[ON HOLD] Repeal "Permit Male Cirumcision"

[Excidium Planetis]

You haven't been listening. Surgery for surgery's sake is pointless risk, and should be at the very least discouraged.

OOC:
What about surgery for medical purposes or surgery for the sake of the child's soul? What if the baby goes to Hell because it wasn't circumcised!?

In all seriousness, I highly doubt anyone says to themselves, "You know, I want my baby to have a pointless surgery... let's see, circumcision ought to do the trick!" Circumcision is nearly always performed for either medical reasons (and the benefits of such outweigh the risks) or for religious reasons, which might possibly be protected under other WA resolutions anyways and in any case are not "surgery for surgery's sake", but part of a very serious belief or cultural tradition for a lot of people in real life and NS.

It mentions that some have claimed circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, nothing more and nothing less. Also, the American Cancer Society says that "although the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that the health benefits of circumcision in newborn males outweigh the risks, it also states these benefits are not great enough to recommend that all newborns be routinely circumcised."

I don't think anyone is recommending that all newborns be routinely circumcised. Just that it be allowed, which is reasonable for a procedure whose benefits outweigh the risks.

Well, 117 babies die annually in the US due to circumcision.

That's a laughably low number, considering roughly 4 million babies are born each year in the US, and 77 percent of them (as of 2010) are circumcised. That's 3 million circumcisions a year, and only 117 infants died.

Meanwhile, 4.1 percent of uncircumcised males get a urinary tract infect in their first year of life. That's roughly 40,000 infections. The rate in circumcised males is only .2 percent, which is about 6,000 infections, but that means that circumcision prevents roughly 115,000 urinary tract infections in infants 0-1 years old every year. (source is cited here)

So, how many deaths does circumcision prevent? Unfortunately, it was very difficult to find a modern record of infant mortality rates due to Urinary tract infections, but one study in 1972 shows the mortality rate at 11% among both boys and girls, with boys having a higher rate of infection (source: link)That leads me to believe out of those 40,000 uncircumcised infants each year who develop urinary tract infections, as many as 4,000 of them could die.

That's not insignificant, especially to the parents.

Well, considering those parents agreed to have their kid circumcised...

As to how many lives have been "saved" due to circumcision, well you can't exactly prove that circumcision has saved anyone from cancer or STDs, since you would need to know how a circumcised child's life would have transpired if he had been uncircumcised instead.

You compare cancer rates among uncircumcised and circumcised males, take the total number of circumcised males, and figure out how many cases on average were prevented. It's fairly simple. I'm willing to bet the number of people whose cancer was statistically prevented is greater than 117 annually.

Babies come out headfirst. Do you know anything about childbirth?

I know enough to know what a breech birth is. And a Caesarian section.

OOC: The only single health-related thing that removing the foreskin can prevent, is cancer of the foreskin.

It might also reduce risk of prostrate cancer.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Circumcision is nearly always performed for either medical reasons (and the benefits of such outweigh the risks) or for religious reasons

OOC: If it's that way in the USA these days, then good, but at least a friend of mine who is half of a generation older than I am, told me that when he was a baby (early 70's), his foreskin was removed against the wishes of his mother (his father died before he was born), as a matter of fact, "because it's done to everyone". That's neither religious nor medical, and if you say "traditional", it's not like the WA hasn't banned/criminalized a lot of traditional things like female circumcision, slavery and marital rape.

And, again, I'm not debating ICly, because of how my ambassador would feel about this, but if you want, I can bring an RP account into this discussion.

Also, I'm for repealing a resolution that forces it to be permitted, but also for a new resolution that would leave it up to the nations to decide whether to permit it or not. If no-one else gets to that before I've cleared my schedule, I might have a go at it, to give repeal attempts a more solid ground.

[Sciongrad]

OOC:

...

Babies come out headfirst. Do you know anything about childbirth?

OOC: I don't mean this in a snarky way, but why do you talk with such authority on issues that you don't really know much about? Babies can and do come out bottom first about 1/20 of the time. This is not the first time you've been wrong after trying the shame another person this past week. It really hurts your credibility. If you're gonna be mean, at least be right.

