The purpose of this thesis is to build on the current debate on male circumcision and from thetwo perspectives, consequentialism and non-consequentialism, describe the conflict of rightsthat exists on the issue and outline a normative conclusion about whether Sweden should banmale circumcision of boys or not. The idea is to clarify how the two sides' approach to theconflicting rights differ on the issue. The perspectives intends to provide further clarity to thearguments and provide a framework to resolve the rights conflict by, which creates morefavorable conditions to understand the moral bearing of the arguments in the debate. Thesurvey is conducted as a debate analytical study, conducted by compiling and organizing thearguments for the various positions in the debate. Based on the two theories I conduct ancritical analysis in which I examine the extent to which the arguments of each side lives up tothe perspectives moral standards.