NationStates

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

RECOGNIZING that there may always be medical circumstances that require that male circumcision must be performed.

COMMENDS that the current resolution does make it mandatory for the procedure to be performed by a trained medical professional in a clean and sterile environment, removing the potential for it to be performed by religious leaders without anaesthesia outside of a medical setting.

BELIEVING that forcing WA nations to allow unnecessary medical procedures on male newborns, babies, and toddlers for religious and societal reasons does not allow individual nations to protect children from potential harm. Circumcision is a surgical procedure, and understanding that every surgical procedure carries some inherent risk, by forcing WA nations to allow it, the WA is forcing nations to allow minor's to be put at risk of surgical complications for a non medically necessary procedure.

AFFIRMING THAT the goal of this repeal is not to ban male circumcision for all WA nations, but to allow each WA nation to make their own choice in regards to its availability and access within their borders.

ACKNOWLEDGING that male circumcision is a longstanding cultural tradition in some parts of the world, but ASSERTING that cultural or religious identity or tradition is wholly inadequate justification for forcing WA nations to allow the unnecessary altering of a minor's sexual organs without their consent.

It is my intent to submit this proposal to repeal WA resolution 141 that currently forces all WA nations to allow male circumcision.

Palsada wrote:
SHOCKED that the current resolution does not make it mandatory for the procedure to be performed by a trained medical professional in a clean and sterile environment, leaving the potential for it to be performed by religious leaders without anaesthesia outside of a medical setting.

The target resolution states 'DECLARES male circumcision to be a medical procedure, and entitles patients undergoing male circumcision to all the protections associated with that status'. This should account for your concerns.

The New Nordic Union wrote:

Palsada wrote:
SHOCKED that the current resolution does not make it mandatory for the procedure to be performed by a trained medical professional in a clean and sterile environment, leaving the potential for it to be performed by religious leaders without anaesthesia outside of a medical setting.

The target resolution states 'DECLARES male circumcision to be a medical procedure, and entitles patients undergoing male circumcision to all the protections associated with that status'. This should account for your concerns.

duly noted. Will ammend that section.

“Whilst this is one of the better attempts, and there have been many, more-reasoned repeals done by more experienced author have failed, giving the target resolution a very low chance of ever being removed in the near future. This is a good draft though, so I recommend you stick around, but 141 is here to stay.”

“If you do intend to continue drafting, ‘minors’ should be ‘minor’s’ in the last clause.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Whilst this is one of the better attempts, and there have been many, more-reasoned repeals done by more experienced author have failed, giving the target resolution a very low chance of ever being removed in the near future. This is a good draft though, so I recommend you stick around, but 141 is here to stay.”

“If you do intend to continue drafting, ‘minors’ should be ‘minor’s’ in the last clause.”

I thank you for your input, hopefully I can make this one convincing enough to pass.

I will ammend the last clause as per your suggestion.

"Arasi Luvasa is very much opposed, the practice as implemented under this law reduces the already low chances of complications. With proper medical surgery, the risk approaches nothing. From what I have heard though, circumcision later in life can be more of a memorably painful experience. Circumcision being a performed in a medical setting is already a compromise for both sides and I don't think the negligible risk is a good reason to trample over individuals religious traditions."

Arasi Luvasa wrote:"Arasi Luvasa is very much opposed, the practice as implemented under this law reduces the already low chances of complications. With proper medical surgery, the risk approaches nothing. From what I have heard though, circumcision later in life can be more of a memorably painful experience. Circumcision being a performed in a medical setting is already a compromise for both sides and I don't think the negligible risk is a good reason to trample over individuals religious traditions."

I respect your opinion on the matter, but disagree with the need for this legislation.

As it stands, you are correct, in a proper medical setting the risk is very low. But measured against that, the risk is not, and can never be zero, for all surgical procedures carry some form of risk.

So to measure that risk versus the justification of the surgery in the first place, which are largely for cosmetic/religious reasons, and it should be up to individual nations on how to deal with with the moral implications of male circumcision.

This legislation as it is currently structured is a overreach. Forcing every single WA region to allow it when they may or may not agree with it severely restricts the choice for nations surrounding this complicating moral issue.

Again, this is not a repeal to ban Male circumcision in every nation, simply to allow the ability of every nation to choose for themselves.

Palsada wrote: [...]Again, this is not a repeal to ban Male circumcision in every nation, simply to allow the ability of every nation to choose for themselves.

