Ok well this is a very controversial topic, with a great number of view points, and backgrounds that have shaped those view points.
But the things that the debate comes back to are these.
1. Are the benifits of circumcision?
2. Are there negitives of circumcision? and..
3. Is infant circumcision a human rights breach?
I suppose I'll give the answers the OP was asking for.
Answer 1: It's kind of hard to find science discussing the benefits of circumcision which are almost entirely psychological in nature. If someone thinks that being circumcised is better, than in many way, it is
for them. They will likely feel more confident and like their penises, and so there is a psychological element to it for them. As for health benefits...
A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision
Dr. Robert Van Howe compiled all available statistics from conditions that circumcision was said to affect the rates of, and subjected them to cost-benefit analysis. CBA is the standard that medical procedures are judged by; basically, what do they give up for what they receive in return. His study does not take into account loss of function from the foreskin itself or the claims of reduced pleasures from other studies. Regardless,
on the basis of health benefits and complications alone, Van Howe concluded that circumcision provided a net loss to the health of its patients. More specifically stating this:
"
Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."
So very mild decreases in some disease rates found almost exclusively among adult males may be the only benefits. Van Howe doesn't address HIV rates (because those studies weren't around in 2004, but many studies have called those results into question...
Green, L. et al., "Male Circumcision is Not the HIV �Vaccine� We Have Been Waiting For!" Future Medicine 2 (2008): 193-199, DOI 10.2217/17469600.2.3.193
McAllister, R. et al., "The Cost to Circumcise Africa," American Journal of Men's Health 7(2008): 307-316 (study states that supplying free condoms is at least 95x more cost effective to prevent HIV in Africa)
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/14003/2617 (found no correlation between HIV and circ rates at all in South Africa)
...and looking at circumcision rates compared to HIV rates in various countries throughout the world seem to show little connection as well.
Global circumcision rates | CIRCS
List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (yes wikipedia, but they reference other statistics and have references with links to them)
There doesn't seem to be a logical connection proving circumcision rates being higher causes HIV rates to be lower, not even in a passing correlation.
Other 2 questions on a separate post...