[DRAFT] On Male Circumcision

[Lucius Caecilius Iucundus]

Observing that in its 114^th Resolution, this General Assembly requires its member nations to prohibit female circumcision,

noting that male circumcision, like female circumcision, is a violation of bodily autonomy when performed without the subject's informed consent, and

asserting that bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights of sentient beings,

this General Assembly hereby proclaims the following:

1. Male circumcision and circumcision of males shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and executing the terms of this Resolution, as irrevocable or potentially irrevocable modifications made to the male sexual organs.
   
   
2. The above definition does not include sex change operations, or operations whose purpose is to alter an individual's sexual organs in order to reflect their gender identity. Such operations shall fall under the purview of other Resolutions.
   
   
3. The member nations of this World Assembly must permit the circumcision of males of legal majority who have provided their informed consent.
   
   
4. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the circumcision of males of legal minority, except in cases where it is medically necessary. In such cases, the member nations of this World Assembly shall permit male circumcision.
   
   
5. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit medical practitioners from inventing spurious medical reasons to perform circumcisions, and from performing circumcisions for such spurious reasons.
   
   
6. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the act of traveling abroad to perform male circumcision that they would be obligated to prohibit within their own borders under the terms of this Resolution.
   
   
7. The member nations of this World Assembly must impose such penalties as are necessary to deter actions that they must prohibit under the terms of this Resolution.

Observing that in its 114^th Resolution, this General Assembly requires its member nations to prohibit female circumcision,

noting that male circumcision, like female circumcision, is a violation of bodily autonomy when performed without the subject's informed consent, and

asserting that bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights of sentient beings,

this General Assembly hereby proclaims the following:

1. Male circumcision and circumcision of males shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and executing the terms of this Resolution, as irrevocable or potentially irrevocable modifications made to the male sexual organs.
   
   
2. The above definition does not include sex change procedures, or procedures whose purpose is to alter an individual's sexual organs in order to reflect their gender identity. Such operations shall fall under the purview of other Resolutions.
   
   
3. The member nations of this World Assembly must permit the circumcision of males of legal majority who have provided their informed consent to such a procedure.
   
   
4. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the circumcision of males of legal minority, except in cases where it is medically necessary. In such cases, the member nations of this World Assembly shall permit male circumcision.
   
   
5. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the act of traveling abroad to perform male circumcision that they must prohibit under the terms of this Resolution.
   
   
6. The member nations of this World Assembly must impose such penalties as are necessary to deter male circumcision that they must prohibit under the terms of this Resolution.
   
   
7. This World Assembly believes that the right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over the right to practice religious or cultural traditions.

Observing that this General Assembly has already outlawed female genital mutilation in its 114^th Resolution,

noting that this General Assembly has not outlawed male genital mutilation,

believing that male genital mutilation is no less egregious than female genital mutilation, and therefore

seeking to eliminate any discrepancy between the legal statūs of male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation,

the World Assembly hereby proclaims the following:

1. Male genital mutilation shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and applying the terms of this Resolution, as the removal of any part of the penis, including the foreskin.
   
   
2. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the male genital mutilation of those who have not reached the age of majority, except in cases where doing so is medically necessary.
   
   
3. The member nations of this World Assembly must prosecute and punish male genital mutilation to the same extent as they do female genital mutilation.
   
   
4. The World Health Authority must campaign against male genital mutilation, especially in member nations of this World Assembly where it is a common practice.

[Lucius Caecilius Iucundus]

"This proposal shall replace the 141^th Resolution of this General Assembly, if and once it is hopefully repealed," Ambassador Quintus Caecilus Iucundus proclaimed. "It is the opinion of this delegation that male genital mutilation is as egregious and reprehensible as female genital mutilation, which this General Assembly has already outlawed."