The problem here being, with the concerns about safety gone, you are veering dangerously in the direction of a NatSov only repeal, which is illegal.

Palsada wrote:

Arasi Luvasa wrote:"Arasi Luvasa is very much opposed, the practice as implemented under this law reduces the already low chances of complications. With proper medical surgery, the risk approaches nothing. From what I have heard though, circumcision later in life can be more of a memorably painful experience. Circumcision being a performed in a medical setting is already a compromise for both sides and I don't think the negligible risk is a good reason to trample over individuals religious traditions."

I respect your opinion on the matter, but disagree with the need for this legislation.

As it stands, you are correct, in a proper medical setting the risk is very low. But measured against that, the risk is not, and can never be zero, for all surgical procedures carry some form of risk.

So to measure that risk versus the justification of the surgery in the first place, which are largely for cosmetic/religious reasons, and it should be up to individual nations on how to deal with with the moral implications of male circumcision.

This legislation as it is currently structured is a overreach. Forcing every single WA region to allow it when they may or may not agree with it severely restricts the choice for nations surrounding this complicating moral issue.

Again, this is not a repeal to ban Male circumcision in every nation, simply to allow the ability of every nation to choose for themselves.

But the current resolution allows people to choose whether to be/have their children circumcised or not. If it allows everyone to be circumcised it also allows everyone to choose not to be. I don't see the point.

Palsada wrote:As it stands, you are correct, in a proper medical setting the risk is very low. But measured against that, the risk is not, and can never be zero, for all surgical procedures carry some form of risk.

"There is a measure of risk in practically everything we do, swimming and eating chicken can also lead to problems. People can die from drinking apple cider. That is why it is noted how risky a prodecure is, in this case it is negligible."

So to measure that risk versus the justification of the surgery in the first place, which are largely for cosmetic/religious reasons, and it should be up to individual nations on how to deal with with the moral implications of male circumcision.

"Which to individuals can be a pretty big thing. For some it is a symbol of being an adult and if you are uncircumcised or circumcised in an incorrect fashion, then you will be perpetually treated as a child. For others it may mean eternal damnation. It is impossible to judge risk anyway, also this would potentially allow countries to ban male circumcision outright, regardless of individual consequences or consent. Current legislation does not unnecessarily trample over religious freedoms (or should we mandate that all births be done within a hospital and that mothers must spend a the last few weeks leading up to birth within a hospital) but does place reasonable limits onto the practice. There is also very little proof of harm outside the negligible chance of complications."
OOC: I have read that even outside a medical setting, complications are still quite rare.

This legislation as it is currently structured is a overreach. Forcing every single WA region to allow it when they may or may not agree with it severely restricts the choice for nations surrounding this complicating moral issue.

"I doubt any legislation that has been passed is an overreach, besides this does fall under the concept of protecting rights that an individual nation may wish to infringe on. You will have to argue very well to convince me that legislation that compromises quite reasonably on a cultural issue, with practically no dangers after the resolutions passing, is an overreach."

Again, this is not a repeal to ban Male circumcision in every nation, simply to allow the ability of every nation to choose for themselves.

"Which is why the legislation was drafted, to protect cultural and religious rituals but also regulate it to a setting in which it's dangers are practically non-existent. Why should this be determined by the nation in question? should the nations culture over-ride the culture of the individual? I don't think this gives adequate reasoning to allow nations to trample over cultural and religious values."

Aboveland wrote:

Palsada wrote:I respect your opinion on the matter, but disagree with the need for this legislation.

As it stands, you are correct, in a proper medical setting the risk is very low. But measured against that, the risk is not, and can never be zero, for all surgical procedures carry some form of risk.

So to measure that risk versus the justification of the surgery in the first place, which are largely for cosmetic/religious reasons, and it should be up to individual nations on how to deal with with the moral implications of male circumcision.

This legislation as it is currently structured is a overreach. Forcing every single WA region to allow it when they may or may not agree with it severely restricts the choice for nations surrounding this complicating moral issue.

Again, this is not a repeal to ban Male circumcision in every nation, simply to allow the ability of every nation to choose for themselves.

But the current resolution allows people to choose whether to be/have their children circumcised or not. If it allows everyone to be circumcised it also allows everyone to choose not to be. I don't see the point.

A excellent point, I must admit.

To that I must simply point to the numerous other instances of nations deciding on what to allow and what not to allow for its citizens, especially when it comes to the rights and protection of children.