[Klaxolia]

The Empire of Klaxolia supports said measure, for it will allow their glorious leader to do as he sees fit with the foreskin of every male citizen.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: If it's that way in the USA these days, then good, but at least a friend of mine who is half of a generation older than I am, told me that when he was a baby (early 70's), his foreskin was removed against the wishes of his mother (his father died before he was born), as a matter of fact, "because it's done to everyone". That's neither religious nor medical, and if you say "traditional", it's not like the WA hasn't banned/criminalized a lot of traditional things like female circumcision, slavery and marital rape.

Wait, wasn't Marital Rape Justice Act repealed?

Oh well, never mind. This is NS, so regardless of whether people are circumcised against their parent's consent in real life, we have laws about that in NS.

GA#29 Patient Rights Act is most applicable, I think:

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

And then it also says:

(VIII) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

So if your friend and his mother lived in a nation in the WA, his mother would be the "patient" and could refuse non-emergency treatment (which the circumcision is), and only a court issued statement saying that his mother is not legally competent would have allowed the circumcision to happen.

So yeah, in NS, it is probably true that nearly all circumcisions are done for medical or religious reasons. Existing WA legislation ensures that patients are informed about circumcision before undergoing it, and they can refuse circumcision. They would have to choose it after being informed of the benefits and risks, so I assume that they either chose it for the medical benefits or chose it for religious reasons in spite of the risks.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Circumcision is nearly always performed for either medical reasons (and the benefits of such outweigh the risks) or for religious reasons

OOC: If it's that way in the USA these days, then good, but at least a friend of mine who is half of a generation older than I am, told me that when he was a baby (early 70's), his foreskin was removed against the wishes of his mother (his father died before he was born), as a matter of fact, "because it's done to everyone". That's neither religious nor medical, and if you say "traditional", it's not like the WA hasn't banned/criminalized a lot of traditional things like female circumcision, slavery and marital rape.

And, again, I'm not debating ICly, because of how my ambassador would feel about this, but if you want, I can bring an RP account into this discussion.

Also, I'm for repealing a resolution that forces it to be permitted, but also for a new resolution that would leave it up to the nations to decide whether to permit it or not. If no-one else gets to that before I've cleared my schedule, I might have a go at it, to give repeal attempts a more solid ground.

OOC: The target resolution effectively grants nations this discretion. The regulation qualifier clearly indicates that a nation could completely prohibit it, if it so wished, for individuals below the age of majority.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Babies come out headfirst. Do you know anything about childbirth?

OOC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech_birth

That's an abnormality. Kind of like being born with a tail and horns.

In all seriousness, I highly doubt anyone says to themselves, "You know, I want my baby to have a pointless surgery... let's see, circumcision ought to do the trick!" Circumcision is nearly always performed for either medical reasons (and the benefits of such outweigh the risks) or for religious reasons, which might possibly be protected under other WA resolutions anyways and in any case are not "surgery for surgery's sake", but part of a very serious belief or cultural tradition for a lot of people in real life and NS.

Circumcisions are usually performed under the false belief that they provide substantial medical benefits.

I don't think anyone is recommending that all newborns be routinely circumcised. Just that it be allowed, which is reasonable for a procedure whose benefits outweigh the risks.

SoG would beg to differ.

That's a laughably low number, considering roughly 4 million babies are born each year in the US, and 77 percent of them (as of 2010) are circumcised. That's 3 million circumcisions a year, and only 117 infants died.

I'm glad that you find the deaths of 117 infants humorous.

Meanwhile, 4.1 percent of uncircumcised males get a urinary tract infect in their first year of life. That's roughly 40,000 infections. The rate in circumcised males is only .2 percent, which is about 6,000 infections, but that means that circumcision prevents roughly 115,000 urinary tract infections in infants 0-1 years old every year. (source is cited here)

This is nearly 20 year old data. It is older than I am. Medicine has come a long way since then.

So, how many deaths does circumcision prevent? Unfortunately, it was very difficult to find a modern record of infant mortality rates due to Urinary tract infections, but one study in 1972 shows the mortality rate at 11% among both boys and girls, with boys having a higher rate of infection (source: link)That leads me to believe out of those 40,000 uncircumcised infants each year who develop urinary tract infections, as many as 4,000 of them could die.

And, as you point out, that is 45 year old data. That's before the chickenpox vaccine. I really doubt that medicine has just stagnated in the last 45 years.

Well, considering those parents agreed to have their kid circumcised...

