All those whom I have seen are cut: myself, my father, and my younger brothers. My grandpa on my mom's side was also, but I don't know about any of my other male relatives on that side. There tends to be a general pattern, however.
Myself, I would break with tradition with my own son(s) unless there was a condition such as a very tight phimosis. The reason for this is that I simply do not see any rational purpose for it, other than to prevent excessive restriction on the glans. It seems to be excused on the basis that the sons should have a penis that looks like their father's, and I think more fundamentally people in America think it is dirty to talk frankly, as it were, about the male organ, especially to children. Though of course this has changed quite a bit, that is only more reason why there isn't a rational justification for circumcision.
I would leave any male progeny of mine intact, educate myself on the proper cleaning and teach them so. If future studies hold up the indication that this may put them at higher risk for various STD infections, if this info comes forth before such a decision I might reconsider, but otherwise I will just be more proactive and adamant about educating them to use condoms as soon as I suspect they might be about to engage in any kind of sexual penetration, also knowing this probably will be much earlier than I first did because I most likely won't be raising them in a cultural environment as puritanical as I was.
