And no, I don't blame my mom or my dad for doing this to me when I was a baby "without my consent". Because as an infant, one have absolutely no concept or ability to comprehend what that is. That's why we have PARENTS who are given the choice, and that choice should never be taken away from them. They did what they're supposed to do as parents and came to a conclusion as to what they felt was proper for THEIR CHILD.
"Their child" is not a possession. "Their child" is a human being, born with the same rights as all humans. A parent's rights supersede their childs' rights only in extreme circumstances, when they
must ('for the well-being of the child,' or whatever) and I see no reason why circumcision
must be performed before a reasonable age of consent, muchless an infant, except that an older child would probably put out rather more of a protest, which strikes me as a sneaky kind of dick-move on the parents' part (if you'll pardon the pun).
Circumcision is body modification at best and mutilation at worst and while I harbor no ill will towards my parents (being uncircumcised, myself), nor do I object to circumcision, in general (a man can have a hoodless dick if he wants to, I say) if a
parent wants to have hoodless-dicked children then I suggest that they
quit playing God and wait for evolution to take it's
fucking course.
[cue metal]