[SUBMITTED] Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision"

[The Andrewtopian Republic]

Repeal 'Permit male circumcision'
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#141 | Proposed by: The Andrewtopian Republic

AWARE That male circumcision is practiced in some religions, however, This freedom should give a person the right to make this decision for themselves, not for other people (e.g. their children) and that simply being religious should not grant anyone (especially reffering to parents and/or caretakers) the right to force a person to undergo unnecessary cosmetic

WANTING To get rid of a resolution which violates the human right on physical integrity.

CANNOT Understand why anyone would want to inflict significant injury and permanent damage on a child or any other human.

CLARIFYING That for the procedure to be ''medically necessary'', it needs to be looked at by a medical professional and declared necessary in order to prevent death or direct severe complications.

NOTING that male circumcision:
-Could possibly risk of HIV or other STDs in some cases, but so do contraceptives and good hygene. They have also proven to be more effective in preventing STDs and HIV.
Therefore circumcision is an unnecessary procedure.

-Harms sexual function.
Religious circumcision is partly meant to reduce sexual pleasure
Sensitive sexual zones dull out as a direct result of male circumcision

-Occasionally has mishaps which result in worse damage to the penis
A small number might possibly even die as a direct result of circumcision.
Others may suffer dangerous infections or other severe damage to the genitals. Some may die due to an infection.

-Cannot easily be entirely reversed
Restoration of the foreskin will barely look like the work of mother nature.

-Is extremely painful, even for adults who go through the procedure
Is extremely painful, even for adults who go through the procedure and is just as painful as female circumcision

-Should be classified as a cosmetic, not a medical procedure
Circumcision could lower the risks of getting certain diseases, but those diseases can be avoided much easier by the use of contraceptives or medicine.
Circumcision serves no relevant medical purpose in the modern world.

-Violates the rights of the child's physical integrity.
A part of the Child's body is removed without their full consent.
Children this young are not able to make decisions of this kind.


NOTING That GA#141
-Also provides no protection for the mentally disabled, which cannot consent for the same reasons as children.
''Mentally disabled'' hereby defines ''a person suffering from a mental developmental disability that first appears in children under the age of 18 which causes significant limitations in daily living skills.

-Does not mandate, or even explicitly encourage the use of local or general anesthetics
Male circumcision is just as painful as female circumcision, which was banned by the WA in GA#114
As stated above: Circumcision is a cosmetic procedure. In the case of an infant it can be seen as mutilation since the child didn't and can't consent to the procedure.

-ON freedom of religion: This freedom should give a person the right to make this decision for themselves, not for other people. (e.g. their children)

THEREFORE, Repealing "Permit Male Circumcision"

co-author: [nation=short+noflag]BushSucks-istan[/nation]

[Hirota]

This pops up pretty often (I'll let someone else put up the jpeg asking why we care about baby penises - I'd argue we should ask the original resolution author that).

It's worth noting that whilst I personally agree with getting rid of this shoddy resolution, you are on shaky medical ground. There are a number of conflicting medical studies on the effects and effectiveness of circumcision. The reasonable position is to state that the benefits have not been proven, rather than to say they simply do not exist.

It is also worth observing that circumcision does have some medial benefits such as to treat phimosis and is not always purely cosmetic.

You might get further with the second series of obserations, but I'd point out medical consent for minors are legislated under another act entirely.

[The Andrewtopian Republic]

This pops up pretty often (I'll let someone else put up the jpeg asking why we care about baby penises - I'd argue we should ask the original resolution author that).

It's worth noting that whilst I personally agree with getting rid of this shoddy resolution, you are on shaky medical ground. There are a number of conflicting medical studies on the effects and effectiveness of circumcision. The reasonable position is to state that the benefits have not been proven, rather than to say they simply do not exist.

It is also worth observing that circumcision does have some medial benefits such as to treat phimosis and is not always purely cosmetic.

You might get further with the second series of obserations, but I'd point out medical consent for minors are legislated under another act entirely.

Phimosis is better treated by stretching the skin than circumcision (safer, less painful).

I don't believe there is any legislation which prevents children from having procedures forced on them by their parents.

