NationStates

Draft 1.2
The World Assembly,

Understanding the ethnic and religious roots of the process of male circumcision, which includes the surgical removal of all or most of the foreskin, whilst respecting a nation's choice to allow it,

Realizing, however, that many cultures if given the choice would choose not to enact such a procedure as can be seen by the multitude of non-member nations where circumcision is considered taboo,

Decrying this removal of cultural and societal autonomy through GAR #141 enforcing the cultural practice of circumcision onto all member nations regardless of their differing social or moral standards,

Taking issue with the classification of circumcision as a wholly medical procedure, as the accessibility of alternative methods of treatment both surgical and non-surgical in many nations greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, indicating it is more of a cultural and cosmetic procedure no longer completely necessary as the only treatment for certain penile ailments,

Knowing that many member nations would prefer this largely cultural and cosmetic operation to only be conducted by consenting adults, some even going as far to call mass infant circumcision male genital mutilation, though nearly all agree it is a lesser evil than its female counterpart,

Believing that we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others and that it should be every nation’s right to legislate freely on this topic as they see fit,

Hereby repeals GAR #141, ‘Permit Male Circumcision’.

"For future reference, I have no plan on outlawing circumcision in this Assembly. I would oppose any further legislation on the topic."

Bakhton wrote:The World Assembly,

Understanding the ethnic and religious roots of the process of male circumcision, which includes the surgical removal of all or most of the foreskin,

Realizing, however, that many cultures if given the choice would choose not to enact such a procedure as can be seen by the multitude of non-member nations where circumcision is considered taboo,

Decrying this removal of cultural and societal autonomy through GAR #141 enforcing the cultural practice of circumcision onto all member nations regardless of their differing social or moral standards,

Taking issue with the classification of circumcision as a wholly medical procedure, as the accessibility of soap and running water in many nations greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, indicating it is more of a cultural and cosmetic procedure,

Believing that we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others,

Hereby repeals GAR #141, ‘Permit Male Circumcision’.

Forgive me if I am wrong in my understanding of this resolution, but it doesn't FORCE men to get circumcised, does it? In the same way that resolutions #128 and #286 don't FORCE women to have abortions, this doesn't waltz every male into a clinic and whip off a bit of their willy?

It takes the decision out of the hands of the state and puts it in the hands of the individual. Which is where something like this (a religious and/or medical decision) should be.

Why would you want to take it out of the hands of the people, and put the choice back into the hands of the state, potentially allowing THEM to take the choice out of the hands of the people?

Covenstone wrote:Why would you want to take it out of the hands of the people, and put the choice back into the hands of the state, potentially allowing THEM to take the choice out of the hands of the people?

OOC: It says all nations must allow circumcision, which, in effect allows infant circumcisions which don't involve patient's consent to a cultural and cosmetic procedure. "OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure." Regulation of the procedure is not regulation of when it is and is not allowed. Thus someone can immigrate to a foreign country adopt a child get it circumcised against that nations wishes and cultural norms. This would also be very destructive of a child's self esteem, in being different.

Edit: However, the precedent this mandates on all nations is by its very nature an affront to their social and cultural autonomy for a rather non essential and cosmetic procedure.

Bakhton wrote:Realizing, however, that many cultures if given the choice would choose not to enact such a procedure as can be seen by the multitude of non-member nations where circumcision is considered taboo,

"How do the preferences of non-members say anything about the preferences of WA member nations?"

Decrying this removal of cultural and societal autonomy through GAR #141 enforcing the cultural practice of circumcision onto all member nations regardless of their differing social or moral standards,

"Yawn. Another NatSov argument. You aren't required to promote or require circumcision; only to permit it. Ambassadors these days seem to be having trouble telling the difference between those two concepts."

Taking issue with the classification of circumcision as a wholly medical procedure, as the accessibility of soap and running water in many nations greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, indicating it is more of a cultural and cosmetic procedure,

"Even if soap and water works as well as circumcision in preventing UTIs, what about phimosis, balanoposthitis, and HIV?"

Believing that we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others,

"The only thing being enforced on others is respect for the cultures that practice circumcision and anyone who chooses to have it done for non-cultural reasons."

