Short answer: no. Because it is not only the risk of infections or bad healing after the surgery, but also the foreskin is higly innervated. Nature had some thoughts by "putting" all those nerves there. Many circumcised menalso mentioned that their sex experience is worse after the intervention and that they are desensitized due to the permanent exposure of the glans to the environment. Actually simple logics.
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/e756/30225/Male-Circumcision
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11904-009-0025-9
What percentage of people have an infection after surgery?
It's not everything that nature puts that are useful in the body.. I hope you are aware.
The appendix is one.
An umbilical hernia is another.
There are a lot of things that you can come up with in nature that might need some form of reconstruction.
Phimosis, balanitis and the likes are not a good experience.
The fact that there is increased risk of his an increased risk of things settling within the foreskin is questionable.
Moving forward, you will probably say that I might also support female circumcision. I do not and the reason is the clitoris is separated from the vagina and so can't get easily infected.
However, the penis goes into the vagina which is a home for a lot of organisms and so makes it more scientific and more beneficial to be circumcised as a male.
As I said, I've nothing against not being circumcised.
I have seen a lot of men who are not circumcised and have not had any complications.
I sincerely love your analogies