I still removed "has no medical benefit" from the first list because it's redundant though.

[Hirota]

Phimosis is better treated by stretching the skin than circumcision (safer, less painful).

Not always however. Plus there are other conditions where Circumcision is the best option.

Just to be clear, I would vote FOR a repeal - I am simply raising the concerns which have been previously raised in the past.

[Flibbleites]

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Three Weasels]

Uh-huh... and the resolution doesn't mandate that all males must be circumcised. It merely obligates nations of the WA to legalize the practice for those who already engage in it. It is entirely voluntary, even though the legality of the practice is mandatory.

No male regardless of age is required to undergo this procedure, what's the problem? There isn't enough regulation? The resolution allows individual states to include additional regulations.

Have you considered why there is no indepth regulation associated with this resolution? Could it be because the WA is filled with such diversity that it would be impossible to regulate the practice at the international level beyond simply either legalizing or outlawing it.

There are also resolutions covering healthcare, so by declaring it a medical procedure, it is now subject to other international legislation covering medical procedures.

[Quelesh]

No male regardless of age is required to undergo this procedure

I don't think that's true.

By my reading of current international law, member states that have a legal status of minority and a system of legal guardianship may, but are not required to, allow the legal guardian of a male minor to force that minor to undergo circumcision, even against the minor's will and over the minor's resistance.

Leonard Roku
Quelesian Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Ossitania]

Ossitania remains opposed to the target resolution as part of its desire to propose international legislation protecting the young and the disabled from unnecessary body modification. This is a fairly weak repeal attempt though.

[Three Weasels]

No male regardless of age is required to undergo this procedure

I don't think that's true.

By my reading of current international law, member states that have a legal status of minority and a system of legal guardianship may, but are not required to, allow the legal guardian of a male minor to force that minor to undergo circumcision, even against the minor's will and over the minor's resistance.

Leonard Roku
Quelesian Minister of Foreign Affairs

We were speaking about governments, not individuals invoking the right. From the perspective of the law, no male is required to undergo it. Perhaps you ought to re-read the first paragraph where we make a similar statement.

[Ossitania]

I don't think that's true.

By my reading of current international law, member states that have a legal status of minority and a system of legal guardianship may, but are not required to, allow the legal guardian of a male minor to force that minor to undergo circumcision, even against the minor's will and over the minor's resistance.

Leonard Roku
Quelesian Minister of Foreign Affairs

We were speaking about governments, not individuals invoking the right. From the perspective of the law, no male is required to undergo it. Perhaps you ought to re-read the first paragraph where we make a similar statement.

I'm fairly sure he knows what you were saying. His problem (and mine) is that the legislation itself doesn't force anyone to undergo a circumcision but it allows them to be forced to undergo it. I don't see how your response actually responds to what the ambassador said.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh ffs, this dead horse again?? It's growing increasingly tiresome having to explain to every foreskin-loving fanatic in this body that Permit Male Circumcision does not actually protect male circumcision at all. It does not require nations either to completely legalize or mandate its application; it simply prevents nations from denying it to those who wish to undergo it. Were this act to be repealed, nations could continue to do so anyway, under the aegis of Patient's Rights Act, so attempting to insulate penises through this repeal is rather a moot point. For freak's sake, even if by some miracle both PMC and PRA were repealed and replaced with a mandate to ban infant circumcision in all member states, parents could still transport their babies to non-WA countries and have the procedure performed with no restrictions whatsoever. As it is, current WA law leaves it up to nations whether or not to allow infant circumcision within their own borders (no, really, it does: read PRA), and repealing this won't change that. So let's stop wasting each other's time and just leave things the way they are, huh?

[Ossitania]

Oh ffs, this dead horse again?? It's growing increasingly tiresome having to explain to every foreskin-loving fanatic in this body that Permit Male Circumcision does not actually protect male circumcision at all. It does not require nations either to completely legalize or mandate its application; it simply prevents nations from denying it to those who wish to undergo it. Were this act to be repealed, nations could continue to do so anyway, under the aegis of Patient's Rights Act, so attempting to insulate penises through this repeal is rather a moot point. For freak's sake, even if by some miracle both PMC and PRA were repealed and replaced with a mandate to ban infant circumcision in all member states, parents could still transport their babies to non-WA countries and have the procedure performed with no restrictions whatsoever. As it is, current WA law leaves it up to nations whether or not to allow infant circumcision within their own borders (no, really, it does: read PRA), and repealing this won't change that. So let's stop wasting each other's time and just leave things the way they are, huh?