Hereby repeals GAR #141, ‘Permit Male Circumcision’.

"Opposed. We will vote against this if it ever comes to that."

Bakhton wrote:

Covenstone wrote:Why would you want to take it out of the hands of the people, and put the choice back into the hands of the state, potentially allowing THEM to take the choice out of the hands of the people?

OOC: It says all nations must allow circumcision, which, in effect allows infant circumcisions which don't involve patient's consent to a cultural and cosmetic procedure. "OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure." Regulation of the procedure is not regulation of when it is and is not allowed. Thus someone can immigrate to a foreign country adopt a child get it circumcised against that nations wishes and cultural norms. This would also be very destructive of a child's self esteem, in being different.

Edit: However, the precedent this mandates on all nations is by its very nature an affront to their social and cultural autonomy for a rather non essential and cosmetic procedure.

<ooc>I do not like replying out of character. It drags things into the real world that should not be dragged into the real world and forces my actual views into play when my actual views have very little baring on this subject because this is a fictional issue in a fictional universe. So because of that, I am going to revert to being Albertine, even if it is very bad form to reply in character to an out of character comment.</ooc>

(in character). So what?

Phydios wrote:Even if soap and water works as well as circumcision in preventing UTIs, what about phimosis, balanoposthitis, and HIV?"

OOC: I dont know why don't you ask the rest of the world how they got on with foreskins.

EDIT: Also in both those articles you listed there's nonsurgical methods of treatment, and surgical methods not involving circumcision. Repealing this wouldn't end circumcision.

Covenstone wrote:

Bakhton wrote:
OOC: It says all nations must allow circumcision, which, in effect allows infant circumcisions which don't involve patient's consent to a cultural and cosmetic procedure. "OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure." Regulation of the procedure is not regulation of when it is and is not allowed. Thus someone can immigrate to a foreign country adopt a child get it circumcised against that nations wishes and cultural norms. This would also be very destructive of a child's self esteem, in being different.

Edit: However, the precedent this mandates on all nations is by its very nature an affront to their social and cultural autonomy for a rather non essential and cosmetic procedure.

<ooc>I do not like replying out of character. It drags things into the real world that should not be dragged into the real world and forces my actual views into play when my actual views have very little baring on this subject because this is a fictional issue in a fictional universe. So because of that, I am going to revert to being Albertine, even if it is very bad form to reply in character to an out of character comment.</ooc>

(in character). So what?

OOC: Sorry, I thought you were speaking OOC.

IC: "Well, we shouldn't enforce a cultural preference of one culture and force it to be allowed everywhere. That's like saying we must allow lip plates in all nations, because some want them. It's frankly ridiculous."

Phydios wrote:"How do the preferences of non-members say anything about the preferences of WA member nations?"

"Non-member nations are nations like member nations, and their cultural diversity implies member nations cultural diversity."

Phydios wrote:"Even if soap and water works as well as circumcision in preventing UTIs, what about phimosis, balanoposthitis, and HIV?"

Well firstly just any soap isn't preferred, generally soap with a neutral pH is best, as it's much less likely to cause any imbalances or harm to the parts underneath the foreskin. Using soap generally screws with its natural functioning a bit.

Phimosis doesn't mean you have to chop off your foreskin. With some proper stretching exercises, lotions, as well as less damaging medical procedures if that doesn't work, phimosis can be resolved.

Balanoposthitis, even in your link, isn't exclusive to foreskins and can be helped by cleaning (not too little, not too much).

Foreskins contributing to HIV is a crock of shit. If that were the case, HIV would be raging all over Europe. But even then, I mean it's pretty common sense, if you stick your noodle into someone with HIV, you're probably going to get HIV regardless of how much skin you have on said noodle.

NeuPolska wrote:

Phydios wrote:"Even if soap and water works as well as circumcision in preventing UTIs, what about phimosis, balanoposthitis, and HIV?"

Well firstly just any soap isn't preferred, generally soap with a neutral pH is best, as it's much less likely to cause any imbalances or harm to the parts underneath the foreskin. Using soap generally screws with its natural functioning a bit.

"Updated to include more accurate information."

OOC: I will support this in its current form.

