There is a pretty spirited debate about male circumcision going on at a NYT blog.
This was partially inspired by a recent blog post supporting female genital mutilation.
Your opinion on whether these are reasonably comparable issues will depend on your moral/ethical framework - comparative harms, consent, cultural relativism, aesthetics, etc. Personally, I subscribe to consent as the paramount value in this situation up until urgent, life-threatening conditions require immediate action. The supposed benefits in STI prevention are not compelling enough to me to justify permanent prophylactic removal of a part of an organ, and the aesthetic concerns expressed by people (especially women) are downright appalling.
One thing I do find interesting is that nary an anti-HPV-vaccination brawler has made a move to oppose circumcision because of the purported benefits in preventing STI transmission. If it is a priority to prevent our girls from turning into wanton harlots because of a vaccine against one STI given at a young age, shouldn't we also be concerned about our boys turning into the same thanks to the magical disease-defying benefits of circumcision, provided at *gasp* infancy?