i am wary of arguing this point not only because its close to you personally but also because i am sure i dont have all the information (and that may even be somewhat true for you). i can only respond in a generic way.
but that disclaimer aside, i really have to insist that the picture you paint still sounds exactly like adults weighing the lifelong disfigurement of a baby against their own transient inconvenience.
as for the father's issues, i confess to having some difficulty believing there werent alternate actions that could have been taken — from prevention, to early intervention, to better maintenance, all with varying (albeit diminishing) degrees of feasibility. more to the point, though, there were many choices along the way, choices that he made for himself with the prerogative of an adult's volition, before he opted for the last resort - invasive, irreparably destructive, surgery.
for this baby, though, no such choices. instead, its straight to the last resort for him, 'just in case'. just in case not doing it will be less convenient, and more "risky".
but FUD propped up by medical factors of tangential relevance is still FUD. circumcision lowers your risk factor for some things whilst raising the certainty that you will be robbed of a feature of anatomy that is your natural birthright to 100%. an enforced birth defect right here and now wagered against a litany of future maybes. the two dont even compare.
the child has some of his mother's DNA for one. he is biologically different. he hopefully has a long lifetime ahead of him that may involve vastly different life circumstances. what of undertaking better precautions, or changing jobs, or moving house, or dare i say it, not having the baby at all if they couldnt see their way past hacking chunks off it fresh from the birth canal?
its a flippant excuse made palatable by a show of beard-stroking concern. and why are equivocations like this so easy? because of the backdrop — an epidemic of passive tolerance for this act of irreversible violence to newborns. and despite your personal preference against circumcision, i am resolutely focusing on this because it is precisely what needs to change: barely critical acceptance that violating the sanctity of a baby's body in this way is even a matter of preference when its not absolutely 100% medically necessary.
circumcision is a drastic thing. the fact its so hard for so most of us to relate to it this way is testament to how hard it is to tear ourselves away from the grip of long established norms. this is a blindness, a cognitive dissonance that has befallen generations of otherwise morally upright, smart, and sensible people. monkeying around with baby genitals is something human beings do, isnt it? its kind of normal, right? its always been an option on the menu, hasnt it? its so deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition that too many of us fail to see it for what it is. this needs to change. there needs to be push back.
but thats herd animals for you. when it comes to smoking or drinking during pregnancy we went from ubiquitous ignorance, to 'you probably shouldn't do that, but it's your choice', to 'don't fucking do it' — in the last 50 years or so. that shit will get you ostracised from your circle of friends now, and rightly so. evidently we still have a way to go as far as ringbarking defenceless baby's dicks on a whim goes. incredibly, thats less of a faux pas.
p.s. since i am going pretty hard on this, i just want to clarify that ive never ostracised my parents over this and of course make no serious suggestion that you should do anything of the sort to members of your family either. this is just an impassioned appeal for you to consider recalibrating your idea of what constitutes a "justified" circumcision.