Bakhton wrote:"For future reference, I have no plan on outlawing circumcision in this Assembly. I would oppose any further legislation on the topic."

"While we do believe that you would not move on to try and propose a ban after the repeal, there is the issue of of the assembly having to deal with such proposals created by others. From our reading of the resolution in question, the driving force of it's creation was in response to such attempts at passing a ban. Furthermore we do not believe the resolution in question creates an undue burden on assembly member states."

Bakhton wrote:

Covenstone wrote:
<ooc>I do not like replying out of character. It drags things into the real world that should not be dragged into the real world and forces my actual views into play when my actual views have very little baring on this subject because this is a fictional issue in a fictional universe. So because of that, I am going to revert to being Albertine, even if it is very bad form to reply in character to an out of character comment.</ooc>

(in character). So what?

OOC: Sorry, I thought you were speaking OOC.

IC: "Well, we shouldn't enforce a cultural preference of one culture and force it to be allowed everywhere. That's like saying we must allow lip plates in all nations, because some want them. It's frankly ridiculous."

<ooc>(grin) I get that a lot, but generally unless I specifically mark it so, everything I write I write as Albertine, because my real life views have very little to do with this.</ooc>

(ic)

I'm still not sure I understand your argument. The resolution forces nations to permit it. It does not force them to (for want of a better word) force it on the male population. With this resolution in place, I am not required to take every male child born in Covenstone and chop a bit off their dangly bits, at least I don't think I am. However, should the parents believe it is best for their child, or should a grown man decide to go through with the procedure/operation/ritual/whatever you want to call it, then they are free to do so.

If this resolution is repealed, then, conceivably, every nation in The WA could ban it (I am not suggesting a resolution would be drafted to do so, but without a resolution to prevent it, you would agree such a situation could arise, yes?) And so the parents and/or grown men who want to do this would be unable to because it would be against the law, and their cultural/medical/whatever requirements would be being run roughshod over by a tyrannical government.

This is a matter of personal choice. Personal choice for the parents, or for the man. I don't think it is something governments should be interfering with, and therefore I think it is something that The WA should be required to enforce the governments to allow.

In the same way that if my government (were I not the leader of it) decided to ban skirts for women, I would probably appeal to The WA to require a resolution to hand that decision back to the people, instead of the government. Because it is a choice for the person, not the state.

OOC: Definitely OOC support. A new version should be written that would let nations decide if they want to allow this form of baby mutilation.

Bakhton wrote:Draft 1.2
The World Assembly,

Understanding the ethnic and religious roots of the process of male circumcision, which includes the surgical removal of all or most of the foreskin, whilst respecting a nation's choice to allow it,

Realizing, however, that many cultures if given the choice would choose not to enact such a procedure as can be seen by the multitude of non-member nations where circumcision is considered taboo,

Decrying this removal of cultural and societal autonomy through GAR #141 enforcing the cultural practice of circumcision onto all member nations regardless of their differing social or moral standards,

Taking issue with the classification of circumcision as a wholly medical procedure, as the accessibility of alternative methods of treatment both surgical and non-surgical in many nations greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, indicating it is more of a cultural and cosmetic procedure no longer completely necessary as the only treatment for certain penile ailments,

Knowing that many member nations would prefer this largely cultural and cosmetic operation to only be conducted by consenting adults, some even going as far to call mass infant circumcision male genital mutilation, though nearly all agree it is a lesser evil than its female counterpart,

Believing that we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others and that it should be every nation’s right to legislate freely on this topic as they see fit,

Hereby repeals GAR #141, ‘Permit Male Circumcision’.

Draft 1.1
The World Assembly,

Understanding the ethnic and religious roots of the process of male circumcision, which includes the surgical removal of all or most of the foreskin, whilst respecting a nation's choice to allow it,

Realizing, however, that many cultures if given the choice would choose not to enact such a procedure as can be seen by the multitude of non-member nations where circumcision is considered taboo,

Decrying this removal of cultural and societal autonomy through GAR #141 enforcing the cultural practice of circumcision onto all member nations regardless of their differing social or moral standards,

Taking issue with the classification of circumcision as a wholly medical procedure, as the accessibility of alternative methods of treatment both surgical and non-surgical in many nations greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, indicating it is more of a cultural and cosmetic procedure no longer completely necessary as the only treatment for certain penile ailments,

Believing that we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others,

Hereby repeals GAR #141, ‘Permit Male Circumcision’.