Or not, but that's a different conversation.

You compare cancer rates among uncircumcised and circumcised males, take the total number of circumcised males, and figure out how many cases on average were prevented. It's fairly simple. I'm willing to bet the number of people whose cancer was statistically prevented is greater than 117 annually.

Well, I'll wait for you to provide some modern data on that, then.

I know enough to know what a breech birth is. And a Caesarian section.

Then you should know that breech births are not normal.

It might also reduce risk of prostrate cancer.

You can also reduce the risk of prostate cancer by, for instance, eating fish, exercising, not smoking, and just having a positive attitude. None of those require non-consensual surgery.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I don't think anyone is recommending that all newborns be routinely circumcised. Just that it be allowed, which is reasonable for a procedure whose benefits outweigh the risks.

SoG would beg to differ.

OOC: Actually, EP is right. Recommendations and mandates are two different things. I thought we settled this debate?

Also, FYI, I had every intention of submitting that thing. Why it was ruled a joke is beyond me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, FYI, I had every intention of submitting that thing. Why it was ruled a joke is beyond me.

Do it.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Also, FYI, I had every intention of submitting that thing. Why it was ruled a joke is beyond me.

Do it.

As tempting as it is, it's SOP to pass a replacement after the repeal.

[Excidium Planetis]

Circumcisions are usually performed under the false belief that they provide substantial medical benefits.

You have yet to demonstrate that they do not provide substantial medical benefits, in spite of numerous studies showing that they do indeed provide medical benefits.

Meanwhile, 4.1 percent of uncircumcised males get a urinary tract infect in their first year of life. That's roughly 40,000 infections. The rate in circumcised males is only .2 percent, which is about 6,000 infections, but that means that circumcision prevents roughly 115,000 urinary tract infections in infants 0-1 years old every year. (source is cited here)

This is nearly 20 year old data. It is older than I am. Medicine has come a long way since then.

You are right. Medicine has come a long way. Additionally, antibiotic use has declined and antibiotics resistant strains have become more common. But, for your sake, here, a 2005 report from WHO states that in developed nations the urinary tract infection rate for males is 2.7%, with a 10-12 fold increase in infection rate for uncircumcised males. The rates appear to be even higher for developing nations. Additionally, the same data also mentions the declining sensitivity of bacterial strains to oral antibiotics.

The data shows that infection rates among uncircumcised males in developed nations, even in recent times, is still about the same as it was in the data I provided, and again, circumcision drastically reduces the risk of infection.

And, as you point out, that is 45 year old data. That's before the chickenpox vaccine. I really doubt that medicine has just stagnated in the last 45 years.

They had antibiotics then, and those are the primary treatment for childhood urinary tract infections. And again, antibiotic resistance has increased. The mortality rate in modern nations might have gone down, but unfortunately, I haven't seen any data to indicate it.

Additionally, need I remind you that not everyone has the privilege of receiving first class medical care in a modern hospital? There are developing nations in real life and in NS, and NS has the added factor of Past Tech nations which might not even have antibiotics. The mortality rate for UTIs in pre-antibiotic times is cited as 20% (cited in this article, unclear which text they are citing)

Well, I'll wait for you to provide some modern data on that, then.

Alright. A study shows reduced prostrate cancer risk of 15%. 2010-2014 data from the National Cancer Institute shows that there are about 161,000 new cases of prostrate cancer in the US yearly and almost 27,000 deaths. The math gets a little complicated since around 80% of all US males are circumcised and so we can expect most of those cases are circumcised males, but if the rate is slightly higher for uncircumcised males we can expect a slightly higher than proportional amount of uncircumcised male cases. Just some quick estimations without going into algebra, and I figure some 15% of around 5,000 deaths due to prostrate cancer alone might be prevented. That's more than 117. If you wanted, I could actually do the math and tell you how many deaths due to prostrate cancer could be prevented if all remaining uncircumcised males were circumcised, and about how many have been prevented by the current population being mostly circumcised, if that would get you to finally admit that more lives have likely been saved than the 117 lives lost due to circumcision.

Then you should know that breech births are not normal.

Neither are prenatal circumcisions. If a society was really attempting ridiculous partial birth circumcisions, I'm sure they would induce breech births on purpose.

