[DRAFT] - Ban On Circumcision

[Marcianus]

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Noting the barbaric and undemocratic attack on human rights,

Calling for a ban on circumcision,

Hereby,

1. Defines;

a. A practice of surgically removing a males' foreskin.

b. A practice of surgically removing a female's clitoris and/or labia.

2. Prohibits the practice of circumcision.

3. Demands that any doctor or person who practices circumcision be fined and arrested.

4. Prohibits the government from enforcing or recommending circumcision.

5. Prohibits every instance of circumcision, unless there is absolute evidence of a current disease, such as phimosis, hiv, etc.

5. Call on the negative effects of circumcision, including:

a. Removing the 20,000 nerve endings that are inside the foreskin, which reduces sexual pleasure and orgasms.

b. Has few actual proven health benefits.

c. May result in rare complications, like cutting the foreskin too short or too long, poor healing, bleeding, infections, etc.

[United Sacredotia]

This draft conflicts with GA# 141 Permit Male Circumcision. Inasmuch as it deals with the female circumcision, it duplicates the GA #114 On Female Genital Mutilation. If you want for WA to ban male circumcision, you need to write a repeal of GA #141.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can't see what banning circumcision would do other than discriminate against people of the Jewish faith.

[The New California Republic]

I can't see what banning circumcision would do other than discriminate against people of the Jewish faith.

OOC: There are also medical reasons for circumcision, contrary to what the draft asserts, such as the treatment of Phimosis. Phimosis is a condition where the foreskin is too tight and can cause infections, and is treated with circumcision. A blanket ban would condemn men to suffer from a medical complaint that is easily treatable with circumcision.

EDIT: Just noticed clause 5 that allows for an exemption for treating medical conditions, but the wording seems to be a bit dismissive that any such medical conditions exist...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...EDIT: Just noticed clause 5 that allows for an exemption for treating medical conditions, but the wording seems to be a bit dismissive that any such medical conditions exist...

OOC: Its insistence on "current" disease would certainly prohibit the practice even as a precautionary measure against HIV (excuse me, VODAIS ) transmission in populations with high resistance to condom use. But as was already pointed out, this is completely moot unless and until GAR #141 goes away.

[Tinhampton]

Noting the barbaric and undemocratic attack on human rights

Bianca Venkman, Interim Assistant to the World Assembly (Jamie Williamson was befallen by a stroke this morning): OK... now what the actual fuck am I seeing here? You want to fight back against those fighting against human rights by fighting against human rights? I'm sorry, but none of us over here at Tinhampton's World Assembly Delegation can support this one, especially given the previously-highlined* illegalities.

*yes, that is a deliberate mistake on Venkman's part

[Marcianus]

I can't see what banning circumcision would do other than discriminate against people of the Jewish faith.

Right, because there's nothing wrong against mutilating your child's penis or vagina against their will.

/skip

[The New California Republic]

I can't see what banning circumcision would do other than discriminate against people of the Jewish faith.

Right, because there's nothing wrong against mutilating your child's penis or vagina against their will.

/skip

OOC: For medical reasons there is certainly nothing wrong with it.

Also, "/Skip"?? Seriously? This isn't F7. You aren't in Kansas anymore Dorothy...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I can't see what banning circumcision would do other than discriminate against people of the Jewish faith.

Not to mention Muslims. That's over a quarter of the world's population (if this were RW).

[Liberimery]

I can't see what banning circumcision would do other than discriminate against people of the Jewish faith.

Not to mention Muslims. That's over a quarter of the world's population (if this were RW).

And Christians which constitutes 1/3rd of the global population.

[The New California Republic]

Not to mention Muslims. That's over a quarter of the world's population (if this were RW).

And Christians which constitutes 1/3rd of the global population.

Uh...Christians don't routinely circumcise their kids...

[Tinfect]

Uh...Christians don't routinely circumcise their kids...

OOC:
In the 'States they sure as hell do.

[The New California Republic]

Uh...Christians don't routinely circumcise their kids...

OOC:
In the 'States they sure as hell do.

Not indicative of Christians in general.

[Liberimery]

OOC:
In the 'States they sure as hell do.

Not indicative of Christians in general.

