A while ago, a virus was discovered to be harbored by the foreskin; it was linked to cervical cancer in women. Then new studies proclaimed that the virus did not cause cervical cancer. After this, the government placed Public Service Announcements on TV and radio, encouraging parents to have their daughters injected with serums that fight this and similar viruses. Next, PSAs suggested that parents of male children have them receive the same serums. In light of all this, if I bore a male child, I would choose circumcision very early in order to prevent cancers, and avoid all the injections. As a side bar, a sex partner with a foreskin may not be the best health choice. At least Ohio hospitals ask the parents what they want done now - they previously circumcised all infant boys and in the case of the presence of sex organs of both genders in a single infant, always chose the female set to retain.
Of course I agree that female circumcision is ghastly; it is done to prevent female pleasure and to prevent female adultery and has nothing to do with health, except maybe for the husband, who would not catch STDs from other men via his wife. I have heard many horrid tales from my African friends. Some African women have fled their countries and if they return they would be circumcised. While many people consider male circumcision barbaric, until conflicting evidence stops shifting back and forth, I would do what I considered healthiest for my infant - and for myself in terms of partnering/marriage.