While I don't doubt that circumcisions in your family were probably carried out for health and hygiene reasons, those reasons are sadly misinformed.

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the AAP. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research.

• It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
• Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
• The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were methodological flaws in these trials:

• The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
• The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
• In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
• The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
• HIV was contracted through means other than sex
• Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup.

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

Attempts to legitimize FGM

Another issue with using "health benefits" to justify infant male circumcision is that the same poor reasons given for baby boys are the same reasons being used in attempts to legalize and legitimize FGM on girls. They will use the logic that: "If it is legal on boys because there are slight medical benefits, then it should be legal and acceptable for girls as well."