Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) Response to Circumcision

You seem to be cherry picking and not placing in context some of the information from the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), such as the fact that while infant UTI is much reduced, UTI's in men are not of much concern because of how infrequent they are (due to our longer urethra). "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI" (Sorokan, Finlay, & Jefferies, 2015). For at-risk infants (due to biological conditions), this drops to a reduction of only 4 normal infants to prevent one UTI. So we see, your 90% figure comes with a substantial caveat. Further, I believe circumcision only reduces the ability to become infected with HIV, and does not reduce the likelihood of transmitting the disease. You also ignore the conclusion of the CPS, which was that routine circumcision is not supported by the current evidence.
I agree that we shouldn't consider male circumcision to be an assault, since it has strong cultural and traditional roots and does have medical benefits, such that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does currently conclude the benefits slightly outweigh the risks, but they still do not recommend routine circumcision according to Sugarman (as cited in Crooks & Baur, 2017, p. 108). If anything, the medical benefits seem relatively minor, so much so that only the most at-risk populations are recommended to receive routine circumcision, and our discussion really seems to center on the fact that as of 2010, Morris et al. found that 77% of U.S. males have been circumcised (which is a decrease of 6% from the 1960s; as cited in Crooks & Baur, 2017, p. 107). This speaks to the strong historical background of the procedure in America, and suggests to me why the AAP and CPS reach mildly different conclusions. In addition, there is no consensus concerning if there is more or less (or the same) pleasure/sexual functioning with or without the foreskin, and some people believe the foreskin may serve an important function we just haven't discovered yet (Crooks & Baur, 2017, p. 109).
The issue of consent is important because children cannot consent to the procedure, which is irreversible and whose practice today is mostly based in tradition, and not medical science. Further, if the individual so desires, they may get circumcised later, with only slightly greater risks and costs (compared to if it is done to as an infant; Sorokan et al., 2015). At issue with the West Palm Beach case was the fact that one parent wanted the child to be circumcised and the other didn't, not the idea of can the child consent and should they have a say in the matter. Obviously parents make a great many decisions that affect their children without the child's input, even so much as where the family has chosen to live, which schools they attend, what activities are and aren't allowed, what medical treatments are and aren't allowable (such as no blood transfusions if they're Jehovah's Witnesses), etc. So to me, circumcision is only a consideration if you're a member of an at-risk population (such as high possibility of being exposed to HIV during intercourse [as opposed to modern industrialized vectors which are needles in origin] or underlying medical conditions/symptoms that may be treated by circumcision), and should not be done frivolously for perceived aesthetics by your parents, who are not doctors.