Male genital mutilation
The rights of the individual are paramount. Circumcision is a violation of the boy's rights over his own body.
There are now many non-surgical alternatives to circumcision and even if they fail there are now also less invasive surgical alternatives. In the 21st century corrective circumcision is very rarely needed. In Alex's case the article notes that in the UK non-surgical options would have been attempted while the Canadian doctor went straight to circumcision.
There is strong evidence (elevated cortisol levels for an extended period, permanent changes in infant behaviour) that circumcision is traumatic for the infant.
Proponents of FGM use the same arguments as proponents of MGM. Contrary to what is often claimed the most common form of FGM is less severe than male circumcision. The argument that FGM is intrinsically worse doesn't fly.
Finland
The neonatal circumcision rate in Finland is zero. The rate of circumcision later in life is 1 in 16667.[1]. This puts an upper bound on the number of medically necessary circumcisions at 0.006% There is no reason to be believe that Finnish men are less susceptible to foreskin related problems than other men (not even environmental temperatures) so we may reasonable conclude that no more than 0.006% of men will need a circumcision in their life if their foreskin is not removed without their consent.
References
<references>