Circumcision - Perhaps a good thing afterall?

Screw it, we're having this discussion again, it's been almost six months since last time and I've never gotten to truly participate in it.
Anyway, here it goes: After reading through the Wikipedia-article, it seems that most evidence is stacked towards male-circumcision preventing diseases from spreading, reducing cancer, or in a similar fashion being beneficial.
The counter-argument usually runs that it violates the mans autonomy, that he should be able to chose himself when he comes of age, and that there is a slight chance to loss of tactile-experience around the gland of the penis, possible causing less than optimal future sexual encounters.
However, I can't help but to see an analogy with viral-inoculation and the like. We inoculate babies all the time, and these too come with a risk and reward. There is a slight chance of complication, but the reward in general is perceived to out-weigh the risk.
Still, others may argue that we are right in ignoring the autonomy of others when it comes to inoculations because if we did not, a disease might spread from the non-inoculated, which put others at risk, and not just yourself. You are therefor not the only one affected by your choice.
I, though, can see a similar response when it comes to circumcision, since there have been evidence to suggest that those circumcised have a lower odds of spreading HIV to others (which might not be so important in the West, but very much so in Africa).

Pro and Con-arguments from Wikipedia, with Sources

Right now, I am unsure of my position.