I've read a quite a few posts that say if you're cut you have less sensitivity. I would think you'd have more sensitivity because your glans is not covered. My glans is extremely sensitive. So my contribution to the pros of circumcision would be: when you're cut it's great because having a foreskin would be the equivalent of wearing a condom 24/7. And nobody wants that!
As I've mentioned, the idea of that sensitivity would turn me off the idea of circumcision. A friend of mine had to be cut at 17, he said it was a horrible experience (burst sutures, long recovery time - and now he's realised his problem probably would've been fixed with a frenuloplasty, something his urologist never suggested... now he's really really angry) and now has to wear incredibly tight underwear to prevent the constant erections from just walking around, let alone play soccer like we used to. But that's his experience. Some think it's the best thing since sliced bread (NPI), others just carry on, other had do to it.
I will say that people who were cut due to medical conditions, which I have seen myself, are obviously going to be crowing about the benefits.
The thing I will point out IG, is that for those of us not cut at birth, the presence or absence of a foreskin is not appreciable. We don't feel like there's something "in the way". It's what we've always known. When we need access, we have it, when we don't it the skin goes up and off we go. I don't need to be constantly reminded, he makes his presence known.
I would say that only advantage that I can really see, would be spontaneous sexual activity. But, that's not a good enough reason for me.
If it is for you, go for it.