Nicely assembled Paul . . .
It's easy to run for miles with this subject, but you've been pretty concise, while still covering the topic well. The anecdotal examples are very well chosen . . . the Joel Cohen account was especially poignant and added some unique and very important perspective.
Such a statement is emotionally compelling when uttered by a child, but a minor that has undergone a life of one-sided indoctrination on blood is not in a position to make an informed decision on such a complex subject.
This point here is often poorly understood or not well made . . . but brilliantly illustrated by the Cohen example.
A thought on the summary and the rape thing . . .
"I would resist with all my strength such a violation of my body without my consent."
I would make every effort to prosecute my attackers just as I would in a case of rape.”"
Incorrectly labelled food products are "a violation of my body without my consent." My point being . . . there are wide degrees of severity when it comes to personal violation, murder being the top end of the scale. To immediately pair rape and a medical procedure as having the same level of severity is very subjective . . . and arguably a logical fallacy. There is no argument for rape being beneficial or necessary . . . so the analogy is invalid for that reason alone. The link is very emotionally compelling as you mention . . . Jeez, Dr's are now "attackers" . . . so it's validity must be sound. I wonder if there are other flaws that could be highlighted that question it's validity.