As it stands, I understand your opposition to the legislation based on how you feel about it, but if I were to draw your attention to how the repeal is currently written. Do you see anywhere that it can be improved upon?

OOC: I see that Permit Male Circumcision is apparently a compromise resolution. May I ask what you guys were arguing about when the original resolution was at vote? My nation wasn't around at the time.

IC: New Bremerton condemns the involuntary genital mutilation, often euphemized as "circumcision", of children regardless of gender, especially if such acts are perpetrated in the name of culture or religion, and we regard such cultures, religions and customs to be barbaric and worthy of condemnation. We reject the politically correct notion that "all cultures/religions are equal". They are not. A culture/religion that brooks no political dissent, cuts the genitals of baby girls, throws gays off rooftops, stones adulterers and rape victims to death and beheads those who renounce or insult a particular religion or prophet are clearly inferior, and New Bremerton is neither ashamed nor afraid to tout its cultural superiority over such nations and regions. We also reject the feminist double standard that male circumcision may be acceptable in some circumstances, whereas female circumcision is always a crime against humanity. At the same time, this nation expressly permits the voluntary bodily modification of consenting adults, again regardless of gender, although we are aware that many women in many nations are often coerced into having their genitals mutilated, and that these women require special protection. As such, this repeal has our unwavering SUPPORT.

New Bremerton wrote:OOC: I see that Permit Male Circumcision is apparently a compromise resolution. May I ask what you guys were arguing about when the original resolution was at vote? My nation wasn't around at the time.

IC: New Bremerton condemns the involuntary genital mutilation, often euphemized as "circumcision", of children regardless of gender, especially if such acts are perpetrated in the name of culture or religion, and we regard such cultures, religions and customs to be barbaric and worthy of condemnation. We reject the politically correct notion that "all cultures/religions are equal". They are not. A culture/religion that brooks no political dissent, cuts the genitals of baby girls, throws gays off rooftops, stones adulterers and rape victims to death and beheads those who renounce or insult a particular religion or prophet are clearly inferior, and New Bremerton is neither ashamed nor afraid to tout its cultural superiority over such nations and regions. We also reject the feminist double standard that male circumcision may be acceptable in some circumstances, whereas female circumcision is always a crime against humanity. At the same time, this nation expressly permits the voluntary bodily modification of consenting adults, again regardless of gender, although we are aware that many women in many nations are often coerced into having their genitals mutilated, and that these women require special protection. As such, this repeal has our unwavering SUPPORT.

I appreciate your support.

New Bremerton wrote:OOC: I see that Permit Male Circumcision is apparently a compromise resolution. May I ask what you guys were arguing about when the original resolution was at vote? My nation wasn't around at the time.

IC: New Bremerton condemns the involuntary genital mutilation, often euphemized as "circumcision", of children regardless of gender, especially if such acts are perpetrated in the name of culture or religion, and we regard such cultures, religions and customs to be barbaric and worthy of condemnation. We reject the politically correct notion that "all cultures/religions are equal". They are not. A culture/religion that brooks no political dissent, cuts the genitals of baby girls, throws gays off rooftops, stones adulterers and rape victims to death and beheads those who renounce or insult a particular religion or prophet are clearly inferior, and New Bremerton is neither ashamed nor afraid to tout its cultural superiority over such nations and regions. We also reject the feminist double standard that male circumcision may be acceptable in some circumstances, whereas female circumcision is always a crime against humanity. At the same time, this nation expressly permits the voluntary bodily modification of consenting adults, again regardless of gender, although we are aware that many women in many nations are often coerced into having their genitals mutilated, and that these women require special protection. As such, this repeal has our unwavering SUPPORT.

*the General-Secretary claps* “Very well said! I couldn’t have put it better!”

It should not be up to the World Assembly whether member nations should have to allow this practice.

We support this repeal.

New Bremerton wrote:OOC: I see that Permit Male Circumcision is apparently a compromise resolution. May I ask what you guys were arguing about when the original resolution was at vote? My nation wasn't around at the time.

IC: New Bremerton condemns the involuntary genital mutilation, often euphemized as "circumcision", of children regardless of gender, especially if such acts are perpetrated in the name of culture or religion, and we regard such cultures, religions and customs to be barbaric and worthy of condemnation. We reject the politically correct notion that "all cultures/religions are equal". They are not. A culture/religion that brooks no political dissent, cuts the genitals of baby girls, throws gays off rooftops, stones adulterers and rape victims to death and beheads those who renounce or insult a particular religion or prophet are clearly inferior, and New Bremerton is neither ashamed nor afraid to tout its cultural superiority over such nations and regions. We also reject the feminist double standard that male circumcision may be acceptable in some circumstances, whereas female circumcision is always a crime against humanity. At the same time, this nation expressly permits the voluntary bodily modification of consenting adults, again regardless of gender, although we are aware that many women in many nations are often coerced into having their genitals mutilated, and that these women require special protection. As such, this repeal has our unwavering SUPPORT.

