The decision of whether or not to circumcise my baby boy was one that I did not struggle with in the least. My husband and I never once considered not doing it, because we always thought it was an issue of personal hygiene.

Honestly, I just assumed that most people chose to have their sons circumcised unless there was some strong religious reason why they were against it. But I was actually surprised when I learned that plenty of parents choose not to circumcise their babies based on either medical or ethical concerns. It's a touchy subject, and I've "overheard" some conversations about the topic on Facebook that have gotten pretty heated to say the least.

There are many people who go back and forth over whether or not to circumcise, but for parents who are a bit on the fence about the decision, there is now another good reason why circumcising your baby is a positive thing -- it may protect him from getting cancer down the road.

Remember that proposed circumcision ban in San Francisco? A refresher: A group of intactivists tried to get a ban on the ballot so the people of the Bay Area could vote to ban all circumcision. The implication being baby boy circumcision. As genital mutilation of baby girls is already illegal, and circumcision is not the same on baby boys as it is on baby girls. 

This group of determined foreskin soldiers has been documented by filmmaker Jeffrey Braverman, who asks if this is just the beginning of this intact movement. As you see in the trailer for his unfinished doc, he's tackling the religious traditionalists as well. And while it's unclear if Braverman is completely sympathetic to the intactivists position, what is clear is that the film is way too late to this game.

In addition to a judge in San Francisco not allowing this on the ballot, Governor Jerry Brown also signed a law to "ban" the ban. So why are we still talking about it?

Sorry California intactivists, your attempt to make everyone else's parenting decisions has been thwarted. Governor Jerry Brown just signed a bill preventing local governments from banning male circumcision. So San Francisco and Santa Monica, you are way out of luck. While Governor Brown didn't make a statement as to why he supported the bill, it seems that Governor "Moonbeam" came down to earth and realized that interfering with religious tradition is never a great idea. Given that the Muslim and Jewish population in California is not insignificant, he really didn't have any choice but to stop the madness.

Banning male circumcision is akin to making it a crime to feed your children non-organic food. While I may not see the point in circumcising a baby boy, or feeding my kids food with pesticides, it's none of my business what my neighbor is doing. 

To circumcise, or not to circumcise? It’s one of the most debated and controversial questions a parent will ever be confronted with, and regardless of what you decide, you’ll probably be judged harshly. It sucks, but it’s good practice for the rest of your life as a parent, because strangers will forever be giving you shit for things that are none of their damn business, and this is a good practice for ignoring them. 

The great circumcision debate always rages. If you do choose to cut, you're a barbarian who is taking something away from your baby boy. If you don't, you're subjecting your son to increased incidents of disease. On both sides of the aisle, people are passionate, sometimes angry, sometimes flat-out crazy. But one thing both sides can agree on is to never, ever, ever try to circumcise your baby yourself. Especially not with a box cutter. Especially not when you watched a YouTube video in order to learn how to make the cut.

Which is exactly why Oregon mom Keemonta Peterson got probation after attempting to circumcise her 3-month-old son in her own home. 

There's more than one way to circumcise a baby, and the modern Jewish family seems to have solved multiple issues. First, there's the rabbi that insists that God said circumcision was necessary, but pain was not. You go, rabbi! But the biggest new trend for the modern Jewish family is not circumcising at all. Nope, not at all. 

Now this kind of reminds me of when my girlfriend had a baby, then three years later I did, and she was all, "What's up with BPA-free?" The point being, we're all trying our best and we're all working with what we've got. And what the modern Jewish couple with reservations about circumcision has that their friends did not a few years ago is the Brit Shalom. Which is a bris, without the cut.

The decision of whether to circumcise my son or not was the hardest parenting decision I have made in my nearly five years as a parent. As a Jewish mother, I was especially torn because even though I'm more culturally than spiritually Jewish, the tradition in my culture made it very hard for me to consider not making the cut.

Almost from the moment we found out the baby had boy parts, my husband and I dreaded the idea that we had to make this choice. And yet, I'm glad we had the choice to make.

One woman's crusade to end circumcision is having repercussions all over the country, though the bans have only been truly explored in the Bay Area (where it's on the ballot this fall) and now in Santa Monica, California.

It's repulsive. For so many reasons.

I have a great idea for who should replace The Sperminator as governor of California: Russell Crowe! We know he'd at least have San Francisco's vote, now that the famously outspoken actor has set a huge social media fire by tweeting that "circumcision is barbaric and stupid." I should point out that Crowe did not make this comment apropos of nothing; apparently it was made in response to a tweet asking his opinion on the topic. Well, that's his opinion! What, you were expecting some diplomatic, middle-of-the-road reply? Didn't think so. Anyway, I'm not offended, but that's probably because I didn't get my son circumcised.