OOC: The practice was established by Abraham who is considered the spiritual father of all three faiths. The New Testament does have a few lines about how Christians were no longer bound by some of the Jewish customs so there is debate among the sects as to its necessity. This was something that was taught in my Catholic school as practiced in Catholicism.

[New Gren Artle]

The decision of circumcision should be determined by the family only. The World Assembly should have no control over this matter. Also, this legislation discriminates against Jewish people.

[Podrovny]

Zladny: "I must admit my confusion. Is the position of this proposal that circumcision ought to be banned in part because it is undemocratic?"

[Kowani]

Manuel Renencarnč, Kowani ambassador to the WA stood up. Reaching into his pocket, he pulled out a dataslate. “I think the problem with circumcision is that it puts two commonly accepted human rights in conflict. The right of each person to be the master of their body (I’ll address the medical arguments later on), and the right to religious freedom. Now, let’s take a look at the first. Most of us would agree that a person could do what they want with their own body, until they start harming themselves, because I’m not addressing drugs right now. Let’s just work, as a baseline idea, that each person can do whatever they wish with their own body, with the exception of medical issues that occurr in childhood, where the parents are the authorities, although they can be superseded by doctors. Now, circumcision can actually have medical benefits, as the TNCR so kindly noted. However, it is undeniable that the Jewish practice of uhh... I hope I pronounce this correctly...metztitzah b'peh. carries a health risk.”

“Now, on the other hand, many religions, Judaism, Islam and certain branches of Christianity maintain that Circumcision is a vital part of their culture. I shall debate the theology later. Religion, as much as I personally despise it, is a right that everyone is entitled to, and as such it should be respected. This debate stems from a question of where that respect should stop, and where secularism should step in.”

“With that said, we come to the crux of this issue: Which right is stronger? Now that, members of tis hollowed institution, is something you must decide for yourselves. Although I must add one thing. I believe that Female Genital Mutilation is prohibited under the laws of the WA, and if it is not, I shall to draft a resolution. While I admit that it is not the same, as FGM is much more dangerous and offers no benefit, I wonder what about the removal of parts of the vagina triggers so much more rage than the removal of certain parts of the penis.”

[Prydania]

I believe that Female Genital Mutilation is prohibited under the laws of the WA, and if it is not, I shall to draft a resolution.

"It is, Ambassador. Perhaps familiarize yourself with the relevant WA resolutions before speaking on the subject."

While I admit that it is not the same, as FGM is much more dangerous and offers no benefit, I wonder what about the removal of parts of the vagina triggers so much more rage than the removal of certain parts of the penis.”

"You've answered your own query, Ambassador."

However, it is undeniable that the Jewish practice of uhh... I hope I pronounce this correctly...metztitzah b'peh. carries a health risk.”

"Not so much, Ambassador. I would note that your condescending tone towards a faith that would be impacted by this illegal resolution isn't helpful."

Religion, as much as I personally despise it...

"Your tact is lacking, Ambassador."

[Kowani]

I believe that Female Genital Mutilation is prohibited under the laws of the WA, and if it is not, I shall to draft a resolution.

"It is, Ambassador. Perhaps familiarize yourself with the relevant WA resolutions before speaking on the subject."

While I admit that it is not the same, as FGM is much more dangerous and offers no benefit, I wonder what about the removal of parts of the vagina triggers so much more rage than the removal of certain parts of the penis.”

"You've answered your own quarry, Ambassador."

However, it is undeniable that the Jewish practice of uhh... I hope I pronounce this correctly...metztitzah b'peh. carries a health risk.”

"Not so much, Ambassador. I would note that your condescending tone towards a faith that would be impacted by this illegal resolution isn't helpful."

Religion, as much as I personally despise it...

"Your tact is lacking, Ambassador."

“My point, Ambassador was that beyond the major health risks of FGM, one of the major reasons to oppose it is the violation of a woman’s right to bodily integrity. And yes, I realize that phrase is often linked to abortion, but that is a can of worms I think neither of us wants to open. However, male bodily integrity is very much violated during circumciscion, yet here the culture justifies it. I do not wish to see FGM legalized, nor do I wish to say that the two are comparable in scale and effects. Merely the ideological positions. Now, as for the health risks, would you like me to provide sources, or will rhetoric suffice?