"Male and female circumcision are inherently different. The latter, after all, never intentionally includes the removal of the glans while it is a fact that almost all instances of female circumcision removes the clitoris. You are approaching the topic from an inherently biased perspective. For the record niether myself nor many of our administration have a particular issue with the removal of the clitoral hood, that is of course subject to wether said removal has practically no effect and a similar low risk rate in comparison to male circumcision."

The Civitas Islands wrote:It should not be up to the World Assembly whether member nations should have to allow this practice.

We support this repeal.

"The World Assembly clearly has a role in protecting individual and religious rights from national governments, perhaps you believe that all legislation to that effect should be repealed as well?"

OOC: Trying not to spend too much time here right now. I will look at it in more depth after my exam.

Arasi Luvasa wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:OOC: I see that Permit Male Circumcision is apparently a compromise resolution. May I ask what you guys were arguing about when the original resolution was at vote? My nation wasn't around at the time.

IC: New Bremerton condemns the involuntary genital mutilation, often euphemized as "circumcision", of children regardless of gender, especially if such acts are perpetrated in the name of culture or religion, and we regard such cultures, religions and customs to be barbaric and worthy of condemnation. We reject the politically correct notion that "all cultures/religions are equal". They are not. A culture/religion that brooks no political dissent, cuts the genitals of baby girls, throws gays off rooftops, stones adulterers and rape victims to death and beheads those who renounce or insult a particular religion or prophet are clearly inferior, and New Bremerton is neither ashamed nor afraid to tout its cultural superiority over such nations and regions. We also reject the feminist double standard that male circumcision may be acceptable in some circumstances, whereas female circumcision is always a crime against humanity. At the same time, this nation expressly permits the voluntary bodily modification of consenting adults, again regardless of gender, although we are aware that many women in many nations are often coerced into having their genitals mutilated, and that these women require special protection. As such, this repeal has our unwavering SUPPORT.

"Male and female circumcision are inherently different. The latter, after all, never intentionally includes the removal of the glans while it is a fact that almost all instances of female circumcision removes the clitoris. You are approaching the topic from an inherently biased perspective. For the record niether myself nor many of our administration have a particular issue with the removal of the clitoral hood, that is of course subject to wether said removal has practically no effect and a similar low risk rate in comparison to male circumcision."

While a clitorectomy would be the female equivalent of surgical castration for men and boys, we still object to the lesser forms of circumcision for both sexes that you just mentioned. While removing just the glans or clitoral hood is far less serious than full-blown castration of the entire penis or clitoris, it is still an excruciatingly painful and traumatic experience for a child to have to endure, with irreversible physical consequences and no consent given. We consider the circumcision of children, however minor the operation and regardless of gender, to be a form of child abuse to be banned and resisted at all costs.

OOC: Having watched the documentary film The Red Pill, I can tell you that male circumcision really is that traumatic. A clip from the film features disturbing audio and blurred footage of an infant boy screaming in unbearable agony while undergoing a circumcision, hence my strong and unwavering IC position and the need to clarify my views OOCly. Blood can clearly be seen despite the blurring. That documentary, and especially that single clip, woke me up to men's issues more than any other. The "doctor" who performed that particular circumcision and others like him are evil psychos who deserve to be locked up for a very long time, especially if such vile abuse is committed in the name of culture or religion. There is no trivializing the issue here. Male circumcision, however minor the operation, is child abuse and must be outlawed worldwide. Plain and simple.

New Bremerton wrote:

Arasi Luvasa wrote:
"Male and female circumcision are inherently different. The latter, after all, never intentionally includes the removal of the glans while it is a fact that almost all instances of female circumcision removes the clitoris. You are approaching the topic from an inherently biased perspective. For the record niether myself nor many of our administration have a particular issue with the removal of the clitoral hood, that is of course subject to wether said removal has practically no effect and a similar low risk rate in comparison to male circumcision."

