Risk of death or permanent tissue damage due to poor medical practice long before a boy had any chance to reproduce isn't necessarily less significant than poss

Risk of death or permanent tissue damage due to poor medical practice long before a boy had any chance to reproduce isn't necessarily less significant than possible moderate transmission risk reduction for sexually transmitted diseases later in life [if they flouted strong social conventions against extra-marital sex]. Traditional societies hadn't figured out that cleaning tools between procedures reduced infections immediately afterwards obviously didn't know about the links between circumcisions and mildly reduced risk of certain rare ailments decades later. You'd likely have others overrule you regardless, but the same applied when it came to unambiguously harmful quasi-medical procedures like FGM blood-letting.