You mentioned something about how the culture would be negatively impacted by the resolution.” “Ambassador, due to the smorgasbord of cultures here at the WA, I would be hard pressed to find a resolution that didn’t negatively affect one. (OOC: I’m not just referring to RP cultures either, I do mean it.) My time may be condescending, true. However, Ambassador, I believe that diplomacy helps nobody if everyone is bending over backwards until they can touch their heels to be useful to anyone. Avoid discrimination and racism, both in thought and speech, yes, but pointing out what one considers to be a bad part of a culture is not a crime.”

“I assume you consider the human sacrifices of the Aztecs to be negative, yet that was a cultural practice.

[Grays Harbor]

This draft conflicts with GA# 141 Permit Male Circumcision. Inasmuch as it deals with the female circumcision, it duplicates the GA #114 On Female Genital Mutilation. If you want for WA to ban male circumcision, you need to write a repeal of GA #141.

Please read the above quote. Particularly the links. This entire discussion is rather moot as long as the two above resolutions are on the books. That will not change until they are repealed, and good luck with that, as there will be considerable opposition.

[Naqil]

“I’m not even a WA member and I know that this proposal contradicts an already-existing resolution,” says Ixhua. “Fix that and then talk. I mean, you still won’t get my support, because to be honest I just don’t care that much, but since your definition doesn’t include superincision, you won’t get outright opposition from me either.”

[Prydania]

“My point, Ambassador was that beyond the major health risks of FGM, one of the major reasons to oppose it is the violation of a woman’s right to bodily integrity. And yes, I realize that phrase is often linked to abortion, but that is a can of worms I think neither of us wants to open. However, male bodily integrity is very much violated during circumciscion, yet here the culture justifies it. I do not wish to see FGM legalized, nor do I wish to say that the two are comparable in scale and effects. Merely the ideological positions.

"And that is where your argument falls flat in attempting to compare the two. The two procedures are, by your own admission, not comparable in scale and effect. That is why one is historically tolerated, and even wide-spread in some places, and one is almost universally shunned. They aren't the same, and therefore they aren't treated as the same."

Now, as for the health risks, would you like me to provide sources, or will rhetoric suffice?

"You claimed there were health risks, Ambassador. The benefits to male circumcision are well known. You admitted as such..."

Now, circumcision can actually have medical benefits, as the TNCR so kindly noted. However, it is undeniable that the Jewish practice of uhh... I hope I pronounce this correctly...metztitzah b'peh. carries a health risk.”

"You admit there are medical benefits. Now you move on to specifically target Jewish religious practices. First by insultingly pronouncing/misspelling the term 'metzitzah b'peh.' Which isn't even the proper term. The term you're looking for is "brit milah," which is the actual rite of circumcision. The metzitzah b'peh is part of the procedure that's actually fallen out of favour with a large number of Jews. I would suggest you learn the distinctions between the aspects of this religious ceremony before you try to argue it out to be barred."

"Regardless you claimed that 'it is undeniable that the Jewish practice of uhh... I hope I pronounce this correctly...metztitzah b'peh. carries a health risk.' It is actually you who are required to provide proof that there is a health risk. You made the claim, you're required to provide the evidence. That is how debate works, Ambassador. You don't just get to claim whatever you wish to claim and demand we take it at face value."

"Now I'm a generous person, and your lack of statistics is holding this conversation back. So consider this a gift. Of course any surgical procedure carries risks. Surgical complications as result of circumcision, be it religious or secular, are extremely low. Studies seem to indicate that complications arise in 0.2%-0.6% of cases.
Some studies even suggest that the average complication rate for circumcision performed by a physician is 0.19%. This falls to 0.13% if performed by a mohel, the religious official tasked with the procedure in the brit milah ceremony. And so the health risk you claim exists is very small."

http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=information_risk
http://www.circinfo.net/
http://www.aish.com/jl/l/b/Bris_Milah_B ... baric.html

You mentioned something about how the culture would be negatively impacted by the resolution.” “Ambassador, due to the smorgasbord of cultures here at the WA, I would be hard pressed to find a resolution that didn’t negatively affect one.

"This seems a dubious reason to go out of one's way outlaw a practice central to two major religions. The contempt you're willing to show to the very people whose cultures you are suggesting we assault is staggering."