While a clitorectomy would be the female equivalent of surgical castration for men and boys, we still object to the lesser forms of circumcision for both sexes that you just mentioned. While removing just the glans or clitoral hood is far less serious than full-blown castration of the entire penis or clitoris, it is still an excruciatingly painful and traumatic experience for a child to have to endure, with irreversible physical consequences and no consent given. We consider the circumcision of children, however minor the operation and regardless of gender, to be a form of child abuse to be banned and resisted at all costs.

OOC: Having watched the documentary film The Red Pill, I can tell you that male circumcision really is that traumatic. A clip from the film features disturbing audio and blurred footage of an infant boy screaming in unbearable agony while undergoing a circumcision, hence my strong and unwavering IC position and the need to clarify my views OOCly. Blood can clearly be seen despite the blurring. That documentary, and especially that single clip, woke me up to men's issues more than any other. The "doctor" who performed that particular circumcision and others like him are evil psychos who deserve to be locked up for a very long time, especially if such vile abuse is committed in the name of culture or religion. There is no trivializing the issue here. Male circumcision, however minor the operation, is child abuse and must be outlawed worldwide. Plain and simple.

on that, I do not agree.

It needs not to be banned worldwide.

It should be up to every nation to decide whether or not the risks outweight the benefits of it.

Palsada wrote:on that, I do not agree.

It needs not to be banned worldwide.

It should be up to every nation to decide whether or not the risks outweight the benefits of it.

Again, that is not enough reason for an appeal.

OOC
GA Resolution #141 allows member nations so much freedom in their decisions about how to regulate the practice that the aim of this repeal's "AFFIRMING" clause is effectively already met.
Therefore, 'Honest Mistake'.
Therefore, Illegal. [one-sixth of GenSec]

it is still an excruciatingly painful and traumatic experience for a child to have to endure,

"From what I have heard, infant circumcision rarely is as bad as you have described. Also the patriarch would disagree, he has had some issues that would be fixed with a circumcision but which he refuses to go through as he does not want to actively experience either pain or the resulting humiliation from going pantless for a few days or weeks."

OOC:

Having watched the documentary film The Red Pill, I can tell you that male circumcision really is that traumatic. A clip from the film features disturbing audio and blurred footage of an infant boy screaming in unbearable agony while undergoing a circumcision

I had gone and looked this up before, and you seem to be making one very notable error. A baby crying is not always because they are in pain. Some doctors have noted that once you strap the child down and let them calm down from the crying, they will not have the visceral reaction you have described to the actual circumcision. Older individuals will however actually face active consequences from a circumcision. I have an issue that leads to the formation of pus, this would be solved with a circumcision but I have no desire to be without pants for more than a minute at a time. I would far have preferred if I were given a circumcision as a baby, where I would not have remembered anything at all, and evidence suggests that I would not even know the difference. Also evidence suggests that being circumcised later in life leads to a loss of sensation, there is no such evidence for those circumcised as infants. One man circumcised as an infant even says he could not imagine being more sensitive...

Religious and cosmetic body modification is not something I or my government generally endorse, but I do regard it as a matter of individual freedom. It's also worth noting that the target resolution doesn't oblige members to permit the practice on minors, or without informed consent, which would appear to nullify the primary criticisms being leveled against it.

OOC: I've marked this illegal on account of the believing clause which makes an argument against "forcing WA nations to allow unnecessary medical procedures ...". The target in it's OBLIGES clause explicitly sets out the right of nations to regulate the practice of circumcision. This right to regulate the practice would allow nations to prohibit medically unnecessary circumcisions if they wish. In fact, the right to regulate would allow nations to effectively completely prohibit circumcisions through extremely onerous regulations if they so wish.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I've marked this illegal on account of the believing clause which makes against "forcing WA nations to allow unnecessary medical procedures ...". The target in it's OBLIGES clause explicitly sets out the right of nations to regulate the practice of circumcision. This right to regulate the practice would allow nations to prohibit medically unnecessary circumcisions if they wish. In fact, the right to regulate would allow nations to effectively completely prohibit circumcisions through extremely onerous regulations if they so wish.

Just so I understand correctly, this legislation sets out to permit male circumcision but at the same time allows it to be regulated out of existence?

That obigles clause, in my humble opinion, is left rather ambiguous. If that is the case I shall reword my legislation as such, that this legislation is so vague that it leaves the issue of male circumcision in a state of legal limbo.

I appreciate your insight into the matter, and will make the necessary corrections.

OOC: The present resolution does allow one to regulate it out of existence as desired, just so long as it is still technically legal.