I just reviewed the professional medical recommendations on circumcision. Canada and Australian pediatric societies started recommending not to circumcise in the 70's. The American Academy or Pediatrics started vacillating on the issue in 1971, but by 1977 concluded the following: "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period" (AAP, 1977, p. 110).
Since then, studies have shown a higher incidence if STD transmission, and particularly HIV transmission to and from uncut guys. As of 1989, the recommendation by the AAP was as follows: "has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1989, p. 391). By 1999, the recommendation was as follows: "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1999, p. 693).
Depending on the study, the data show that the incidence of infection for uncut males is 2.4-14% higher than cut guys. But this incidence is often related to problems like phimosis (un-retractable foreskin) which prevents proper hygiene. 13 states' medicaid programs will no longer pay for circumcision, as it is deemed an unnecessary procedure.
My personal opinion is that boys should be left intact, unless there is a medical reason to circumcise. If a guy wants to be circumcised, he has that option. A guy who has been circumcised neonatally does not have that option.