You can also reduce the risk of prostate cancer by, for instance, eating fish, exercising, not smoking, and just having a positive attitude. None of those require non-consensual surgery.

Yeah, but the reduced risk was in a comparison of 3,400 males. I'm guessing a lot of them didn't smoke, ate fish, exercised, and had a positive attitude, but unless you want to say that for some bizarre reason circumcised men are more likely to do all those things, there was likely still a reduced risk on top of those other factors.

[Araraukar]

Wait, wasn't Marital Rape Justice Act repealed?

OOC: In which world? In NS we have GA #240, Sexual Autonomy Guarantee in the books.

And then it also says:

(VIII) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

Yeah, that's pretty much the bit I don't agree with, when it comes to medically unnecessary operations.

So yeah, in NS, it is probably true that nearly all circumcisions are done for medical or religious reasons.

Considering the playerbase, I kind of doubt that, even among the few nations that actually RP according to WA resolutions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So yeah, in NS, it is probably true that nearly all circumcisions are done for medical or religious reasons.

Considering the playerbase, I kind of doubt that, even among the few nations that actually RP according to WA resolutions.

Next up, Sapient Bris Scissors.

[Araraukar]

Next up, Sapient Bris Scissors.

OOC: *groan* Don't encourage those people.

[Excidium Planetis]

Next up, Sapient Bris Scissors.

OOC: *groan* Don't encourage those people.

"Those people"

Come on, we all know it's you, Mr. Potted Plants United.

[Araraukar]

"Those people"

Come on, we all know it's you, Mr. Potted Plants United.

OOC: Hey now, you pink unicorn princess you, I made PPU into a real, working RP nation, same with WAKK.

And that's what I mean with "those people"; the people who make parody accounts just to abandon them after making a post or two here. And no, I only have the four nations I've declared as mine. I know who one of the "those people" is, though...

[Landmines United]

"Those people"

Come on, we all know it's you, Mr. Potted Plants United.

OOC: Hey now, you pink unicorn princess you, I made PPU into a real, working RP nation, same with WAKK.

And that's what I mean with "those people"; the people who make parody accounts just to abandon them after making a post or two here. And no, I only have the four nations I've declared as mine. I know who one of the "those people" is, though...

Hey, you better watch your mouth! I'm well armed!

[Sapient Hammers United]

"Those people"

Come on, we all know it's you, Mr. Potted Plants United.

OOC: Hey now, you pink unicorn princess you, I made PPU into a real, working RP nation, same with WAKK.

And that's what I mean with "those people"; the people who make parody accounts just to abandon them after making a post or two here. And no, I only have the four nations I've declared as mine. I know who one of the "those people" is, though...

Do you now..?

[Tzorsland]

There are compelling reasons for banning female circumcision (no proven health benefits but a lot of negative consequences) and for legalizing male circumcision (substantial public health benefits with no proven negative consequences).

As someone once said, "there you go again." There is no such thing as "female circumcision." Let's call it what it is ... female Lorraine Bobbiting.

Now trying to be as nice about this as possible. There is this thing, it's called one thing with boys and another thing with girls and boys can urinate through theirs. Now there is this other thing that in boys covers the end of the thing and in girls surrounds the end of the thing.

Female Genital Mutilation chops off the first thing. If it merely trimmed off the later it would be far less of an issue.

Circumcision has minor benefits (really just wash that thing) and minor health consequences. If anyone were to suggest we mandate it I would be arguing against such a daft notion.

[States of Glory WA Office]

If anyone were to suggest we mandate it I would be arguing against such a daft notion.

Neville: You can't please everyone, I suppose.

[Aclion]

There are compelling reasons for banning female circumcision (no proven health benefits but a lot of negative consequences) and for legalizing male circumcision (substantial public health benefits with no proven negative consequences).

There is no such thing as "female circumcision." Let's call it what it is ... female Lorraine Bobbiting.

Now trying to be as nice about this as possible. There is this thing, it's called one thing with boys and another thing with girls and boys can urinate through theirs. Now there is this other thing that in boys covers the end of the thing and in girls surrounds the end of the thing.

Female Genital Mutilation chops off the first thing.

There are actually a variety of forms of female genital mutilation, I'd like to ask delegations to please do their research before taking the floor.

[Araraukar]

There are actually a variety of forms of female genital mutilation

Each one of which makes me wince. A lot.