“I assume you consider the human sacrifices of the Aztecs to be negative, yet that was a cultural practice.

"You previously attempted to compare male circumcision with FGM despite admitting that the scope and effects of the two are not compatible. Yet you still attempted to make the comparison. That was bad enough Ambassador. Now you're attempting to compare male circumcision with human sacrifice. This is getting into the realm of the absurd."

[Kowani]

“Ahem: From your very own study, the first one you provided me: Wound infection 0.01%. Although rare, this can be more common with Plastibell, if instruments are not sterilized adequately, or if in a ritual Jewish ceremony the mohel performs metzitza b' pe (the sucking of blood from the would by mouth - which can also lead to herpes simplex type 1 infection). Ambassador, what you seem to misunderstand is that I do not decry the entire ceremony of bris melah. You and I both agreed that it can have health benefits. I have an issue with the part of it which has a risk of herpes, the metzitza b’pe. That is not a surgical complication, that is risk taking for the sake of culture. That is what I have an issue with. You say that most Jews do not do this. However, Ambassador, it is part of the ceremony, and this part right here is my main issue with it. I do not support a universal ban on circumcision. I would prefer, however, if this part of the ceremony was banned.”

“Now, you wanted sources. You may have some: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 9.full.pdf

“Now, since you seem intent on dancing around my point, I shall explain. I do not mean to claim that human sacrifice, FGM, or circumcision are the same thing. Not at all. That is both intellectually dishonest and disrespectful to those who suffered those treatments. The point, I was trying to make. Ambassador, was that harmful cultural practices do not get a pass merely because they are part of a culture. My point, is that circumcision violates the right to bodily integrity. I do not care whether this benefits or hurts a religion, and unless a resolution appears attempting to ban religion outright, or allow discrimination because of it, I suspect it will be hard for me to care. And that, Ambassador, is where you fall short. FGM And Circumcision are not a 1 to 1 comparison, at least on the level of medical effects. However, in the issue of bodily integrity, they most certainly raise similar concerns.”

Should circumcision be done when medically necessary? Of course! Does circumcision have some benefits? Again, yes? Does the sucking of blood have any medical benefits? No, absolutely not. Does circumcision violate bodily integrity? Absolutely. And that, Ambassador, was the point I was trying to make.

[Prydania]

“Ahem: From your very own study, the first one you provided me: Wound infection 0.01%. Although rare, this can be more common with Plastibell, if instruments are not sterilized adequately, or if in a ritual Jewish ceremony the mohel performs metzitza b' pe (the sucking of blood from the would by mouth - which can also lead to herpes simplex type 1 infection). Ambassador, what you seem to misunderstand is that I do not decry the entire ceremony of bris melah. You and I both agreed that it can have health benefits. I have an issue with the part of it which has a risk of herpes, the metzitza b’pe. That is not a surgical complication, that is risk taking for the sake of culture. That is what I have an issue with. You say that most Jews do not do this. However, Ambassador, it is part of the ceremony, and this part right here is my main issue with it. I do not support a universal ban on circumcision. I would prefer, however, if this part of the ceremony was banned.”

“Now, you wanted sources. You may have some: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 9.full.pdf

“Your own argument and sources confirm that the risks for such a procedure are incredibly slim. Forgive me, but this seems insufficient to justify outlawing a central tenant of a relieous ceremony.”

“Now, since you seem intent on dancing around my point, I shall explain. I do not mean to claim that human sacrifice, FGM, or circumcision are the same thing. Not at all. That is both intellectually dishonest and disrespectful to those who suffered those treatments. The point, I was trying to make. Ambassador, was that harmful cultural practices do not get a pass merely because they are part of a culture. My point, is that circumcision violates the right to bodily integrity. I do not care whether this benefits or hurts a religion, and unless a resolution appears attempting to ban religion outright, or allow discrimination because of it, I suspect it will be hard for me to care. And that, Ambassador, is where you fall short. FGM And Circumcision are not a 1 to 1 comparison, at least on the level of medical effects. However, in the issue of bodily integrity, they most certainly raise similar concerns.”

Should circumcision be done when medically necessary? Of course! Does circumcision have some benefits? Again, yes? Does the sucking of blood have any medical benefits? No, absolutely not. Does circumcision violate bodily integrity? Absolutely. And that, Ambassador, was the point I was trying to make.

