In Manchester this year the man, above, was convicted of raping more than a hundred men. It is not at all surprising that he was sentenced to a long prison term.
Consent is the main issue with rape, there is nothing wrong with sex; if it is your choice to have intercourse. If you don’t consent to sex then it is rape. We don’t as a society say oh well men can’t get pregnant and we don’t say date rape is fine “he won’t remember it”. The courts quite rightly hand out severe sentences to those convicted of rape.
We should view male circumcision the same way. There is nothing wrong with circumcision if it is your choice. What is wrong is circumcising a child who lacks the capacity to understand the possible consequences or to give informed consent.
Is there a religious exemption?
There is no human right to impose your religion on another person. The human right to freedom of thought conscience and religion  is a qualified right in that you cannot use your right under that article to override the rights of any other person.
Whatever the claimed benefits, such as, he will want to look like his father, he will want to fit in with his peers, or community. All of these have to be weighed against the irreversibility of the procedure and the justifiable sense of loss after having had a normal body part removed.
There have been two studies in America, a commonly circumcising culture, that show between 10%  and 13% of men circumcised as children resent what was done to them.
In the light of these studies we should do more to protect children from all forms of non therapeutic genital cutting.
Our protest out side the British Medical Association’s annual representatives meeting in Belfast. Interactions with the delegates was for the most part friendly and supportive; most of the delegates who don’t share the views of MDC just walk past and don’t engage.
In this presentation to the National Secular Society medical ethicist Brian Earp argues that it is only by protecting all children from non-medical genital cutting that society will end the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.
The Child Rights International Network has released the 2018 edition of their report, “What Lies Beneath”. The current version of this report, quoted below, outlines CRIN’s views on non-therapeutic male circumcision:
Male circumcision is an irreversible procedure to surgically remove the foreskin from the human penis. It’s routinely carried out on newborns and adolescents within Jewish and Muslim communities, respectively; on infants out of social convention among nonreligious communities in some Western countries, most notably the United States; and on teenage boys as a rite of passage within some ethnic groups in parts of Africa.
When performed for religious or cultural – not medical – reasons, it flatly designates routine circumcision as medically unjustifiable. In fact, there’s growing support within the medical community against male circumcision as a routine practice since its non-therapeutic basis means it does not comply with medical ethics.
In sum, routine male circumcision involves the removal of healthy tissue for no medical reason from one of the most sensitive body parts, unnecessarily exposing a child to the risks of surgery, and usually at an age when they lack the capacity to consent or refuse consent. Recorded complications include bleeding, panic attacks, infection, disfigurement, necrosis and amputation, and even death.
Exposing a child to such risks without curative or rehabilitative justification goes against medical ethics, as well as parental responsibilities to protect a child from injury and harm.
Advocates say the decision to circumcise should not rest with anyone except a boy himself when he’s old enough to give his free and informed consent, or refuse it.