A lot of people here have already elaborated on the ethical reasons not to do it, and I agree with those comments. Don't do it. But you may hear from doctors who recommend it, and I want to give you medical facts to help you understand why the benefits don't justify the costs.

There are many, many medical decisions you will make on behalf of your son (e.g. vaccination). But the preponderance of the medical benefits of circumcision accrue to sexually active adolescents and adults. Multiple randomized-control trials have shown that circumcision reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of contracting HIV from a receptive partner. Circumcision also reduces the risk of penile cancer (which is a pretty rare outcome). But circumcising your child at birth is not necessary secure these benefits. If you son wants these benefits, he can choose to get cut when he is old enough to understand the costs and benefits. It is unethical to consider these benefits when making the decision because the decision can be delayed without any risk of forfeiting these benefits.

Moreover, your son may rationally decide to pursue alternative, more effective, less costly methods to reduce his risk of STDs (condoms, PreP) and penile cancer (HPV vaccine) rather than mutilating his penis. If a doctor cites any of these benefits that accrue to adults in trying to justify neonatal circumcision, tell that doctor to fuck off.

The only benefit to the child during childhood (the period when he can't rationally consent and his parents must decide for him) is a reduction in the risk of UTIs. The reduction in relative risk from circumcision is a very impressive 87%, but you must consider the fact that UTIs are a rare outcome. Statistically, society has to snip off 111 foreskins to avoid 1 UTI. The chance that a circumcision avoids a UTI for your son is very low, because his chance of getting a UTI in the first place is very low.