“Ambassador, I know the point you were trying to make. My point is that any attempt to compare male circumcision to human sacrifice or FGM is absurd. Your assertion that they are equivalent in any way in terms of bodily autonomy is undercut by the very obvious fact that these are not the same by any stretch of the imagination.”

“I am not dancing around your point. I just find your overly-pedantic argument absurd when it attempts to use FGM and human sacrifice to argue in favour of outlawing a religeous ceremony whose complication rate is incredibly low.”

“I truly don’t care how much you resent religion Ambassador. The fact is that the WA does not confirm to your beliefs in that regard. As it stands? Male circumcision is protected by WA resolution. So continue wasting breath if you must. This proposal is dead upon arrival.”

[Kowani]

“Ahem: From your very own study, the first one you provided me: Wound infection 0.01%. Although rare, this can be more common with Plastibell, if instruments are not sterilized adequately, or if in a ritual Jewish ceremony the mohel performs metzitza b' pe (the sucking of blood from the would by mouth - which can also lead to herpes simplex type 1 infection). Ambassador, what you seem to misunderstand is that I do not decry the entire ceremony of bris melah. You and I both agreed that it can have health benefits. I have an issue with the part of it which has a risk of herpes, the metzitza b’pe. That is not a surgical complication, that is risk taking for the sake of culture. That is what I have an issue with. You say that most Jews do not do this. However, Ambassador, it is part of the ceremony, and this part right here is my main issue with it. I do not support a universal ban on circumcision. I would prefer, however, if this part of the ceremony was banned.”

“Now, you wanted sources. You may have some: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 9.full.pdf

“Your own argument and sources confirm that the risks for such a procedure are incredibly slim. Forgive me, but this seems insufficient to justify outlawing a central tenant of a relieous ceremony.”

“Now, since you seem intent on dancing around my point, I shall explain. I do not mean to claim that human sacrifice, FGM, or circumcision are the same thing. Not at all. That is both intellectually dishonest and disrespectful to those who suffered those treatments. The point, I was trying to make. Ambassador, was that harmful cultural practices do not get a pass merely because they are part of a culture. My point, is that circumcision violates the right to bodily integrity. I do not care whether this benefits or hurts a religion, and unless a resolution appears attempting to ban religion outright, or allow discrimination because of it, I suspect it will be hard for me to care. And that, Ambassador, is where you fall short. FGM And Circumcision are not a 1 to 1 comparison, at least on the level of medical effects. However, in the issue of bodily integrity, they most certainly raise similar concerns.”

Should circumcision be done when medically necessary? Of course! Does circumcision have some benefits? Again, yes? Does the sucking of blood have any medical benefits? No, absolutely not. Does circumcision violate bodily integrity? Absolutely. And that, Ambassador, was the point I was trying to make.

“Ambassador, I know the point you were trying to make. My point is that any attempt to compare male circumcision to human sacrifice or FGM is absurd. Your assertion that they are equivalent in any way in terms of bodily autonomy is undercut by the very obvious fact that these are not the same by any stretch of the imagination.”

“I am not dancing around your point. I just find your overly-pedantic argument absurd when it attempts to use FGM and human sacrifice to argue in favour of outlawing a religeous ceremony whose complication rate is incredibly low.”

“I truly don’t care how much you resent religion Ambassador. The fact is that the WA does not confirm to your beliefs in that regard. As it stands? Male circumcision is protected by WA resolution. So continue wasting breath if you must. This proposal is dead upon arrival.”

If it is a central tenant, then why, by your own admission, is it barely practiced? After all, a central tenant is not something that can be so easily abandoned. About your idea that it has low risks of happening, even something with low risks is still inherently risky, and most of the time, we have laws set in place to prevent those risks. It is why we teach people what to do in a thunderstorm. The risks of being struck by lightning are small, but they are not nonexistent.

If the only metric you use is medical effects, then no, they are not the same. Fortunately, we have multiple metrics for judging of such things. Allow me to propose a hypothetical. If their was a religion that required its members to tattoo their children, what your opinion be?

Now, I agree with you in that this entire debate is moot, because GA 141 exists. So unless that is repealed, this entire thing is somewhat pointless.