[Stellar Colonies]

"It may be helpful if this proposal had a similar level of detail to the FGM resolution regarding things such as; fully describing the different types of mutilation which exist (castration, subincision, emasculation, etc.), emphasizing the problems which infant circumcision cause both physically (such as loss of sensation, if that happens) and morally (violation of bodily autonomy, the point which is impossible to dispute), emphasizing that it is legal for individuals who are capable of providing informed consent (above the age of consent, full knowledge of what the procedure entails, not being pressured into it, etc.), preventing loopholes (such as traveling abroad to have it performed), a legal requirement for residents of WA nations to be educated about the moral and physical impacts of it, emphasizing that human rights trump cultural or religious practices, etc."

"Additionally, it may be best if the proposal speaks of 'MGM' as a separate but equal issue to FGM, without relying as much on references to it...unless you are attempting to demonstrate a point."

[Lucius Caecilius Iucundus]

"It may be helpful if this proposal had a similar level of detail to the FGM resolution regarding things such as; fully describing the different types of mutilation which exist (castration, subincision, emasculation, etc.), emphasizing the problems which infant circumcision cause both physically (such as loss of sensation, if that happens) and morally (violation of bodily autonomy, the point which is impossible to dispute), emphasizing that it is legal for individuals who are capable of providing informed consent (above the age of consent, full knowledge of what the procedure entails, not being pressured into it, etc.), preventing loopholes (such as traveling abroad to have it performed), a legal requirement for residents of WA nations to be educated about the moral and physical impacts of it, emphasizing that human rights trump cultural or religious practices, etc."

"Additionally, it may be best if the proposal speaks of 'MGM' as a separate but equal issue to FGM, without relying as much on references to it...unless you are attempting to demonstrate a point."

"We shall write a second draft soon," said Quintus. "We await the recommendations of other delegations."

[The Palentine]

Is this the current state of the Festering Snakepit that we've now decided its time to make laws about getting a fella's pecker chopped up? <SIGH!!!> Some days its not worth gnawing through the leather straps to show up!

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Morover]

Is this the current state of the Festering Snakepit that we've now decided its time to make laws about getting a fella's pecker chopped up? <SIGH!!!> Some days its not worth gnawing through the leather straps to show up!

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"The general wellbeing of genitalia has always been one of the foremost concerns of this assembly."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Hard pass.

[Atheris]

Hard pass.

May I ask why?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Circumcision bans are patently anti-semitic. Like how could it not be?

[Atheris]

Circumcision bans are patently anti-semitic. Like how could it not be?

Ah. That's certainly a good point. Maybe LCI can add a section discussing circumcision for religious purposes?

[Morover]

The member nations of this World Assembly must prosecute and punish male genital mutilation to the same extent as they do female genital mutilation.

OOC: I don't think this is inherently against the rules given the specific language of this clause, but it's very apparent that this clause is supposed to play on GA 114, which would mean if it were to be repealed, this clause would be essentially completely negated, and it would be left up to each individual member-nation.

I'm generally opposed to this attempt, though I can't pretend to know the biological specificities that follow procedures such as this done on both male and female genitalia. To my little knowledge (which may very well be flawed), the mutilation of the female genitalia is typically more detrimental than the equivalent procedures to male gonads, thus necessitating a smaller need to outlaw it.

Additionally, this has a far way to go to be good legislation, even going beyond my general opposition to the content involved in it.

A quick note:
My ignorant self would be more inclined to support a general ban on all genital mutilation, but with exceptions made for procedures which are minimally invasive and disrupting of the body's natural functions and sensitivity, where necessitated by legitimate cultural or religious needs (on top of medical necessities as well). Again, take this with a grain of salt, but it would theoretically work in that case. Someone more educated on the subject may give their thoughts on this.

Also note that the above note would require repeal of GA 114, which seems highly improbable to me.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Observing that this General Assembly has already outlawed female genital mutilation in its 114^th Resolution,

noting that this General Assembly has not outlawed male genital mutilation,

believing that male genital mutilation is no less egregious than female genital mutilation, and therefore

seeking to eliminate any discrepancy between the legal statūs of male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation,

the World Assembly hereby proclaims the following:

1. Male genital mutilation shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and applying the terms of this Resolution, as the removal of any part of the penis, including the foreskin.
   