Oh, come on, Kenny, you know you're being disingenuous. You've enumerated all the potentialities except the one I propose; where those who want to be circumcised can do so when they're old enough to decide for themselves, without having the decision made for them by their parents. Except that I propose that the same apply to all procedures which modify the body and that both the young and the disabled are protected from unnecessary body modification forced upon them by their legal guardians - that's the whole reason it was deemed to be a medical procedure, to put it under the aegis of PRA and allow legal guardians to force unnecessary body modifying surgery on their wards. I propose this on the basis that freedom is allowing everyone the opportunity to make the largest possible number of personal choices and that allowing infantile body modification (including infantile circumcision) takes away opportunities from those children to make personal choices about their own bodies when they are legally capable of doing so. On the same basis, forcing your own decisions on a disabled person in circumstances other than those which are necessary and beneficial to their health, safety and quality of life diminishes their already limited autonomy and is borderline abusive. This is an argument put forward by more people than just me, stop deliberately acting like it doesn't exist. At least attack it if you're not going to agree with it.

And of course they could get around it by just going to a non-WA member-state but you can say that of virtually any resolutions on the books which prohibits anything. And now that you've mentioned it, I can simply add a clause to my proposal criminalising travel for the purposes of forcing body modification surgery on a child or a disabled person. Come on, you're smart enough to know that's a weak argument to be trotting out, why are you even bothering?

OOC: I think the Cologne ruling puts it best; "The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised". The loss of rights on the part of the legal guardian is far outweighed by the loss of rights of their ward. It's not that big an imposition to make the parents wait a few years for the child to decide, but the child has to live with their decision forever.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh ffs, this dead horse again?? It's growing increasingly tiresome having to explain to every foreskin-loving fanatic in this body that Permit Male Circumcision does not actually protect male circumcision at all. It does not require nations either to completely legalize or mandate its application; it simply prevents nations from denying it to those who wish to undergo it. Were this act to be repealed, nations could continue to do so anyway, under the aegis of Patient's Rights Act, so attempting to insulate penises through this repeal is rather a moot point. For freak's sake, even if by some miracle both PMC and PRA were repealed and replaced with a mandate to ban infant circumcision in all member states, parents could still transport their babies to non-WA countries and have the procedure performed with no restrictions whatsoever. As it is, current WA law leaves it up to nations whether or not to allow infant circumcision within their own borders (no, really, it does: read PRA), and repealing this won't change that. So let's stop wasting each other's time and just leave things the way they are, huh?

Oh, come on, Kenny, you know you're being disingenuous. You've enumerated all the potentialities except the one I propose; where those who want to be circumcised can do so when they're old enough to decide for themselves, without having the decision made for them by their parents. Except that I propose that the same apply to all procedures which modify the body and that both the young and the disabled are protected from unnecessary body modification forced upon them by their legal guardians - that's the whole reason it was deemed to be a medical procedure, to put it under the aegis of PRA and allow legal guardians to force unnecessary body modifying surgery on their wards. I propose this on the basis that freedom is allowing everyone the opportunity to make the largest possible number of personal choices and that allowing infantile body modification (including infantile circumcision) takes away opportunities from those children to make personal choices about their own bodies when they are legally capable of doing so. On the same basis, forcing your own decisions on a disabled person in circumstances other than those which are necessary and beneficial to their health, safety and quality of life diminishes their already limited autonomy and is borderline abusive. This is an argument put forward by more people than just me, stop deliberately acting like it doesn't exist. At least attack it if you're not going to agree with it.

I'm sorry...what does your proposal especially have to do with anything? This is a discussion about a repeal.

