
hich ,., an0 +., are a$rea0! e:ua$$! out$ae0 since 0eca0es.

.erorganne Cha"in /nos that; !es the intacti#ist mo#ement /nos that; those ho circu$ate this
%a$se, mis$ea0ing in%ormation "",., is $ega$"" /no that ... because I am in%orming the entire
Intacti#ist ,o#ement about the inarguab$e %act that ,., an0 +., are a$rea0! out$ae0 since
0eca0es.

Yet 2 an0 in s"ite o% ha#ing been %u$$! in%orme0 about the inarguab$e %act that ,., an0 +., are
a$rea0! out$ae0 un0er 0emocratic ru$e o% $a 2 e#en INT*CTI(IST CHOOS' to I.NOR' this +*CT o%
WRITT'N <US2+e0era$ )a= > +e0era$ Chi$0 *buse &re#ention an0 Treatment *ct ?C*&T*@ AB U.S.C.*.
C DEFGg 2 BFEF 2 &.). EEE2HBF, Iust as is state0 in the Uni#ersa$ 0ec$aration o% -eman0 %or )a
'n%orcement on this S!stemati7e0 Chi$0 *buse o% +orce0 Circumcision.

Can !ou or an!one e$se 0en! the e4istence o% this $a5
NO ... o% course NOT6

So: The question remains:
Ho can *NYON' ... ho can .eorganne Cha"in an0 a$$ the others ho choose to ignore the
e4istence o% this $a ... e4"$ain, ho can *NYON' Iusti%! the 0ire, !et "er#erse %act o% choosing to
ignore the e4istence o% this $a ... an0 e#en more "er#erse ... to circu$ate the %a$se, mis$ea0ing
in%ormation in sa!ing "",., is $ega$ in estern countries""5

... hi$e 2 o% course 2 it is abso$ute$! "ro#en b! a! o% '8ISTIN. WOR- O+ )*W, that <,.,
constitutes the crime o% in%$iction o% non2acci0enta$ inIur! on a chi$0= as is 0e%ine0 un0er +e0era$
C*&T* )a, an0 thus is *1SO)UT')Y OUT)*W'-, regar0$ess b! ho, on hom an0 %or hate#er
reason in%$icte06

Conc$usion:
The statement ""+., is out$ae0, but bo!s are accor0e0 no such "rotection"" IS +*)S'666
The statement "",., resu$ts ""sometimes" in #er! ser#er 0amage" IS +*)S'666

The correct in%ormation is:
a@ +orce0 Circumcision on Humans o% an! *ge an0 .en0er is a$rea0! OUT)*W'- un0er
-emocratic Ru$e o% )a6

b@ 1oth ,., an0 +., a$a!s resu$t in ('RY S'('R' -*,*.'666
... the remo#a$ o% a hea$th! bo0! "art a$a!s constitutes ,*8I,U, -*,*.'666

It is high time that those ho circu$ate %a$se, mis$ea0ing in%ormation STO& -OIN. SO666

'#er!one nee0 to KNOW that ,., is CHI)- *1US' an0 *)R'*-Y OUT)*W'- an0 that the
go#ernment has the constitutiona$ ob$igation to en%orce the $a on an! %orm o% chi$0 abuse, thus a$so
on the CHI)- *1US' o% +orce0 ,a$e Chi$0 Circumcision666

Here is the correct in%ormation again, Iust as is being 0irect$! a00resse0 to the &resi0ent o% the
Unite0 States o% *merica; the entire go#ernment; the "ub$ic an0 sure$! in this a$so to the intacti#ist
mo#ement: .intacthumanit!.org

I a$so ma/e it #er! c$ear, that I not on$! o""ose an0 counteract an! %a$se, mis$ea0ing statement
circu$ate0 b! the +orce0 Circumcision ,a%ia, but o% course a$so an! %a$se, mis$ea0ing statement
circu$ate0 b! the intacti#ists or an!one e$se %or that matter.

"Intacti#ism3s %irst an0 %oremost res"onsibi$it! is to gi#e abso$ute correct in%ormation, an0 to e4"ose
an0 counteract an! %a$se, mis$ea0ing in%ormation, regar0$ess b! ho an0 h! circu$ate0." *men