The Jewish Boy and the Muslim Boy

[phkrause]

David, a Jewish boy, and Ali, a Muslim boy, are having a conversation.

Ali: I'm getting operated on tomorrow.

David: Oh? What are they going to do?

Ali: Circumcise me!

David: I had that done when I was just a few days old.

Ali: Did it hurt?

David: I couldn't walk for a year!

[B/W Photodude]

Most of your jokes are really funny. That one wasn't. Genital mutilation of boys isn't funny. Unfortunately, it is partially the SDA church via John Harvey Kellogg, that this became the practice in Amerika.

I believe it was in Phillipians that Paul called cutters evildoers and dogs.

JHK also recommended pouring acid on the genitals of little girls. Good thing that one didn't catch on. 

From Kellogg himself:

"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.

“	In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

 

Edited May 3, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[Ellen]

I have come across those with phimosis and had to have it done in late childhood or adulthood and that ISN'T funny

[B/W Photodude]

I have come across those with phimosis and had to have it done in late childhood or adulthood and that ISN'T funny

​

Whacking off parts of a non-consenting individuals body for what might happen to them in the future is unethical. And some would argue that 100% of baby boys say "no" to the procedure.

At one time when the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had some morals they stated in 1973 that there was NO VALID MEDICAL reason to circumcise a boy. It is considered unethical by most physicians to cosmetically alter a child for parental preferences. It is also considered to be by many a violation of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While the AAP has somewhat reversed it self and seems to support it, NO other medical society in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.

Unfortunately, in the USA, over 100 babies a year DIE because of this procedure, and that is not funny either. When was the last time someone died from phimosis? Some pediatric urologists spend a large amount of their time repairing the damage done to little boys who have been mutilated for a parent preference. And BTW, there are non-surgcal remedies for phimosis.

Some people choke on the word mutilation, however, it simply means the removal of perfectly normal body parts for no valid medical reason.

[Tom Wetmore]

Missing the point of humor...

[Gregory Matthews]

Lyndon mentioned a figure of 100 males deaths per year due to circumcision (actually that reported figure is 117).  That study had been criticized as having fundamental flaws.  You may read about those flaws at:

 

http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html

The above study is extensive and should be read in full.  However, here is one part from it:

 

This is extraordinary! Bollinger is, in effect, assuming that the difference between male and female death rates is due entirely to circumcision. But it is a well-established fact that male babies are more susceptible to deaths than females, and there is no evidence that this is due to circumcision. Indeed, if circumcision alone were responsible for the difference, then we might expect countries with low circumcision rates to have the same infant mortality rates among males and females. But in fact, that's not the case, as the following table shows:

There is much more.  Read the link I have provided.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[B/W Photodude]

That study had been criticized as having fundamental flaws.

​

While the figure as cited may be flawed, his whole article was flawed. In fact, his whole blog is flawed as he apparently in a die-hard circumfetishist. His agenda is to continue and foster the practice. There are a number of people like him out there who are as missionary minded about continuing this practice of cutting baby boys as he is. One very famous one was connected with the Gilgal Society in Britain. Unfortunately for him, he was recently arrested for involvement with child pornography. 

Part of the flaw with his analysis and perhaps with the number is it looked at inhospital events from birth to discharge. These days many cuttings occur in doctors offices and baby goes straight home. Given that there is also an artery often cut during the procedure, boys will sometimes begin to bleed. It is said to only require a blood loss of two and a half ounces and the baby is in danger of death. A super absorbent diaper can hide that small of a blood loss until the baby has become very compromised. Others have reported that these baby will be readmitted to hospitals with cause of death listed as circulatory collapse. This is also a very difficult number to truly ascertain as little research is really done in this area of medical practice and is agenda driven. However, baby boys do die from the procedure.

Other boys have had their penises simply burned off. One doctor in Atlanta one time fried two in one week. A very famous case of a boy being so injured was featured in a movie about his life and his twin brother. He was injured by having his penis burned of. They tried an experiment of reassigning his gender to that of a girl. Even famous doctors at John Hopkins failed in that experiment and he eventually killed himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Bottom line, even if it was 100% safe and no baby ever died or was injured, it is still unethical to go around chopping off bits of other people's bodies because of whatever reason you have for doing such an act. However, whatever reason anyone digs up for it, it can easily be put to rest. It has often suggested that we let the baby grow up and then he can make the decision for himself. Well, guess what? Very few adult men actually go for that. 

Oh! And to Tom Wetmore, I would bet there are plenty of jokes one could tell and when you were not so humored you also would not be so humored if someone pointed out that you were missing the point of the humor.

BTW, I realize that this started off as a response to a humor forum posting. Feel free to move it anywhere else if so agreed to by pkrause.