This will be my only post contributing to this de-rail.
Circumcision makes hygiene easier. Period. The reduced risk of a infection/rash argument is countered with the 'not if you maintain proper hygiene' argument, but that's exactly the point. The risk is reduced, because it makes hygiene less labor intensive.
Kids do not like diaper changes. They will scream and fight and kick you in the face. It's also common to be forced to change diapers in hurried or difficult circumstances. In the meantime, you have to systematically sort through every fold of skin on their wrinkly crotches to make sure you've wiped away every last particle of their grainy diarrhea. If you miss something, it will irritate the skin and produce a rash within a few hours. These rashes are painful, and cause the child to fight the hygiene process with ever increasing fury, compounding the problem over time. Rashes don't go away unless they are kept obsessively clean for a full day or two. If you fail at this, it will get infected. It's a nightmare.
Once kids are out of diapers, the burden of hygiene transfers to them, and they don't give a shit. They're not very good at it, and you have to teach them. They don't want to learn. Unless you inspect them constantly, you won't always be aware when they fail to clean themselves properly, and problems will occassionally develop. It's a nightmare.
This is with a circumcised child. For uncircumcised children, multiply these issues x4.
There are many common practices that are designed to mitigate potential problems which can be shot down with statements of "Well if you're a perfect person granted perfect circumstances at all times, then it shouldn't be a problem" but this is obviously not a constructive way to debate an issue.
And it's worth pointing out that the only people who make an issue out of it are those who are uncircumcised, Bohandas being the only exception I have ever encountered in my life.