Vasically, the higher risks of STD infection are probable in that there is a way tor ationalize why that could possibly happen. But the studies done were all conflicting, some showing that risk was reduced with circumcision and others showing that risk wasn't reduced. Either way, the consensus is that in the field of risk, behavioral risk is far more significant than being circumcised.
Also, urniary tract infections for boys are very low (about 1%) and for circumcised boys, it's .19% and .12%, which isn't enough between 1% (since 1% is already low) for the procedure to be done, in my opinion.
And with the rate of penile disfigurement/destruction being 2% (i.e. 2 out of every 100 boys circumcised), I'd say that it's not worth it.