Is this the best way to refute a pro-circumcision argument?

So on the Oprah post, one commenter on the article said:

"Children may grow up to disagree with decisions that parents have made for them when they were young. This cannot always be prevented or avoided. Some decisions have to be made at the time. The later disagreement of the child does not show that the parents’ decision at the time was unethical or wrong."

My refutation is, "Yes, some decisions have to be made at the time, but circumcision is not one of them, given that virtually all boys left intact at birth have absolutely no problems with their foreskins, and what other healthy body part are parents allowed to amputate at will?"

Is this the best way to refute the pro-circ argument?