There is no RIC in my family, being English.
However my father was cut when he was five for medical reasons, I was cut at 20 for medical reasons. I have 3 sons and the Middle one was cut aged about 5 for medical reasons. To date, my brother and four male cousins are uncut as was my paternal grandfather.
I find your response fascinating, but lacking in some information - like what was the medical reason? At 5 it is unlikely that phimosis would be an issue (most little guys start playing more vigorously as they approach puberty, and separation and stretching will occur naturally) - at 20 it would make sense. I knew a couple of Brazilian bros (where circumcision is non-existent), who were both circumcised as teens.
As an anti-circ, my position is that RIC is wrong, adults have a choice about how they want their dick to look, and can maybe even choose their own look. But I acknowledge that there are medical situations where it makes sense.
This post suggests that there are people who are genetically pre-desposed to foreskins that won't retract (and any guy who has a foreskin that really doesn't roll back after lots of trying would probably have a lot more pleasure without his foreskin as I think a lot are saying). If your entire family has incurable phimosis then circumcision is probably a good idea. For the 99% of families for whom this is not the case, I don't think they should be circumcising - for those that should eventually be circumcised, maybe birth+7 (and how horrible) maybe the best place to do it.
If your entire family has phimosis - is it better to be done at birth or when you get your first girlfriend/boyfriend?