Let me see. Phimosis may have a hereditary component. Sounds reasonable. Based on that, there may be a tendency in some family's for the men (not boys) to have phimosis. But you won't know if they do until well into or after their puberty.
If they do have phimosis, then there are treatment alternatives to circumcision. these can be tried first, and, form the material I have read, these other treatments are most likely to succeed, so there is little likelihood that circumcision will be needed.
So a parent needs to decide whether to RIC or not. They need to evaluate all the pros and cons for either choice.
Causes unbearable pain, so much that the infant typically goes into shock.
Many complications, including death are possible risks.
It violates our society's widely held standard for bodily integrity.
It goes against medical guidelines for doctors to act in the best interest of their patient.
It goes against widely held views that the parent's duty is to act in the best interest of their child, unless they can articulate why this choice is the best.
It takes away the child's options and choice.
It amputates the most important and valuable anatomical feature foe sexual function and feeling, for both the child and his future partners.
It is harder to achieve a good outcome as an infant, compared to adult circumcision.
No risk, no pain, no complications from surgery.
Protects the child's rights to bodily integrity and getting good medical treatment.
Leaves options open, so if the child want s to be intact he is, if he wants to be circ'd he can.
Waits until there is a need, before amputating healthy body parts that are highly valuable.
I don't know, seems like an easy choice to me, leave him intact.