OOC: I think the Cologne ruling puts it best; "The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised". The loss of rights on the part of the legal guardian is far outweighed by the loss of rights of their ward. It's not that big an imposition to make the parents wait a few years for the child to decide, but the child has to live with their decision forever.

Forgive me if I do not count the Germans as any kind of authority on religious freedom.

[Ossitania]

Oh, come on, Kenny, you know you're being disingenuous. You've enumerated all the potentialities except the one I propose; where those who want to be circumcised can do so when they're old enough to decide for themselves, without having the decision made for them by their parents. Except that I propose that the same apply to all procedures which modify the body and that both the young and the disabled are protected from unnecessary body modification forced upon them by their legal guardians - that's the whole reason it was deemed to be a medical procedure, to put it under the aegis of PRA and allow legal guardians to force unnecessary body modifying surgery on their wards. I propose this on the basis that freedom is allowing everyone the opportunity to make the largest possible number of personal choices and that allowing infantile body modification (including infantile circumcision) takes away opportunities from those children to make personal choices about their own bodies when they are legally capable of doing so. On the same basis, forcing your own decisions on a disabled person in circumstances other than those which are necessary and beneficial to their health, safety and quality of life diminishes their already limited autonomy and is borderline abusive. This is an argument put forward by more people than just me, stop deliberately acting like it doesn't exist. At least attack it if you're not going to agree with it.

I'm sorry...what does your proposal especially have to do with anything? This is a discussion about a repeal.

Stop being such a man-child, you know what I was saying. You made counterarguments against various arguments for the repeal of PMC without acknowledging the argument made by people like me. I'm calling on you to at least attack those arguments if you're not going to agree with them.

My idea is freedom is giving everyone the opportunity to make as many personal choices as possible (with choices only closed off where they interfere with or limit other people's ability to make personal choices about themselves). On this basis, it is my belief that a child should have as few such opportunities denied to them through the decisions of their parents unnecessarily so that they may have those opportunities when they are older. In relation specifically to this topic, I argue that body modifying surgeries (including circumcision) render a change upon a person's body forever and permanently deny them the opportunity to make decisions about the parts of their body being modified. I do not believe this permanent and unnecessary loss of the opportunity to make choices is not sufficiently justified by the loss of a parent's right to force their children to undergo unnecessary body modifying surgery for whatever cultural or religious reasons (and in the specific case of circumcision, I don't believe that the medical benefits justify it either, should they actually exist).

Consequentially, I believe that no parent should be able to force their child to undergo any kind of body modifying surgery unless it is both necessary and beneficial. I wish to pass a resolution on this but can't because it would contradict PMC and I obviously don't want to carve out a specific exception for infantile male circumcision because I don't believe such an exception is justified. I'm still waiting for the day that someone actually provides some specific counterarguments to why I'm wrong in believing that children shouldn't have any kind of body modifying surgery (including circumcision) forced on them by their parents so that they can make the decision for themselves when they're older and why I'm wrong in believing that the law should prevent children from being forced to undergo such surgeries while still allowing them to make that decision when they're old enough. Since you're attacking all the other views in favour of the legality of unnecessary infantile male circumcision except for mine, I'm asking you to at least attack mine if you're not going to agree with them, instead of outright ignoring them, which you must be doing deliberately since these views are not unique to me, nor is this the first time they've come up. In fact, I've been waiting a long time for someone opposing the repeal of PMC to even acknowledge the view I'm proposing, let alone attack it.

The parents would only have to wait a few years for the child to decide, but the child has to live with the decision made by their parents forever. Can you please explain to me why I'm wrong in saying "let it be the child's decision when they're old enough"?

OOC: I think the Cologne ruling puts it best; "The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised". The loss of rights on the part of the legal guardian is far outweighed by the loss of rights of their ward. It's not that big an imposition to make the parents wait a few years for the child to decide, but the child has to live with their decision forever.

Forgive me if I do not count the Germans as any kind of authority on religious freedom.

Classy.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'm sorry...what does your proposal especially have to do with anything? This is a discussion about a repeal.

Stop being such a man-child, you know what I was saying. You made counterarguments against various arguments for the repeal of PMC without acknowledging the argument made by people like me.

Oh, you don't have to be deliberately obtuse for my sake. You know full well that PMC does not legalize infant circumcision; it's been pointed out countless times before that Patient's Rights Act is the resolution that protects parental rights and that PMC does not even mention them. Now I don't know if you're only doing this for other PMC opponents, who may not be aware of the complexity of WA law on this, to keep hope alive that one day the WA will stop trampling on the rights of poor disenfranchised baby penises, but you know damn good and well that you cannot fool me on the subject. PMC does not address parental rights, and therefore, is entirely irrelevant to the question of infant circumcision. Meaning that repealing PMC will not change a God-damned thing. So stick that in your manchild pipe and smoke it.

[Flibbleites]

This pops up pretty often (I'll let someone else put up the jpeg asking why we care about baby penises - I'd argue we should ask the original resolution author that).

No need to bother Mr. Koopman, I remember what the reason for PMC was. It was an attempt to shut up the anti-circumcision crowd. In fact, it was their obsession over baby penises that necessitated the writing of a Blocker on the subject.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC & Mod hat on: I realize that this is a subject that tends to get people riled up, so let's try to keep things civil here, shall we.

[Ossitania]

Stop being such a man-child, you know what I was saying. You made counterarguments against various arguments for the repeal of PMC without acknowledging the argument made by people like me.

Oh, you don't have to be deliberately obtuse for my sake. You know full well that PMC does not legalize infant circumcision; it's been pointed out countless times before that Patient's Rights Act is the resolution that protects parental rights and that PMC does not even mention them. Now I don't know if you're only doing this for other PMC opponents, who may not be aware of the complexity of WA law on this, to keep hope alive that one day the WA will stop trampling on the rights of poor disenfranchised baby penises, but you know damn good and well that you cannot fool me on the subject. PMC does not address parental rights, and therefore, is entirely irrelevant to the question of infant circumcision. Meaning that repealing PMC will not change a God-damned thing. So stick that in your manchild pipe and smoke it.

If that was really the case, then PMC would not have to be on the books, but it is, because GA #114 happened and the pro-PMC crowd is afraid of a similar resolution happening that would put an end to unnecessary infantile male circumcision. If what you're saying was true, this discussion wouldn't be happening, but here we are. If PRA really did prevent a ban on unnecessary infantile male circumcision or, more generally, a ban on unnecessary body modifying surgery, there would be no debate. However, clause (II) of PRA clearly leaves open the possibility of banning non-emergency medical procedures.

[Grays Harbor]

Not wishing to enter into the bladder voiding competition which always seems to erupt whenever this particular topic is broached, we shall merely echo Representative Flibbles' sentiments.

(Image)

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Knootoss]

I got a telegram informing me about the submission of this resolution, but it was already removed before I could file a perfunctory protest. The Secretariat is on the ball.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[FreeWillToAll]

Why don't we all stop being sexist here and permit female circumcision?
No really we must. We must act now to insure equality!

Lol. That was sarcasm.
Freewilltoall takes no position on this resolution.

[Gullud]

Oh ffs, this dead horse again??

It's the holidays and Ambassadors are bored. They should go home to their families. Just about every religion and nation has some sort of holiday this time of year.

[The Andrewtopian Republic]

I got a telegram informing me about the submission of this resolution, but it was already removed before I could file a perfunctory protest. The Secretariat is on the ball.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Actually, this proposal was never submitted.

[Ossitania]

I got a telegram informing me about the submission of this resolution, but it was already removed before I could file a perfunctory protest. The Secretariat is on the ball.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Actually, this proposal was never submitted.

I'm inclined to believe that it was, as Mr. Koopman seems unlikely to spontaneously declare that he received a "your resolution is being subjected to a repeal attempt" TG if it didn't occur, given that it would serve no purpose to do so.

[Knootoss]

Seems I mixed up this one with this one. They're both full of fallacies, though.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Why don't we all stop being sexist here and permit female circumcision?
No really we must. We must act now to insure equality!

Because .... one of these things is not like the other ... one of these things just doesn't belong.

If you want to consider the male equivalent of female circumcision ... think Lorena Bobbit ... ENOUGH SAID.