The World Assembly,

Understanding the ethnic and religious roots of the process of male circumcision, which includes the surgical removal of all or most of the foreskin,

Realizing, however, that many cultures if given the choice would choose not to enact such a procedure as can be seen by the multitude of non-member nations where circumcision is considered taboo,

Decrying this removal of cultural and societal autonomy through GAR #141 enforcing the cultural practice of circumcision onto all member nations regardless of their differing social or moral standards,

Taking issue with the classification of circumcision as a wholly medical procedure, as the accessibility of soap and running water in many nations greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, indicating it is more of a cultural and cosmetic procedure,

Believing that we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others,

Hereby repeals GAR #141, ‘Permit Male Circumcision’.

"For future reference, I have no plan on outlawing circumcision in this Assembly. I would oppose any further legislation on the topic."

Sarcasm Alert: "In total support. In fact, if this passes, making "not enforcing our arbitrary cultural norms on others" precedent, then I would be able to repeal Reproductive Freedoms on the exact same logic. Oh, right: the WA apparently cares more about a baby's foreskin than its life. "

"But tell me, seriously, how could this same logic not be applied to a repeal of any resolution (ie. Reproductive Freedoms)? If abortion is considered taboo in many nations, why should GAR#286 remain on the book? I'm not trying to hijack this discussion in any way, but this logic doesn't justify the repeal of a resolution, yet it seems to be your only argument--a NatSov one. Not even I did that. Opposed."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Definitely OOC support. A new version should be written that would let nations decide if they want to allow this form of baby mutilation.

So your totally fine with preventing people from practicing their religion in a totally harmless way? Wow.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Definitely OOC support. A new version should be written that would let nations decide if they want to allow this form of baby mutilation.

So your totally fine with preventing people from practicing their religion in a totally harmless way? Wow.

OOC: Mutilating children, thereby risking infection and death, for the purpose of reducing future sexual pleasure, is not "harmless".

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Mutilating children, thereby risking infection and death, for the purpose of reducing future sexual pleasure, is not "harmless".

OOC: Considering that [as an example] the Jews have been practicing male circumcision for more than 2'00 years (and probably over 3'000 years), and not only haven't died out as a result or [despite historically being male-dominated culturally] abandoned the practice, and -- at least in recent centuries -- seem not to suffer from a serious imbalance in numbers between males & females, it seems unlikely to be harmful at a statistical level. So, maybe most cases of "infection and death" that are attributed to this practice occur in individuals with weaker-than-average immune systems [or other innate health problems] who would probable have suffered "infection and death" from one cause or another at comparable ages anyway?

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Mutilating children, thereby risking infection and death, for the purpose of reducing future sexual pleasure, is not "harmless".

OOC: My argument for letting nations ban it stops at "mutilating children". Infection and death were fairly rare even in Ye Olden Days.

United Massachusetts wrote:So your totally fine with preventing people from practicing their religion in a totally harmless way? Wow.

You should know by now that I'd be totally fine with banning all organized religions.

But more seriously, a "totally harmless way" does not include knives and removing pieces of humans.

Wallenburg wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:So your totally fine with preventing people from practicing their religion in a totally harmless way? Wow.

OOC: Mutilating children, thereby risking infection and death, for the purpose of reducing future sexual pleasure, is not "harmless".

Would you apply this same logic to other controversial practices related to medicine? Abortion, like circumcision, also risks infection and death (to the mother; I'm not even talking about the baby to avoid going down that rabbit trail), and like circumcision, it is very commonly performed when not medically necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember you being a proponent of abortion despite the risks. If you're going to support a resolution that says "we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others and it should be every nation’s right to legislate freely on this topic as they see fit", how does that fit with your support of abortion but not circumcision? To prevent a threadjack, you could just answer this question: in your view, what distinguishes circumcision from abortion?

