mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 . But this is a huge step forward in making access possible for Americans. Bill It already is. I think your issue may be more with the folks in California that want it banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnitWit Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Given the topic, we might want to avoid kilts on this one. :lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The benefits are great enough * to allow access*, not to recommend it for all. There is a big difference between those two statements. They are not equal. I just read the article. You're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-circumcision-illegal-cologne-2012-6 This article doen't outline the full, up-to-date story, but there's a movement in Germany to have circumcision declared a human rights violation. Of course, religious folks - both Jewish and Muslim - are quite upset about this. Exactly. This is a statement to keep it *legal*. This is a contentious issue right now in some countries. It is also intended to keep it *insurable*. But, it is not required or recommended for all. This is allowing parents to make decisions for themselves, rather than it becoming illegal or requiring parents to pay out of pocket. The AAP says that "the benefits outweigh the risks. They do not yet recommend it as a routine procedure for all. Because the health benefits are still not great enough to recommend it for all. But this is a huge step forward in making access possible for Americans. :confused: Where do Americans not have access to circumcision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnitWit Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :confused: Where do Americans not have access to circumcision? I thought the same thing. If anything, in my area, it is greatly encouraged...almost pushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 If anything, it is probably aimed at keeping it legal, and keeping it covered by insurance. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovthesurf Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Exactly. This is a statement to keep it *legal*. This is a contentious issue right now in some countries. It is also intended to keep it *insurable*. But, it is not required or recommended for all. This is allowing parents to make decisions for themselves, rather than it becoming illegal or requiring parents to pay out of pocket. Because the health benefits are still not great enough to recommend it for all. :confused: Where do Americans not have access to circumcision? I haven't had reason to look into it in about 3 yrs but when I was pregnant I checked with my ins because I knew medicaid had stopped covering them. I am sure that is what it is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) I heard this story on NPR this morning. They mentioned that some insurance companies have stopped paying for it. Medicaid no longer pays for it. And that there has been a push towards discouraging people to do it. I was totally surprised by that. My insurance still pays for it. But apparently there are more and more not paying for it. Now obviously one could opt to pay for it themselves, but anything done in the hospital costs a million dollars so I imagine it puts it out of reach for a lot of people. Technically, medically, it is considered elective cosmetic surgery. Only in cases where it is being performed due to some other medical condition is it not cosmetic. Some people are entirely against circumcision (except in cases of medical necessity). They would consider it to be abuse or an attack against a child. Some of the above people will recognise the difference in how a traditional bris is performed vs a medical circ. Other people agree that it's a choice, but do not agree with the choice. Their biggest issue is what is called Routine Infant Circ, where it is the norm and pushed. Edited August 27, 2012 by mommaduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 It already is. I think your issue may be more with the folks in California that want it banned. The issue is that many families faced the prospect of insurance companies or government programs (wrongheadedly) disallowing reimbursements for circumcision as a procedure that lacks medical benefits The change in AAPs position will be tremendously helpful to families that agree with the AAP and decide that the benefits outweigh the risks and decide that it is the best option for their families. In addition to the potential to saving lives, access to circumcision can save the nation a great deal of money. Last week a major study by Johns Hopkins concluded that declining circumcision rates will be very costly due to the medical problems that would be eliminated were circumcisions more prevalent. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-20/health/bs-hs-circumcision-economics-study-20120820_1_male-circumcision-circumcision-research-center-medical-costs Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I heard this story on NPR this morning. They mentioned that some insurance companies have stopped paying for it. Medicaid no longer pays for it. And that there has been a push towards discouraging people to do it. I was totally surprised by that. My insurance still pays for it. But apparently there are more and more not paying for it. Now obviously one could opt to pay for it themselves, but anything done in the hospital costs a million dollars so I imagine it puts it out of reach for a lot of people. I haven't had reason to look into it in about 3 yrs but when I was pregnant I checked with my ins because I knew medicaid had stopped covering them. I am sure that is what it is about. Ahhh, I see. Yes, I agree that this is intended to make it insured. Technically, medically, it is considered elective cosmetic