Are we talking about Sharia Law here?

I thought you were. You said it is a practice in "heathen countries" and they are by definition not "heathen".

This isn't commen practice in America.

No, most of the world doesn't do that. But what is or isn't a common practice in a place has no bearing on what is right or wrong. I'm not talking about what's common in a particular country because that's a useless argument to make.

This is where we have a disconnect. Is it ethically justifiable make your son who maybe prefers to be circumsized and not doing it?

My hypothetical son would have the choice. That's where we disconnect. It's not about what my vision of an ideal phallus is, but what he would want to do with his body when he's old enough and wise enough to make that choice.

Just on paper it seems like a bad idea. Option A: nicer looking parts, cleaner and don't require extra cleaning daily, never get made fun of or rejected over it. Option B: less attractive package, harder to keep clean, might cause relationship issues in the future.

Nicer looking to whom? Am I not limiting his dating pool by excluding women who like uncut men? Cleaner? It really doesn't take much time to clean. Any man who has such little regard for his genital hygiene that having a foreskin makes a substantial difference to his or his partners health is a moron. There's something wrong with people who make fun of others for they way they were born.

Just on paper alone it looks like Option A is better in every category. Where's the ethics of taking the lesser of 2 evils here?

It looks better to you, because that's your preference. Like I said before, my issue is not what you prefer that you prescribe it for all men. It's entirely unreasonable. Thankfully, circumcision is common enough in America that you won't have many problems finding a cut partner.

Edit: spelling and stuff...