Bell sits there and puzzles at his conundrum. On one hand, supporting this would enrage religious groups the world around, and this pleased him. On the other hand, opposing this would enrage fluffies the world over, which also pleased him. It was a conundrum, indeed, coupled with his innate dislike of change. If only there was a way to upset both sides at once., he thought to himself.

"Damn, where's Chester when you need him? The C.D.S.P. has no care for the inyernational status of circumcision, so long as it is neither mandated nor banned. Such would be an unnecessary international action unworthy of international attention. We can't agree on basic humanitarian law have the time, but we can address baby wangs," Bell mutters the end to himself.

"As such, my vote is for sale. That seems the most fair way to resolve this. Payment will be in the form of opposing ambassadors tears. There. Justice be done!"

Separatist Peoples wrote:"As such, my vote is for sale. That seems the most fair way to resolve this. Payment will be in the form of opposing ambassadors tears. There. Justice be done!"

Harold: I'll give you two cream pies in exchange for an 'Against' vote.

Fairburn: No, no. Vote 'For' and I'll give you $1000 of Monopoly money.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Damn, where's Chester when you need him? The C.D.S.P. has no care for the inyernational status of circumcision, so long as it is neither mandated nor banned. Such would be an unnecessary international action unworthy of international attention. We can't agree on basic humanitarian law have the time, but we can address baby wangs," Bell mutters the end to himself.

"As such, my vote is for sale. That seems the most fair way to resolve this. Payment will be in the form of opposing ambassadors tears. There. Justice be done!"

(Ari nods at Ahume; Ahume nods at Ari. Ari then approaches Bell. He spends a moment, apparently trying to find the right words to say, but gives up, and wraps his arms around the Separatist ambassador.)

ARI: That was beautiful. I've missed you so much, my friend. (As he sniffles, Ahume hands Ari a tissue. Ari blows his nose with one hand.) Thank you. Oh, by the way, we're opposed to any repeal of this resolution.

(Ari winks at Bell, and hopes that he notices the very small, untra-lightweight vial of pure latinum that's now in Bell's pocket.)

Araraukar wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Mutilating children, thereby risking infection and death, for the purpose of reducing future sexual pleasure, is not "harmless".

OOC: My argument for letting nations ban it stops at "mutilating children". Infection and death were fairly rare even in Ye Olden Days.

United Massachusetts wrote:So your totally fine with preventing people from practicing their religion in a totally harmless way? Wow.

You should know by now that I'd be totally fine with banning all organized religions.

But more seriously, a "totally harmless way" does not include knives and removing pieces of humans.

The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... d-than-not

Bears Armed wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Mutilating children, thereby risking infection and death, for the purpose of reducing future sexual pleasure, is not "harmless".

OOC: Considering that [as an example] the Jews have been practicing male circumcision for more than 2'00 years (and probably over 3'000 years), and not only haven't died out as a result or [despite historically being male-dominated culturally] abandoned the practice, and -- at least in recent centuries -- seem not to suffer from a serious imbalance in numbers between males & females, it seems unlikely to be harmful at a statistical level. So, maybe most cases of "infection and death" that are attributed to this practice occur in individuals with weaker-than-average immune systems [or other innate health problems] who would probable have suffered "infection and death" from one cause or another at comparable ages anyway?

Considering that the human race has suffered from influenza, diahreaa, tuberculosis, dysentry, smallpox, typhoid, and so on for thousands of years and still survives, I'd say that making the argument "X people still exist, so they didn't get infections" is pretty weak.

Phydios wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Mutilating children, thereby risking infection and death, for the purpose of reducing future sexual pleasure, is not "harmless".

Would you apply this same logic to other controversial practices related to medicine? Abortion, like circumcision, also risks infection and death (to the mother; I'm not even talking about the baby to avoid going down that rabbit trail), and like circumcision, it is very commonly performed when not medically necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember you being a proponent of abortion despite the risks. If you're going to support a resolution that says "we should not enforce our arbitrary cultural norms on others and it should be every nation’s right to legislate freely on this topic as they see fit", how does that fit with your support of abortion but not circumcision? To prevent a threadjack, you could just answer this question: in your view, what distinguishes circumcision from abortion?

Abortion usually has the consent of the patient. Circumcision usually does not.