surgery. Only in cases where it is being performed due to some other medical condition is it not cosmetic. My son was born in Germany. You basically needed a religious or medical reason. The doctor offered to give me a medical reason because we were American and it is more common in the US than in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 That's how I see it, but my insurance pays for it still (and they don't pay for cosmetic anything). Yes, but its category is why and how some insurance companies can and are eliminating it from being their responsibility to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendedforecast Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 And there are horrible stories on the other side of circumcisions gone wrong. There is no *winning* this discussion. It is a tough decision. Parents choose what they think is best for their child and hope for the best. :iagree::iagree::iagree: I agree, this is exactly how I feel about this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) The issue is that many families faced the prospect of insurance companies or government programs (wrongheadedly) disallowing reimbursements for circumcision as a procedure that lacks medical benefits The change in AAPs position will be tremendously helpful to families that agree with the AAP and decide that the benefits outweigh the risks and decide that it is the best option for their families. And I am fine with is being insured and allowing families and their doctors to choose. In addition to the potential to saving lives, access to circumcision can save the nation a great deal of money. Last week a major study by Johns Hopkins concluded that declining circumcision rates will be very costly due to the medical problems that would be eliminated were circumcisions more prevalent. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-20/health/bs-hs-circumcision-economics-study-20120820_1_male-circumcision-circumcision-research-center-medical-costs Bill But some of the things mentioned in that article are caused by improper care. Scarring that causes it not to move, that is usually caused by forcible retraction. It is not generally a problem in Europe because the doctors know better. It would be less of a problem here, if more doctors were knowledgable about how to care for an intact child. Edited August 27, 2012 by Mrs Mungo typing on imaginary keyboard, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I was waiting for you to bring this up. Of course, using a condom, keeping it clean, and being careful where you put it also offer those same benefits, without the risk of surgery on a newborn. :iagree: I prefer teaching my children to take care of their genital rather than mutilating them as precious newborns. If you are worried about risks of bacteria etc then baby girls should be circumsized too, after all the clitoral hood is in fact a female foreskin, the smegma that boys get develops under the hood too. Yet if someone suggested such an act on a baby girl the shouts of outrage would be extraordinarily loud. Yet it is beneficial to lop off a part of a boy's anatomy at birth? I think since we are being proactive in their risks of disease and illness, that all newborn babies should have their appendixes removed immediately too. After all they are superfulous bits of anatomy, that actually do not have a function(unlike the foreskin), and the risk of infection and rupture is higher than the risk of penile cancer so let's remove that immediately. And those darn babies with their eye infections that can lead to delays in speech development and loss of hearing. Well we may as well remove the ears too to prevent those. And cavities. Since apparently parents aren't interesting in teaching proper hygiene we may as well remove all teeth too and prevent any chance of cavities, gingivitis, etc and the pain and suffering that goes with them. And you know with the prevelance of breast cancer why don't we lop of the breasts of every little girl proactively. No breast tissue means no breast cancer. That's the ticket. Or perhaps we can leave our baby boys intact with all the bits God created, and teach them how to wash their crotch in the shower. I will say that after my sister circ'd my nephew both of my sons thanked me for leaving their penis' (is the plural of penis penii? ) alone. You see my sons are intelligent enough to pull the foreskin back and clean themselves. Before they were old enough to do that they were not retractable anyway so no risks there. Now of course if one feels their son will never beable to develop the skill to wash his own crotch than I do believe you have bigger worries than the small risk of cancer as an adult. As for disease well I sure as heck hope I raise my boys to be smart enough to not sleep around and wear a condom when they have sex. It is amazing what a difference being selective in your sexual partners and using condoms makes in the health of your penis. As for insurance covering it...We have universal health care in Canada and circ is not covered. If you want your baby to get it done first you have to find a willing dr as most are not and then you pay out of pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I get those Uganda stats. They aren't made up. However, the circs were done on adult males. As compelling as that research is, I still wouldn't do it on a baby (not religious here). If my sons want it done as adults, fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) And I am fine with is being insured and allowing families and their doctors to choose. Me too. But some of the thing mentioned in that article are caused by improper care. Scarring that causes it not to move, that is usually caused by forcible retraction. It is not generally a proble in Europe because the doctors know better. It would be less of a problem