Mrs Mungo 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:) :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justLisa 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. I agree with that. I am sure personal experience might sway someone to have it done. If I heard of several horrible cases I might wonder. DH was born in Europe and it just is not heard of where he is from. I did not really have much knowledge about it when I got pregnant as I was pretty young and naive to it. But I disagree that somehow this is making a profound difference in "informed parenting." Parents who just follow whatever the AAP says are not making informed decisions. They are just following along. So I guess it's a big deal if you are against circ because more people will follow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Might be a bit, umm, provocative for this board. :tongue_smilie: Hey, I was gonna give you your own pages and protectors! To bind or not to bind, that is the question. I'm all for protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Crockpots, shopping carts, those little premade peanut butter sandwiches, Robinson curriculum, TCOO and BJU, Keurigs, pushy moms bringing cupcakes to school ... Anything else we feel like arguing about today? Edited August 27, 2012 by Asenik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 What the heck is wrong with you? You really trying to make Bill explode by bringing up Saxon? Geez, talk about division! :tongue_smilie: Saxon...division *bwahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The fact that they make it optional on the vaccinations is why we have a lot of cases of whooping cough all of the sudden when you didn't hear about it much for years. I personally don't see how not vaccinating your child against something that could possibly kill them is a good option. I know people on here will probably disagree with me, but that is still my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 No, it hasn't! They only say that the benefits of *allowing access* outweigh the risks. They are still not recommending it for everyone! Not true. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV The medical benefits outweigh the medical risks. Period. This justifies access to all who chose to confer these medical benefits. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I don't time the release of reports by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Bill Ok - but you did post something that was obviously going to be controversial and inflammatory. And didn't accurately quote the article in your original post. No one is changing anyone's mind either way here, so moving on. Next it will be Saxon or KCups or crockpots or family vacations! The horror! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 :001_rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Ok - but you did post something that was obviously going to be controversial and inflammatory. And didn't accurately quote the article in your original post. No one is changing anyone's mind either way here, so moving on. Next it will be Saxon or KCups or crockpots or family vacations! The horror! :lol: Don't you know I make my kids use Saxon while they drink hot cocao from kcups, with dinner in the crockpot while we are on family vacation in November at Disneyland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Crockpots, shopping carts, those little premade peanut butter sandwiches, Robinson curriculum, TCOO and BJU, Keurigs, pushy moms bringing cupcakes to school ... Anything else we feel like arguing about today? Probably someone should bring up BJU. Direct quote from the *full* AAP article: Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner. You are using a tiny snippet of an article to make your position seem stronger than it is. I call prooftexting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 But I disagree that somehow this is making a profound difference in "informed parenting." Parents who just follow whatever the AAP says are not making informed decisions. They are just following along. So I guess it's a big deal if you are against circ because more people will follow that. Who said parents should blindly follow the suggestions of the AAP? Not me. People should make informed decisions. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 ha! I don't believe in teaching 'em math. That's what God made fingers and toes for. And calculators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celticmom 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. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Don't you know I make my kids use Saxon while they drink hot cocao from kcups, with dinner in the crockpot while we are on family vacation in November at Disneyland! And I'd rather poke my eyes out than use Saxon, we don't own a cockpot, I would rather tour Hades than Disney____, and I only just found out that a kcup isn't a Luna/Diva cup knock-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justLisa Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Who said parents should blindly follow the suggestions of the AAP? Not me. People should make informed decisions. Bill No, I'm just saying parents who make INFORMED decisions don't rely just on what the AAP says. So this "change" is good if you are against because then those people just following along will, well, follow along. Aside from insurance issues or anything like that, it's really not doing much to help parents make informed parenting decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 ha! I don't believe in teaching 'em math. That's what God made fingers and toes for. And calculators. Are you one of those Gothard people or Pearl followers? Because we could argue about that ... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 And I'd rather poke my eyes out than use Saxon, we don't own a cockpot, I would rather tour Hades than Disney____, and I only just found out that a kcup isn't a Luna/Diva cup knock-off. well then you are doing it all wrong and CLEARLY an unfit parent. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Ok - but you did post something that was obviously going to be controversial and inflammatory. And didn't accurately quote the article in your original post. No one is changing anyone's mind either way here, so moving on. Next it will be Saxon or KCups or crockpots or family vacations! The horror! :lol: Not inflamitory. Not remotely inflammatory. The quote is a direct quote from the Academy of American Pediatrics and it accurately represents their change in position. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy_of_4 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The fact that they make it optional on the vaccinations is why we have a lot of cases of whooping cough all of the sudden when you didn't hear about it much for years. I personally don't see how not vaccinating your child against something that could possibly kill them is a good option. I know people on here will probably disagree with me, but that is still my opinion. The only thing the whopping cough vaccine does is LESSEN the symptoms. Whooping cough is a bacteria. You can not vaccinate for a bacteria. You can still catch whooping cough of you are vaccinated and pass it on to others unknowingly. Not to mention in every outbreak the majority have been fully vaccinated. "After examining the records of juvenile whooping cough patients over an 8-month period, the doctors discovered that 81 percent of patients had received the full series of whooping cough shots, and 11 percent had received only some of the shots. The remaining 8 percent had not received any immunizations for whooping cough."http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323187 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 ha! I don't believe in teaching 'em math. That's what God made fingers and toes for. And calculators.You forgot an appendage. It's why some think boys are better than girls at math.* :leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 You forgot an appendage. It's why some think boys are better than girls at math.* :leaving: Why? Because it functions on a log scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Are you one of those Gothard people or Pearl followers? Because we could argue about that ... :D Never heard of them before joining the Hive. You forgot an appendage. It's why some think boys are better than girls at math.* :leaving: I've suspected it impacted my boys ability to count to 21, but didn't want to be sexist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celticmom Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The only thing the whopping cough vaccine does is LESSEN the symptoms. Whooping cough is a bacteria. You can not vaccinate for a bacteria. You can still catch whooping cough of you are vaccinated and pass it on to others unknowingly. Not to mention in every outbreak the majority have been fully vaccinated. "After examining the records of juvenile whooping cough patients over an 8-month period, the doctors discovered that 81 percent of patients had received the full series of whooping cough shots, and 11 percent had received only some of the shots. The remaining 8 percent had not received any immunizations for whooping cough."http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323187 :iagree:Exactly what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 You forgot an appendage. It's why some think boys are better than girls at math.* :leaving: Or because of it's ability to understand binary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 No, I'm just saying parents who make INFORMED decisions don't rely just on what the AAP says. So this "change" is good if you are against because then those people just following along will, well, follow along. Aside from insurance issues or anything like that, it's really not doing much to help parents make informed parenting decisions. I'm confused. The AAP is recognizing the transmission rates of HPV, HIV, syphilis, herpes, and the incidence other diseases and/or medical conditions is lower in circumcised males. These are facors worthy of consideration when making a decision to circumcise (or not). Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Why? Because it functions on a log scale? :lol: And contributes to an early interest in trigonometry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The quote is a direct quote from the Academy of American Pediatrics and it accurately represents their change in position. You don't think this wibble-wobble article is designed to actively NOT make a recommendation either way, but only to keep it legal and insured? Because that is most definitely how the article, as a whole, reads. If someone were to ask, "does the AAP recommend routine circumcision," then the answer is still no. Not really a change in position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 You forgot an appendage. It's why some think boys are better than girls at math.* :leaving: I've suspected it impacted my boys ability to count to 21, but didn't want to be sexist. Or because of it's ability to understand binary? :lol: And contributes to an early interest in trigonometry. :lol::lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Ick, never mind. *walk away, walk away* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Not true. I quoted the AAP abstract directly. They say the benefits outweigh the risks. They have not moved (yet) to recommending "routine" circumcision for all, but this is a big move for the AAP. Bill And doctors will probably listen about as well as they did before. The one person who did try to forcibly retract my kid's foreskin was a pediatrician who poo-pooed the AAP's policy as a reason not to. I had to literally put my hands in her way and order her to stop before she stopped. Same woman told *my* Bill that we should give our kid multiple vacs in one visit b/c he'd bring HiB home in his nose and kill our son, then didn't want to bother scheduling boosters according to the CDC's schedule. OTOH, the specialists at JHU are now telling my sister that multiple vacs at a time and heavy metal exposure (they are including aluminum) may have "triggered" her two autistic sons. But I still had to pass a whole lotta bean dip when a physician acquaintance realized during a casual conversation that I delay and stagger vacs for my kids. Bill, you come across as smug, that's the thing. And this, to me, should be taken to be about as definitive as the study in CA linking autism to parental intelligence/education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 You don't think this wibble-wobble article is designed to actively NOT make a recommendation either way, but only to keep it legal and insured? Because that is most definitely how the article, as a whole, reads. No. I do think ensuring access is a big factor making the report public, but that is because the medical evidence is pretty clear that the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks. If someone were to ask, "does the AAP recommend routine circumcision," then the answer is still no. Not really a change in position. No. It would be accurate to say the APP does not recommend routine circumcision for all. I would like to see who they might include in the excluded categories, as almost any medical procedure, intervention, or drug includes people for whom the risk factors make recommendations less than universal. Those sort of exclusions based on individual circumstance make sense. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 No. I do think ensuring access is a big factor making the report public, but that is because the medical evidence is pretty clear that the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks. I think you really have to ignore the larger climate to come to that conclusion, but you are welcome to your opinion. No. It would be accurate to say the APP does not recommend routine circumcision for all. I would like to see who they might include in the excluded categories, as almost any medical procedure, intervention, or drug includes people for whom the risk factors make recommendations less than universal. Those sort of exclusions based on individual circumstance make sense. Are you saying that the AAP *is* recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for all but a few noteworthy exclusions? Just trying to clarify before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 *yawn* I guess I'll go do some laundry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Are you saying that the AAP *is* recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for all but a few noteworthy exclusions? Just trying to clarify before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth again. No. I'm saying I don't know what individuals the AAP would suggest not undergo a procedure that they say brings more medical benefits than risks. I would appreciate more clarity on their recommendations. