Protection from Male Genital Mutilation

[Vitoriasa]

If it served no function, it wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

How about the appendix?

[Nulono]

The foreskin isn't part of the penis?


It should be up to the person to which the penis is attached.

It should not be up to a little supported draconian one size fits all mandate, which is the fact you are refusing to see here.

It's draconian to tell people they can't irreversibly modify someone's genitals without consent?

[Grays Harbor]

We are talking about infants here. If one never remembers having their clitoris, they won't miss it.

In addition to the numerous sensitive nerve endings that can't be regained by foreskin restoration, the foreskin serves to keep the glans moist and protected, similar to the eyelid. It is also the penis's only moving part, and can act as a kind of "lubricant" (for lack of a better word) during sex.

If it served no function, it wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

By that logic, we should also ban the removal of the appendix? How about the banning of cutting hair and toe- and fingernails? If they were intended to be short, they would have evolved to stop growing on their own, right? Not being whacked off mercilessly for purely cosmetic reasons?

[Xanthal]

We are talking about infants here. If one never remembers having their clitoris, they won't miss it.

In addition to the numerous sensitive nerve endings that can't be regained by foreskin restoration, the foreskin serves to keep the glans moist and protected, similar to the eyelid. It is also the penis's only moving part, and can act as a kind of "lubricant" (for lack of a better word) during sex.

If it served no function, it wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

Ignoring the fallacious parts of your argument, I direct you to the numerous other arguments against your proposal which I (and others) have already fielded.

[Grays Harbor]

It should not be up to a little supported draconian one size fits all mandate, which is the fact you are refusing to see here.

It's draconian to tell people they can't irreversibly modify someone's genitals without consent?

No, that is your opinion. One which appears to have little support.

[Nulono]

We are talking about infants here. If one never remembers having their clitoris, they won't miss it.

In addition to the numerous sensitive nerve endings that can't be regained by foreskin restoration, the foreskin serves to keep the glans moist and protected, similar to the eyelid. It is also the penis's only moving part, and can act as a kind of "lubricant" (for lack of a better word) during sex.

If it served no function, it wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

By that logic, we should also ban the removal of the appendix? How about the banning of cutting hair and toe- and fingernails? If they were intended to be short, they would have evolved to stop growing on their own, right? Not being whacked off mercilessly for purely cosmetic reasons?

Haircuts aren't irreversible. All you have to do is wait.

If it served no function, it wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

How about the appendix?

The appendix actually serves the purpose of helping maintain the microbial balance of the colon. Even if it was completely useless, you still don't have the right to remove someone's healthy appendix without consent.

It's draconian to tell people they can't irreversibly modify someone's genitals without consent?

No, that is your opinion. One which appears to have little support.

That's YOUR opinion. MY opinion is that it is not draconian to tell people they can't irreversibly modify someone's genitals without consent.

[Knowlandia]

>Call circumcision genital mutilation
>People suddenly support you

Chill your balls, and while you're at it clean out the dick cheese from your uncut dick.

PS- please ban ear piercing too, as that is "lobial mutilation"

[Intellect and the Arts]

If it served no function, it wouldn't have evolved in the first place.

How about the appendix?

GAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!

Ok, first off EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!! Secondly, the appendix DOES/DID have a function! Research is good for you. I suggest you do some rather than relying on "common sense" like the majority of the populace.

Third, I AGAIN insist on the inclusion of the "inhibits basic function" phrase instead of the petulant addition of "irreversible". If nothing else, it serves as a decent compromise on circumcision, which is quite obviously the real target of this proposal. It allows for some nations to define "basic function" in a way that makes circumcision illegal as outlined by your proposal while allowing other nations to permit the widely spread religious practice within their borders due to a differing definition. That is, of course, assuming you do want to prevent things like forced genital adornment (piercings, specifically), adolescent eunuchs, and penile/scrotum torture as a rite of passage?

[Xanthal]

*Riley Fluffer rises from his seat*

As the Ambassador from Nulono seems unwilling to support his proposal with any meaningful evidence, and is apparently content to argue in circles all day, I see little reason to continue participating in this discussion. My counterarguments and my advice are on the table should you decide to make use of them. In the meantime, I cannot shake the feeling that my time would be more productively spent elsewhere. Anyone for a coffee? I'm buying.

[Nulono]

How about the appendix?

GAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!

Ok, first off EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!! Secondly, the appendix DOES/DID have a function! Research is good for you. I suggest you do some rather than relying on "common sense" like the majority of the populace.

Third, I AGAIN insist on the inclusion of the "inhibits basic function" phrase instead of the petulant addition of "irreversible". If nothing else, it serves as a decent compromise on circumcision, which is quite obviously the real target of this proposal. It allows for some nations to define "basic function" in a way that makes circumcision illegal as outlined by your proposal while allowing other nations to permit the widely spread religious practice within their borders due to a differing definition. That is, of course, assuming you do want to prevent things like forced genital adornment (piercings, specifically), adolescent eunuchs, and penile/scrotum torture as a rite of passage?

Cultural or religious identity or tradition is wholly inadequate justification for the barbaric mutilation of an individual's sexual organs without that individual's fully informed consent.

>Call circumcision genital mutilation
>People suddenly support you

Chill your balls, and while you're at it clean out the dick cheese from your uncut dick.

PS- please ban ear piercing too, as that is "lobial mutilation"

This bill only bans circumcision when done without consent.

[Grays Harbor]

It's draconian to tell people they can't irreversibly modify someone's genitals without consent?

No, that is your opinion. One which appears to have little support.

That's YOUR opinion. MY opinion is that it is not draconian to tell people they can't irreversibly modify someone's genitals without consent.[/quote]
You may wish to review the transcripts of this debate so far. I believe you shall discover that those who support your position (you) is quite smaller than those who oppose this position (everybody else).

So far your position has consisted of little more than assertions that you do not care for this procedure so you feel it must be banned. That is not an effective argument and as without any evidence to the contrary beyond "I don't like it" is a failed debate on your part.

[Grays Harbor]

>Call circumcision genital mutilation
>People suddenly support you

Chill your balls, and while you're at it clean out the dick cheese from your uncut dick.

PS- please ban ear piercing too, as that is "lobial mutilation"

FYI - Watch the language and insults. You are skirting very close to flaming there.

[Nulono]

This bill does not ban any procedure. It merely forbids the irreversible modification of the male genitals without the direct consent of the owner of said genitals.

[Vitoriasa]

Then aren't you banning the modification of infants genitals?? Since they cannot technically "speak" or give consent?

[Nulono]

Then aren't you banning the modification of infants genitals?? Since they cannot technically "speak" or give consent?

Of infants, yes. I think we all, male or female, have the right to not have out junk messed with before we can consent.

[Intellect and the Arts]

Cultural or religious identity or tradition is wholly inadequate justification for the barbaric mutilation of an individual's sexual organs without that individual's fully informed consent.

That may be so, at least as far as FGM is concerned (and by the way it's polite to credit your source when you're quoting someone verbatim), but first you have to prove that circumcision is "barbaric".

Remember what I said about emotionally charged issues earlier in this thread? Welcome to exactly what I was talking about.

This bill does not ban any procedure. It merely forbids the irreversible modification of the male genitals without the direct consent of the owner of said genitals.

Allow me to educate you in the English language:

ban
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree

forbid
vb -bids, -bidding, -bade, -bad -bidden, -bid (tr)
1. to prohibit (a person) in a forceful or authoritative manner (from doing something or having something)
2. to make impossible; hinder

If you are forbidding via legal means, how exactly are you not banning? Explain that one to me, si vous plait.

[Grays Harbor]

Then aren't you banning the modification of infants genitals?? Since they cannot technically "speak" or give consent?

Of infants, yes. I think we all, male or female, have the right to not have out junk messed with before we can consent.

Is the WA to become "mommy and daddy" to us all then?

[Vitoriasa]

Then aren't you banning the modification of infants genitals?? Since they cannot technically "speak" or give consent?

Of infants, yes. I think we all, male or female, have the right to not have out junk messed with before we can consent.

This bill does not ban any procedure. It merely forbids the irreversible modification of the male genitals without the direct consent of the owner of said genitals.

Isn't that contradictory to what you just said beforehand?? I think you need to decide whether you are or are not outright banning the procedure.

[Seperate Vermont]

I would vote wholehearted AGAINST this. Why would I put the World Assembly, what happens to my penis? Are you kidding me?

I can hear the Angered Citizens of Zarvarza chanting in the streets already:

"WA WA Are You Drunk,
MGM, Dont Touch My Junk!"

The World Assembly, by this, is trying to simply ensure that no one does try to do something to your penis without your consent.

[Nulono]

Cultural or religious identity or tradition is wholly inadequate justification for the barbaric mutilation of an individual's sexual organs without that individual's fully informed consent.

That may be so, at least as far as FGM is concerned (and by the way it's polite to credit your source when you're quoting someone verbatim), but first you have to prove that circumcision is "barbaric".

Remember what I said about emotionally charged issues earlier in this thread? Welcome to exactly what I was talking about.

This bill does not ban any procedure. It merely forbids the irreversible modification of the male genitals without the direct consent of the owner of said genitals.

Allow me to educate you in the English language:

ban
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree

forbid
vb -bids, -bidding, -bade, -bad -bidden, -bid (tr)
1. to prohibit (a person) in a forceful or authoritative manner (from doing something or having something)
2. to make impossible; hinder

If you are forbidding via legal means, how exactly are you not banning? Explain that one to me, si vous plait.

1. You're chopping off a part of a dude's junk! How is that not barbaric?
2. The procedure is not banned, merely the performance of the procedure without consent.

I would vote wholehearted AGAINST this. Why would I put the World Assembly, what happens to my penis? Are you kidding me?

I can hear the Angered Citizens of Zarvarza chanting in the streets already:

"WA WA Are You Drunk,
MGM, Dont Touch My Junk!"

The World Assembly, by this, is trying to simply ensure that no one does try to do something to your penis without your consent.

Exactly.

[Intellect and the Arts]

1. You're chopping off a part of a dude's junk! How is that not barbaric?
2. The procedure is not banned, merely the performance of the procedure without consent.

1. The barbaric nature or lack thereof in any given thing is entirely founded on perspective, emotional attachment, and personal bias. A thing cannot be proven one way or the other in relation to a purely emotional label. My question is if you find it to be so thoroughly abhorrent, why would you allow a grown man to do it? Is it not equally barbaric to you if an adult cuts off part of his own junk? If not, why the double standard? It's either evil or it isn't.
2. The procedure is required by religious, cultural, and often national mandate to be performed at infancy, so yes you're banning it. You are banning the practice.

[Nulono]

1. You're chopping off a part of a dude's junk! How is that not barbaric?
2. The procedure is not banned, merely the performance of the procedure without consent.

1. The barbaric nature or lack thereof in any given thing is entirely founded on perspective, emotional attachment, and personal bias. A thing cannot be proven one way or the other in relation to a purely emotional label. My question is if you find it to be so thoroughly abhorrent, why would you allow a grown man to do it? Is it not equally barbaric to you if an adult cuts off part of his own junk? If not, why the double standard? It's either evil or it isn't.
2. The procedure is required by religious, cultural, and often national mandate to be performed at infancy, so yes you're banning it. You are banning the practice.

1. The difference is consent.
2. Okay, in that context, yes. Religious freedom does not give you the right to mutilate someone else's junk.

[Intellect and the Arts]

1. The difference is consent.
2. Okay, in that context, yes. Religious freedom does not give you the right to mutilate someone else's junk.

1. I'm not going to go any further on that particular line of discussion due to personal issues with consent and when it does and does not qualify as a requirement/excuse for any behavior.

2. Now we're back to the definition of "mutilate". What alterations would you consider not to be mutilation?

[Wolny Kraj]

Rasputin!

[Wolny Kraj]

I am not sure about the consent thing. How about the person's parents if they are proven sane. (assuming that the person is too young or can't make a decision for themselves.) I was circumcised when I was a baby and I don't mind that my parents had the procedure done. It actually is good for male babies to have that because if the foreskin is left on it can become easily infected. (I really don't mean to be gross, but I am sharing my opinion. I hope that is understood.)