Do you, I or anyone have the right to amputate part of someone else's genitalia without the explicit consent of that person whose genitalia it is?

I let my baby be circumcised without being fully informed, why did this happen?

In times past, it was almost impossible to learn any positive information about natural male anatomy. Only with the advent of the internet have most Americans been able to learn that only we practice secular infant circumcision on a majority of our newborn babies -- not any other Western nation. Even England, the country that helped give us the modern form of the ritual has stopped secular infant circumcision since the 1950s. Especially in the past, many American woman weren't even given a choice -- they were just told by their doctors that their baby would be circumcised -- and only much later did they learn that it wasn't necessary. Today, there is every opportunity to learn -- the videos on this page are good place to start -- or just go to google and do your own research.

Why did Americans start circumcising?

In Victorian times in America, masturbation was thought to be the cause of many diseases including epilepsy, tuberculosis, and tongue cancer. Since doctors of the time period, knew that the foreskin abets masturbation by providing a natural lubricant(circumcised men often have to use an artificial lubrication in order to masturbate without rubbing themselves raw with dry friction) and that it contributed to the pleasure-motive of masturbation since the whole underside of the foreskin is sexually sensitive to stimulation(as opposed to the non-sexual shaft skin), it appeared logical to them to promote circumcision as way to decrease masturbation and hence disease.

Would you buy and use an anti-wrinkle cream or get a cosmetic lip injection if it was manufactured with the clitoral hoods cut off of baby girls?

Some doctors and hospitals have undisclosed motives for doing infant circumcisions, in that they will sell at a profit, the amputated baby foreskin to biomedical companies to be used in research and in some cases commercial cosmetic products.

Does circumcision always remove the same amount?

The ancient forms of the circumcision rite would often just remove the part of the foreskin that was beyond the glans(without seperating the foreskin from the glans which are naturally fused together, which is also true for girls with their biologically analguous clitoris and clitoral hood), whereas the modern American hospital version with the advent of metal clamps which makes it easy to cut off all the skin covering the glans and also often removes the highly erogneuous of frenulum. Also, how much and what is cut off can vary extensively depending the cutting tool and clamps, used and the doctor's own predilection, so it is important to remember that one's own experience as a cut male is not necessarily extrapolatable to the experiences of all cut males.

Do parents have a right to cut off their daughter's clitoral hood?

What if the mother wanted her daughter's clitoral hood cut off because she had her clitoral hood cut off and she felt it was important that her daughter 'look' like her? What if the father wanted his daughter's clitoral hood cut off because he personally preferred women like that and he felt it it was important that his daughter have 'attractive' genitalia? What if both parents wanted to cut off their daughter's clitoral hood because their culture told them to? If these are not valid reasons to cut off a girl's hood, why are they often used to justify cutting off a boy's hood?

Is circumcision is necessary for health reasons?

No medical organization in world recommends routine infant circumcision. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated neonatal circumcision is not justifiable for medical reasons; however they then go on to hedgingly say that if parents want it done for cultural and religious reasons that is fine with them -- thus absolving themselves of any responsibility and passing it on to the parents. When parents are asked why they cut off part of their son's penis, the most common answer given is for 'health reasons' -- thus absolving themselves of responsibility by deferring to the 'medical experts'.

Would you describe a woman who has her entire body she was born with, as being 'unmastectomied'?

Then why do we describe men who have foreskin as being 'uncircumcised'? Notice how we use language to suggest that foreskin is an aberration in need of amputative correction. However, from a biological perspective having foreskin is the default state for a man to be, so the correct description for having foreskin is intact or natural, and the correct description for having your foreskin cut off is unintact or unnatural.

Do you, I and everyone have an innate right to maintain or alter our own genitalia according to our own discretion?