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearWallowSchool Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) This is one of those mental pictures that cannot be scrubbed from one's mind. :rofl: I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. I agree that pediatricians need to be more knowledgable on the uncircumcised penis. My son is not circumcised and the hospital where he was born gave me the correct information about not forcibly pulling back the foreskin. When he was two his pediatrician told me I should have been pulling it back since birth.:001_huh: I was one confused mama. I haven't been back to that pediatricians office but I'm sure she is still telling mothers to retract the skin. :glare: Edited August 27, 2012 by tiffkeeton Spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 If anyone is interested, here is Doctors Opposing Circumcision's commentary on the statement: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Yes, I always think about what we have to talk about. All homeschoolers are moms who wear jean skirts? :) No! It's denim JUMPERS! Jumpers are DIFFERENT than skirts! You are a failure as a homeschooler if you don't recognize this, and wear denim JUMPERS! And yes, that means YOU TOO, Bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertechmom 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. 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? :iagree::iagree::iagree: Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 If anyone is interested, here is Doctors Opposing Circumcision's commentary on the statement: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf It won't matter. According to some people, any documentation from those opposing circ is automatically propaganda and not creditable. Don't bother wasting your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 No. I'm saying I don't know what individuals the AAP would suggest not undergo a procedure that they say brings more medical benefits than risks. I would appreciate more clarity on their recommendations. I think they are saying that they don't recommend as routine for anybody. But their position is obviously vague . I am sure this is to allow for parental choice. But, you are drawing vastly different conclusions. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but you are once again stating it as fact. It's denim JUMPERS! Jumpers are DIFFERENT than skirts! You are a failure as a homeschooler if you don't recognize this, and wear denim JUMPERS! And yes, that means YOU TOO, Bill! Bill is not a homeschooler. Has he even met anyone in a denim jumper? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn 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. No, there are varying degrees of female circumcision, just as there are varying degrees of male circumcision (though the vast majority of people don't talk to their doctor at all about what their son will be left with). Infibulation is the rarest and most drastic. Forms vary from a ritual nicking to removal of some or all of the external anatomy. In many places in the world, it is safer and far less is removed than in male circumcision. Here is one proud mom's blog post about her infant daughter's circumcision in the hospital. You even get to see the part of her clitoris cut off on the scissors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 No, there are varying degrees of female circumcision, just as there are varying degrees of male circumcision (though the vast majority of people don't talk to their doctor at all about what their son will be left with). Infibulation is the rarest and most drastic. Forms vary from a ritual nicking to removal of some or all of the external anatomy. In many places in the world, it is safer and far less is removed than in male circumcision. Here is one proud mom's blog post about her infant daughter's circumcision in the hospital. You even get to see the part of her clitoris cut off on the scissors. OH MY!!!:ohmy: That poor girly! I had always heard that female circ took part of the clitoris and that seemed horrifying to me. My doctor and I had a long and in depth discussion about how he was going to do it and how much would be taken. I thought that was the norm until reading all this. My mom always talked about it with the doc ahead of time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Rain Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 If anyone is interested, here is Doctors Opposing Circumcision's commentary on the statement: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf That was interesting to me, actually more interesting than the AAP's statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 I think they are saying that they don't recommend as routine for anybody. But their position is obviously vague . I am sure this is to allow for parental choice. But, you are drawing vastly different conclusions. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but you are once again stating it as fact. I don't see how one gets from "we don't recommend routine circumcision for all" to "we don't recommend circumcision for anyone." There is vagueness in the language of the AAPs recommendations. I wish they would clarity the recommendations. But there is total clarity in their determination that the medical benefits are greater than the medical risks. The medical benefits vs risks are worth judgements by parents before making an informed choice. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The fact that they make it optional on the vaccinations is why we have a lot of cases of whooping cough all of the sudden when you didn't hear about it much for years. I personally don't see how not vaccinating your child against something that could possibly kill them is a good option. I know people on here will probably disagree with me, but that is still my opinion. Another topic for another thread. However, to answer, it's a good option when the risks of catching something that could kill them is outweighed by the risks of the vaccination killing them. For some of us and for certain vaccines, this is a greater risk and we've already been through it with a child. PS, not anti-vax, but am for delayed and selective vaccination. I'm also for parental choice on vaxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverland Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Um, wow, I sure have learned a lot on this thread. DS is not circ'd. I just didn't see the overwhelming need for it. Still don't. He can choose to have it done as an adult. I never had a doctor tell me to pull, tug, retract, clean extra, or treat *it* in any manner. Not one doctor ever discussed DS's non-circ'd condition with me at all. He's now a teenager & never had an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I might take it more seriously if the statement didn't come from a group of people who benefit financially from doing this procedure. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justLisa Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I might take it more seriously if the statement didn't come from a group of people who benefit financially from doing this procedure. :glare: There ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I might take it more seriously if the statement didn't come from a group of people who benefit financially from doing this procedure. :glare: :iagree: One of my FB friends commented: "Primum non nocere, AAP? Sequere pecuniam." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts