We should not change body parts of persons that are not capable of consenting to that. Why not wait until someone is capable of taking those decisions by themself instead of imposing them and on top of that risking their health while doing so?

At some point we need to accept that in a relfrespecting society health and free will must prevail over any practice that infringes on them.

Religious edicts apart, it's not that simple - in Judaism and Islam, not circumcising is also considered a health risk. (It's similar to the edict to not eat Pork). Obviously, just as parents don't let a child decide whether they want to brush their teeth or eat as much sweet as they want, not circumcising your kid is thus seen as irresponsible parenting. But yes, circumcising babies seems to be a modern phenomena. (I think this has happened because of the controversy / myth that babies don't feel pain - https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/7182 ). Originally, as far as I know, circumcision was mostly done to pre-teen (those nearing puberty). And is like one of those "puberty rituals" (celebrating the transition of one from childhood to adulthood) that are common in many cultures around the world. (In fact, the onset of puberty was treated as adulthood by many cultures around a century back, and thus teenage marriage was quite a commonly accepted practice).

That said, I also agree that there's a political angle too - some people (atheist activists, right-wingers, religious fundamentalists etc.) only use this for identity politics against Judaism and / or Islam.