[DRAFT] Repeal ''Permit Male Circumcision'' [NO DEBATE!]

[BushSucks-istan]

Please visit the following topic viewtopic.php?f=9&t=215809

Please, read the following before posting
I'm not a mod so I can't create rules. I'd like to propose a few guidelines though:
-Please, do not debate the issue of circumcision here. It will end up getting the topic locked.
-I'm searching for people who want to help me improve this proposal. I'm not looking for rants and speeches on why ''this is a bad idea''. If you want to do that, go create a debate thread.
-Please, keep the pro-circumcision stuff out of here, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for people who can help me with this proposal.

I can't force these guidelines on anyone, but please, be a little mature.
These guidelines will be removed when the drafting period is over.

You are correct. You are referring to this one viewtopic.php?f=9&t=215809
I used to work with the author of that topic until he stopped sending me telegrams and stopped updating the OP. I wanted to get on with this. I asked a mod and he said it was ok as long as I didn't literally copy his proposal.
So, here is a whole new proposal!!!

Thank you.

NOTE: I will ignore any debate. If two or more people start debating, or if anyone starts posting things that are not meant to improve the proposal, I will simply ignore them. Again, I am here to ask for help, not rants.

Repeal 'Permit male circumcision'
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#141 | Proposed by: BushSucks-istan

Section I

NOTING That male circumcision can be seen as part of certain cultures and/or religions.

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.


Section II

ON GA#141:
1. GA#141 Calls for the permission of male circumcision for religious reasons and medical reasons.
a. BELIEVING 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 procedures. (also see: Section III subsection 1 and Section III subsection 7)
b. 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)

2. GA#141 Does not call for the protection of minors and/or the mentally disabled.
a. BELIEVING That it is obvious that children and/or disabled people cannot consent to male circumcision. (also see: Section III subsection 7)
b. BELIEVING That male circumcision should be allowed for medical reasons only. i.e. when the person may die or suffer severe complications.
''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.

3. GA#141 Does not call for mandatory use of anesthetics.
a. NOTING That male circumcision is just as painful as female circumcision, which was banned by the WA in GA#114. (also see: Section III subsection 5 and GA#114)

4. GA#141 Claims that male circumcision is a medical procedure.
a. BELIEVING that 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. (also see: Section III subsection 6)


Section III

FURTHER NOTING Male Circumcision:
1. Does reduce the risk of HIV and some STDs, but so do contraceptives. Contraceptives have also proven to be more effective in preventing STDs and HIV.
a. Thus proving that male circumcision is an unnecessary procedure.

2. Impairs the function of the male sexual organ.
a. Religious circumcision is partly meant to reduce sexual pleasure.
b. Sensitive sexual zones dull out as a direct result of male circumcision.

3. Can result in dangerous complications or death.
a. One in 500.000 children die as a direct result of circumcision.
b. Others may suffer dangerous infections or genital mutilation. Some may die due to an infection.

4. Is practically irreversible.
a. Restoration of the foreskin will barely look like the work of mother nature.

5. Has been proven to be extremely painful for both adults and Children.

6. Is a cosmetic procedure, not a medical procedure.
a. Circumcision will lower the risks of getting certain diseases, but those diseases can be avoided much easier by the use of contraceptives or medicine.
b. Circumcision serves no relevant medical purpose in the modern world.

7. Violates the rights of the child's physical integrity.
a. A part of the Child's body is removed without their full consent.
a sub1. Children this young are not able to make decisions of this kind.
a sub1-1. Once the child has reached the age of consent he may be circumcised if he consents.
Every nation remains free to set their own ''age of consent''.



THEREFORE, Repealing GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision".

Also, feel free to improve my English. It's not my native language. Thank you!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OK, for the last time, PMC does not protect infant circumcision. Nations can still ban the procedure on infants if they please. You only want suggestions to help improve the draft? Then take this one: stop obsessing over Internet junk science and phantom religious nutjobs who just want to steal the joy of sex from their children, and focus on the actual effects of the resolution.

[BushSucks-istan]

OK, for the last time, PMC does not protect infant circumcision. Nations can still ban the procedure on infants if they please. You only want suggestions to help improve the draft? Then take this one: stop obsessing over Internet junk science and phantom religious nutjobs who just want to steal the joy of sex from their children, and focus on the actual effects of the resolution.

Thanks, I'll take that in account. I already edited a bit on that

[Araraukar]

Also, if you include the bit about circumcision lowering chance of HIV and other STDs, mention that it does so for some STDs, not all. Some STDs (actually, Sexually Transmitted Infection, or STI is the official term these days, I believe, but people recognise STD more readily) are contracted by skin-to-skin contact, where the tip of the penis is not as relevant as the rest of it.

[BushSucks-istan]

Also, if you include the bit about circumcision lowering chance of HIV and other STDs, mention that it does so for some STDs, not all. Some STDs (actually, Sexually Transmitted Infection, or STI is the official term these days, I believe, but people recognise STD more readily) are contracted by skin-to-skin contact, where the tip of the penis is not as relevant as the rest of it.

Can you explain that a bit clearer. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get this. You are saying that some STD's can go from one person to another from just skin contact? Do I interpret that correctly?

[Araraukar]

Also, if you include the bit about circumcision lowering chance of HIV and other STDs, mention that it does so for some STDs, not all. Some STDs (actually, Sexually Transmitted Infection, or STI is the official term these days, I believe, but people recognise STD more readily) are contracted by skin-to-skin contact, where the tip of the penis is not as relevant as the rest of it.

Can you explain that a bit clearer. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get this. You are saying that some STD's can go from one person to another from just skin contact? Do I interpret that correctly?

OOC: An example of what I mean. Be warned, though, the pictures are really gross.

EDIT: Additionally, I would've thought that was like basic knowledge - so I'm now really curious, was your comment fully IC there?

[Abacathea]

Can you explain that a bit clearer. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get this. You are saying that some STD's can go from one person to another from just skin contact? Do I interpret that correctly?

OOC: An example of what I mean. Be warned, though, the pictures are really gross.

I should have heeded the warning!

[BushSucks-istan]

Can you explain that a bit clearer. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get this. You are saying that some STD's can go from one person to another from just skin contact? Do I interpret that correctly?

OOC: An example of what I mean. Be warned, though, the pictures are really gross.

Ok I see. I get it... those pics were nasty though XD
So, what would you suggest I include, any way of phrasing it?

[Christian Democrats]

Male circumcision is no worse than ear piercing. Should it be illegal to have your little girl's ears pierced?

How about you people stop trying to legislate against nonharmful cultural practices that have been around for millennia?

[BushSucks-istan]

:palm:

Male circumcision is no worse than ear piercing. Should it be illegal to have your little girl's ears pierced?

How about you people stop trying to legislate against nonharmful cultural practices that have been around for millennia?

Please do not start a debate here.

[Araraukar]

Ok I see. I get it... those pics were nasty though XD
So, what would you suggest I include, any way of phrasing it?

As I said "some STDs".

[BushSucks-istan]

Ok I see. I get it... those pics were nasty though XD
So, what would you suggest I include, any way of phrasing it?

As I said "some STDs".

Done Sir.

[Christian Democrats]

Please do not start a debate here.

Why do you think this forum exists? Essentially, it is a debate hall.

[Araraukar]

Please do not start a debate here.

Why do you think this forum exists? Essentially, it is a debate hall.

Wrong debate. There's already thread for the one you want. This is about making the repeal proposal better.

[BushSucks-istan]

Why do you think this forum exists? Essentially, it is a debate hall.

Wrong debate. There's already thread for the one you want. This is about making the repeal proposal better.

Exactly, I'm just looking for help. Debating is for when it gets submitted. You can debate then. I just need help writing. A huge debate doesn't help with that.

[Christian Democrats]

Why do you think this forum exists? Essentially, it is a debate hall.

Wrong debate. There's already thread for the one you want. This is about making the repeal proposal better.

What would be better is no repeal at all.

[BushSucks-istan]

Wrong debate. There's already thread for the one you want. This is about making the repeal proposal better.

What would be better is no repeal at all.

You made your point. Now lets get back to editing the proposal. Shall we? Whatever you are going to say. I am going to draft this until it's good enough to be submitted, and I will submit it. Nothing keeps me from doing that.

[Christian Democrats]

What would be better is no repeal at all.

You made your point. Now lets get back to editing the proposal. Shall we? Whatever you are going to say. I am going to draft this until it's good enough to be submitted, and I will submit it. Nothing keeps me from doing that.

In your signature, you call yourself "pro-choice." Would you be okay with prenatal circumcisions?

[Araraukar]

As I said "some STDs".

Done Sir.

Ma'am, actually, but appreciated.

[BushSucks-istan]

Done Sir.

Ma'am, actually, but appreciated.

Whoops. Excuse me XD, I automatically used sir.

[Three Weasels]

You cannot post a proposal and not expect some debate about what you seek to achieve.

1. You claim that this is forcing people to undergo this procedure. GAR#141 does not make circumcision mandatory, it orders governments to allow it. The choice would still rest with the individual or their guardian. How do you go from legalization to mandatory circumcision where the only text in the resolution strictly legalizes it?

2. Tell us, how does GAR#141 prevent you from introducing legislation to regulate that aspect of the practice?

3. Again, how are you prevent from writing a piece of legislation that requires that anaesthetics be used in all major procedures/operations?

Honestly, how is GAR#141 preventing further regulation? Although it grants nations the discretion to regulate the practice, there is no clause that would prevent the WA from introducing further legislation.

[New Tarajan]

In your signature, you call yourself "pro-choice." Would you be okay with prenatal circumcisions?

Please, we understand your position, but our colleagues are just trying to create a better proposal for draft to submit to the World assembly. If you want to debate, your round will come if the draft will be effectively submitted to vote.
Now it's only time to work.


Set aside this question, I would like to give a little, maybe unuseful and technical suggestion for the draft:

In the Section I, maybe it would be better to write "To get rid to a resolution which violates the human right on physical integrity" (it's more correct, I think, and taking in account what is yet said in Section III, par. 7).

Secondly, the third phrase of the same section could seem not less "neutral" than a formal diplomatic document should be,so I would suggest to change it.

Thirdly, in the Section III, par. 7 a sub 1-1, I believe there is the same problem of the Section I: maybe it would be better to eliminate the first phrase: "therefore, let it be decided by the grown up" and leave only the second one.


I hope that I was of some help.

[Araraukar]

3. Again, how are you prevent from writing a piece of legislation that requires that aesthetics be used in all major procedures/operations?

I think there may be an errant N that ran away from that word?

[Three Weasels]

3. Again, how are you prevent from writing a piece of legislation that requires that aesthetics be used in all major procedures/operations?

I think there may be an errant N that ran away from that word?

AHH! EXPLETIVE DELETED! Our damn errand boy who was supposed to spellcheck our document told us that our original spelling was wrong! Guess someone's going home with his tail between his legs.

[BushSucks-istan]

In your signature, you call yourself "pro-choice." Would you be okay with prenatal circumcisions?

Please, we understand your position, but our colleagues are just trying to create a better proposal for draft to submit to the World assembly. If you want to debate, your round will come if the draft will be effectively submitted to vote.
Now it's only time to work.


Set aside this question, I would like to give a little, maybe unuseful and technical suggestion for the draft:

In the Section I, maybe it would be better to write "To get rid to a resolution which violates the human right on physical integrity" (it's more correct, I think, and taking in account what is yet said in Section III, par. 7).

Secondly, the third phrase of the same section could seem not less "neutral" than a formal diplomatic document should be,so I would suggest to change it.

Thirdly, in the Section III, par. 7 a sub 1-1, I believe there is the same problem of the Section I: maybe it would be better to eliminate the first phrase: "therefore, let it be decided by the grown up" and leave only the second one.


I hope that I was of some help.

Thanks for the help! Will be edited! And thanks for understanding my point on the debate.