Well, I don't see it necessarily as something that "everyone need agree on",
Ok, not necessarily, but widespread, lively, committed disagreement is a bad sign that there is any impersonal sense that some particular behavior is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
I appreciate that just because something is true, or morally right, or insert good quality here, it isn't necessarily obvious that it's true, etc.
But if the matter is disputed? And not casually, but backed up?
I'd worry about my "absolute" in that case.
we agree that this is abhorrent behaviour.
But is this merely in accordance with our current societal view of what is right, and what is wrong, or does it indicate something deeper?
Merely is shaky. We happen to live in a society that has invested heavily, for thousands of years, in trying to figure out what is right, how to express that in workable laws, studying how other societies handle and have handled similar problems, and so on. We didn't get where we are by winging it.
But, we did get where we are by changing over time. Adult homosexuality: No problem, big problem, no problem if you're discreet about it, being discreet about it is the problem, don't ask, don't tell, ...
You name it, we've had it as our (then) current societal view of what is right on that subject.
That we even care is the "something deeper," I think, identifying the categories of what kinds of behavior present moral questions.
The answers change, except maybe at the extremes, the really vile stuff that nobody is ever going to condone. As opposed to the really vile stuff that at one time or another, or in one place or another, was just the way things were there and then.
You should refresh your recollection about what kinds of experiences the phrase rite of passage refers to, even today in some places, and in years past, just about any place.
People just like us did that to other people just like us. And neither donor nor recipient thought anything amiss, at least not in any moral sense.