here, if more doctors were knowledgable about how to care for an intact child. I'm all for complications associated with not circumcising and improper care by doctors, other medical professionals, and parents being mitigated by better education. Just like I support reducing pain and complications of circumcision through better education and training of doctors. Boys should not be made to suffer due to improper care or ignorance. Bill Edited August 27, 2012 by Spy Car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eloquacious Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I'm a little confused, what "went wrong" with the uncirc'ed boys? We haven't had any problems with doctor forcibly retracting, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 And I am fine with is being insured and allowing families and their doctors to choose. Me too. But some of the thing mentioned in that article are caused by improper care. Scarring that causes it not to move, that is usually caused by forcible retraction. It is not generally a proble in Europe because the doctors know better. It would be less of a problem here, if more doctors were knowledgable about how to care for an intact child. I'm all for complications associated with not circumcising and improper care by doctors, other medical professionals, and parents being mitigated by better education. Just like I support reducing pain and complications of circumcision through better education and training of doctors. Boys should not be made to suffer due to improper care or ignorance. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 penis' (is the plural of penis penii? ) It is just penises, like octopuses. I get those Uganda stats. They aren't made up. However, the circs were done on adult males. As compelling as that research is, I still wouldn't do it on a baby (not religious here). If my sons want it done as adults, fine. :iagree: Except, we are religious, but circumcision doesn't play into that for us. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Well, I guess we're serial genital mutilaters (mutilators?) then. All 3 of my sons are circ'd. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy in TN Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 So glad I don't have a p*nis, and could just abdicate this decision to Wolf :tongue_smilie: :iagree: I don't have one, so I let my xh decide if he wanted the big boys circumcised. I let dh decide if he wanted little man circumcised. I suppose I should have wanted input since neither man changed diapers or bathed babies, but my strongest opinion was/is that I don't have one. I also feel like this is an insurance issue and am glad for the wording for those on both sides. Mandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I'm a little confused, what "went wrong" with the uncirc'ed boys? We haven't had any problems with doctor forcibly retracting, etc. I've had 2 friends whose sons had to be circ'd as toddlers. One, the foreskin was actually twisting, and causing his p*nis to twist. He had to be treated at a children's hospital, be put under, and the recovery was horrid. The other, his foreskin was actually attaching to the p*nis. his dr literally grabbed a piece of gauze and *ripped* it off and back. He ended up having to go for surgery as well, same as above. Those are 2 cases I know of, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Well, I guess we're serial genital mutilaters (mutilators?) then. All 3 of my sons are circ'd. :glare: Nobody is saying that here. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 In addition to the potential to saving lives, access to circumcision can save the nation a great deal of money. Last week a major study by Johns Hopkins concluded that declining circumcision rates will be very costly due to the medical problems that would be eliminated were circumcisions more prevalent. Yeah, this is a HUGE problem in Europe, where only 10% of babies are circumcised. Oh wait.... no it's not. :001_rolleyes: The cited article states that the "majority of the costs are in the treatment of HIV," and it further states that "A circumcision costs on average $254, [whereas] when a male is not circumcised it costs $313 more in medical expenses to treat conditions he would not otherwise have suffered." I'm afraid that the idea of cutting off part of a baby's body in order to save $59 does not remotely make sense to me. Teaching parents of intact boys, and the boys themselves, better hygiene would save the most money — it would save the $254 circumcision fee plus the $313 in treatment for an occasional infection. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Nobody is saying that here. :) Well I used that term but I was making a point, with a long list of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Well, I guess we're serial genital mutilaters (mutilators?) then. All 3 of my sons are circ'd. :glare: lol I guess we are too. Both my boys are circ'd just like my dh and every other male within my family and his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I haven't had issues either. Although the doctor is foreign so maybe he isn't completely ignorant about it. My kids have never had any infections and they are definitely not the most perfect kids in the hygiene realm. So I don't think it's as dire and sensitive of a problem as some make it seem. :iagree: on all counts. The other, his foreskin was actually attaching to the p*nis. his dr literally grabbed a piece of gauze and *ripped* it off and back. He ended up having to go for surgery as well, same as above. This is what I am talking about with regard to ignorance. It is often attached in babies. It naturally loosens as they get older (and they start to mess with it). You are not supposed to forcible retract it. What you are describing is forcible retraction, and it *can* cause definite issues like scarring that require surgery later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The other, his foreskin was actually attaching to the p*nis. his dr literally grabbed a piece of gauze and *ripped* it off and back. He ended up having to go for surgery as well, same as above. It's supposed to. You aren't supposed to retract it. It will retract on it's own when they are older. Retraction introduces bacteria to the area that the foreskin is protecting. Also, it probably was scarring together if the parents had retracted the foreskin to "clean", thus, the parents caused the issue. eta: apparently I was crossposting with Mrs Mungo. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Cupcakes people, lots of cupcakes, get out the chocolate sprinkles and enjoy. Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Cupcakes people, lots of cupcakes, get out the chocolate sprinkles and enjoy. Faith :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Cupcakes people, lots of cupcakes, get out the chocolate sprinkles and enjoy. Faith Oooh special cupcakes that mellow people out.....and make them get munchies later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It is just penises, like octopuses. This is one of those mental pictures that cannot be scrubbed from one's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) I don't know why we let someone come in here and lob a hand grenade like this when we've talked about circ 5000 times over the last 10 years. It's done. The discussion has been had. The research has been cited, and the fact that the extremely fickle AAP has changed their minds again means nothing. Division, division, division. As if one's position on something as controversial as circumcision is not usually a matter of culture, religion, and research. It's the start of the homeschooling year and we need each other for support in homeschooling and classical education. Don't let somebody come in here and convince everyone to waste the day bickering over such an un-resolvable debate until old friends are enemies and the children all go un-taught. I know it's the General Board and it's for any old topic. I know some would say that all internet discussion is worthless then, by what I've said here. I don't care. There is no reason in the world why we should expect to all agree on this issue, which has been done to death. And it's a Monday in back-to-school season. Don't we all have more important things to do with our life? Edited August 27, 2012 by Tibbie Dunbar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 I've had 2 friends whose sons had to be circ'd as toddlers. One, the foreskin was actually twisting, and causing his p*nis to twist. He had to be treated at a children's hospital, be put under, and the recovery was horrid. The other, his foreskin was actually attaching to the p*nis. his dr literally grabbed a piece of gauze and *ripped* it off and back. He ended up having to go for surgery as well, same as above. Those are 2 cases I know of, personally. The doctor sounds incompetent. There are incompetent doctors. Some forcibly retract, and some botch circumcisions. Better training, better oversight, and better policies should be in place either way to eliminate or reduce preventable complications. While we all should support efforts (either way) to reduce preventable complications only circumcision lower risks of men acquiring HIV, HPV, UTIs, genital herpes, penile cancer and syphilis. Reducing HPV transmission reduces the odds of causing cervical cancers among their female sexual partners. And who knows what future STDs our children's generation might face? Parents of children in my generation could not have known AIDS might risk their children's lives. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 This is one of those mental pictures that cannot be scrubbed from one's mind. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissad2 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Mmmmm...I like vanilla cupcakes with lots of buttercream on top :D!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 I don't know why we let someone come in here and lob a hand grenade like this when we've talked about circ 5000 times over the last 10 years. It's done. The discussion has been had. The research has been cited, and the fact that the extremely fickle AAP has changed their minds again means nothing. Division, division, division. As if one's position on something as controversial as circumcision is not usually a matter of culture, religion, and research. It's the start of the homeschooling year and we need each other for support in homeschooling and classical educadtion. Don't let somebody come in here and convince everyone to waste the day bickering over such an un-resolvable debate until old friends are enemies and the children all go un-taught. I know it's the General Board and it's for any old topic. I know some would say that all internet discussion is worthless then, by what I've said here. I don't care. There is no reason in the world why we should expect to all agree on this issue, which has been done to death. And it's a Monday in back-to-school season. Don't we all have more important things to do with our life? It s not a hand grenade. In past discussions the point was repeatedly made that the American Academy of Pediatrics, despite the mounting evidence, did not have a clear position stating that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. That has changed. Since I agree that parents should make informed decisions, it seems like an important position shift to take into consideration. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I have no problem with insurance companies refusing to cover it in cases that are elective. It's not medically necessary. The foreskin does have a purpose. We weren't born with body parts that need to be routinely cut off of every person. If it's a religious issue, well, with all the claims of separation of church and state, no one should be insisting that Medicaid cover religious circ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Yeah, this is a HUGE problem in Europe, where only 10% of babies are circumcised. Oh wait.... no it's not. :001_rolleyes: The cited article states that the "majority of the costs are in the treatment of HIV," and it further states that "A circumcision costs on average $254, [whereas] when a male is not circumcised it costs $313 more in medical expenses to treat conditions he would not otherwise have suffered." I'm afraid that the idea of cutting off part of a baby's body in order to save $59 does not remotely make sense to me. Teaching parents of intact boys, and the boys themselves, better hygiene would save the most money — it would save the $254 circumcision fee plus the $313 in treatment for an occasional infection. I agree with this too. This is one of those mental pictures that cannot be scrubbed from one's mind. Sorry! Maybe it will help people remember? :lol: It's the start of the homeschooling year and we need each other for support in homeschooling and classical education. Don't let somebody come in here and convince everyone to waste the day bickering over such an un-resolvable debate until old friends are enemies and the children all go un-taught. Oh, Tibbie, why must you be so right? FWIW, I am also giving a history quiz right now. :tongue_smilie: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It s not a hand grenade. In past discussions the point was repeatedly made that the American Academy of Pediatrics, despite the mounting evidence, did not have a clear position stating that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. That has changed. Since I agree that parents should make informed decisions, it seems like an important position shift to take into consideration. Bill Except that the AAP didn't really say anything here. No one else seems to see this as a big shift. And it is kind a controversial first thread to start after taking a little "board break." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I don't know why we let someone come in here and lob a hand grenade like this when we've talked about circ 5000 times over the last 10 years. It's done. The discussion has been had. The research has been cited, and the fact that the extremely fickle AAP has changed their minds again means nothing. Division, division, division. As if one's position on something as controversial as circumcision is not usually a matter of culture, religion, and research. .... Yes, I always think about what we have to talk about. Kilts or no kilts? Spanking is hitting or not and should you do it? Cutting off a child's foreskin is incredibly life saving... or not... All homeschoolers are moms who wear jean skirts? You MUST use Saxon or you're going against homeschool law?? When you eat cupcakes you MUST NOT let your child have sprinkles on it with artificial Color!!! And lastly, don't put your meat in the MICROWAVE after it didn't cook fully in time after it had been in the crockpot!! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negin Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Bill, thanks for sharing. About time. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 IIn past discussions the point was repeatedly made that the American Academy of Pediatrics, despite the mounting evidence, did not have a clear position stating that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. That has changed. No, it hasn't! They only say that the benefits of *allowing access* outweigh the risks. They are still not recommending it for everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I need to put curricula in protective pages. Anyone wanna help? (don't know WHY that came to mind reading this thread :tongue_smilie:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I'm confused as to why male circ is being compared to female circ. Isn't female then taking it all, not just the hood? Not trying to start an argument here, I'm genuinely confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Except that the AAP didn't really say anything here. No one else seems to see this as a big shift. And it is kind a controversial first thread to start after taking a little "board break." I don't time the release of reports by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I don't time the release of reports by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Bill Nope. Just the commentary on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 need to put curricula in protective pages. Anyone wanna help? (don't know WHY that came to mind reading this thread :tongue_smilie:) Might be a bit, umm, provocative for this board. :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Yes, I always think about what we have to talk about. Kilts or no kilts? Spanking is hitting or not and should you do it? Cutting off a child's foreskin is incredibly life saving... or not... All homeschoolers are moms who wear jean skirts? You MUST use Saxon or you're going against homeschool law?? When you eat cupcakes you MUST NOT let your child have sprinkles on it with artificial Color!!! And lastly, don't put your meat in the MICROWAVE after it didn't cook fully in time after it had been in the crockpot!! :) What the heck is wrong with you? You really trying to make Bill explode by bringing up Saxon? Geez, talk about division! :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I need to put curricula in protective pages. Anyone wanna help? (don't know WHY that came to mind reading this thread :tongue_smilie:) To bind or not to bind, that is the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts