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.

As a resident of California, I really dig the fact that many progressive movements begin here. Or at least are brought to a statewide vote here, before many other states even consider the issues. Hence, our auto emission standards and health warnings all over the place. However, the call for a circumcision ban that's been picking up steam across the state has some seriously shady leadership. 

The anti-circumcision movement is one I can get behind, in theory. To bring awareness to new parents that there is a choice to leave your baby boy intact is important. Our country has a history of automatically circumcising, and I don't really believe that is necessary. But -- and this is a big, old but -- you can believe what you want, but you'd better keep your hands out of other people's diapers. Especially when you choose the low road of anti-Semitism to make your point. Bad move, intactivists, bad move.

I'll admit, I'm a total wussy when it comes to blood and guts and gore, so much so that I'll read the Parents Guide on IMDb before I see any R-rated movie (even if it's a romantic comedy), just to be sure no one gets shot in the head. My husband, on the other hand, loves all that nasty stuff. This is the guy who yells out, "Aaaaa-wesome!" when they're chopping off zombie heads on Walking Dead. This is the guy who put I Spit on Your Grave on our Netflix queue two weeks ago, and every day, taunts me about its impending arrival. This is the guy who watches violent mobster movies with zeal and excitement and plays video games that allow him to live out his mafioso fantasies.

But last night, during our first infant care class, I realized that despite my husband's love of all things gory, a nasty poopy diaper might just put him over the edge.

I feel bad even writing that headline, because I know what will follow: admonishments to the family of this 2-year-old who have already suffered the greatest loss they could ever imagine. A Queens boy who died after a circumcision may not have died because of the circumcision, but it's likely that he would still be alive if his parents had not opted for the procedure. 

However, the cause of death is still not known, so let's not jump all over this grieving family who, for reasons we don't know or understand, decided to circumcise their 2-year-old son.