To circumcise or not to circumcise?

[Aegon]

All I know is this: not circumcising can lead to numerous health risks over the course of the boy's life, and circumcising will change the way he jerks off. Benefits outweighing risks is the reason anybody ever does anything. There are so many decisions new parents have to make while raising a child. If the upside is the prevention of numerous health risks and a decrease in likelihood of catching certain infections and diseases, and the downside is changing the way he jerks off.... I certainly don't blame anyone for choosing to circumcise.

You don't know that. It sounds like a load of horse crap to me.

"Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Infections: Learning From the Past to Plan for the Future"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912604/

Four trials have evaluated male circumcision as an STI prevention intervention; 3 evaluated STI endpoints among male subjects randomized to either immediate or delayed circumcision (58–62). The fourth assessed the impact of STI risk among wives of men randomized to the procedure (63). Male circumcision appears to provide significant protection against viral STIs. In addition to the 50%–60% reduction in HIV acquisition consistently demonstrated (108–110), HPV prevalence was reduced by about one-third (61, 62), and HSV-2 incidence was reduced by 28% (62) in the trials that assessed these endpoints.

"Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653870/

26 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most syphilis studies reported a substantially reduced risk among circumcised men (summary RR = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.83), although there was significant between study heterogeneity (p = 0.01). The reduced risk of HSV‐2 infection was of borderline statistical significance (summary RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01). Circumcised men were at lower risk of chancroid in six of seven studies (individual study RRs: 0.12 to 1.11).

"Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139859/

We identified eight papers which evaluated the association of circumcision with penile cancer, of which seven were case–control studies. There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13–0.83; 3 studies). In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis. In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer (summary OR = 2.71; 95% CI 0.93–7.94; 3 studies). There was little evidence for an association of penile intra-epithelial neoplasia and in situ penile cancer with circumcision performed at any age.
. . .
Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis.

And obviously, circumcision will prevent any problems that develop due to the foreskin, such as phimosis.