   
2. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the male genital mutilation of those who have not reached the age of majority, except in cases where doing so is medically necessary.
   
   
3. The member nations of this World Assembly must prosecute and punish male genital mutilation to the same extent as they do female genital mutilation.
   
   
4. The World Health Authority must campaign against male genital mutilation, especially in member nations of this World Assembly where it is a common practice.

"Opposed. While we could tolerate an equivalent ban for all but fully informed, consenting adults or else actual medical necessity, the tone and the other specifics of this proposal are absurd, offensive, and destructive of public health. Circumcision simply, plainly, factually is less egregious than female genital mutilation, and it is an insult to the women and girls who have suffered it to pretend otherwise. Come to think of it, it's insulting to the intelligence of everyone else to boot. When men lose major sexual function due to a botched circumcision, this is a tragic accident; that's a good argument in favor of only permitting the procedure for consenting adults, or where medically necessary for minors. But when women lose sexual function due to FGM, this is by design - the only reason those procedures exist is specifically to destroy feminine sexual pleasure. The two types of surgery are simply qualitatively different."

"Even if all that weren't true, however, the requirement on the World Health Authority to actively campaign against a key component of the fight against sexually transmitted autoimmune diseases is utterly reprehensible. In countries with high infection rates, high poverty, and cultural stigma against condom use, circumcision is an important component of halting or slowing the spread of such diseases. The WHA would simply be committing treason against its basic mission if it were to conduct such a campaign."

"In short, ambassador, the only part of this proposal that has the slightest bit of merit is clause II; the rest is an abomination against reason and public health, and given your rhetoric we are not optimistic that those parts will be fixed. Thus we stand opposed."

[Isaris]

"Even if all that weren't true, however, the requirement on the World Health Authority to actively campaign against a key component of the fight against sexually transmitted autoimmune diseases is utterly reprehensible. In countries with high infection rates, high poverty, and cultural stigma against condom use, circumcision is an important component of halting or slowing the spread of such diseases. The WHA would simply be committing treason against its basic mission if it were to conduct such a campaign."

"Ambassador, I'd like to point out that male circumcision has primarily been studied in the prevention of transmission in male-female sexual activity. There has not been the same amount of study done on male-male sexual activity. It should also not be considered a replacement for other safe sex practices, like condom use, as the risk reduction rate is only estimated around 60%. It'd be far better for the WHA to try to dispel these cultural stigmas and supply condoms to impoverished nations than act as if this practice is the best method to prevent infection."

[Lucius Caecilius Iucundus]

Circumcision bans are patently anti-semitic. Like how could it not be?

"I do not know what semitism is, so I cannot be in favor of or opposed to it," Quintus remarked. Being a Roman, he had never been exposed to such a term. "What exactly do you mean by this?"

OOC: I support a ban on circumcision based on purely humanitarian grounds. Anti-semitism is a ridiculous charge here. In any case, if a Jewish male wished to be circumcised in accordance with his traditions, he would have the right to do so upon reaching the age of majority.

Ah. That's certainly a good point. Maybe LCI can add a section discussing circumcision for religious purposes?

OOC: I am against the privileging of religion, so I am against this idea. Circumcision of a minor is wrong regardless of whether one thinks that a circumcised penis is "cleaner" or more attractive, because one's supposed God commands it, or because one's ancestors did it.

"Opposed. While we could tolerate an equivalent ban for all but fully informed, consenting adults or else actual medical necessity, the tone and the other specifics of this proposal are absurd, offensive, and destructive of public health. Circumcision simply, plainly, factually is less egregious than female genital mutilation, and it is an insult to the women and girls who have suffered it to pretend otherwise. Come to think of it, it's insulting to the intelligence of everyone else to boot. When men lose major sexual function due to a botched circumcision, this is a tragic accident; that's a good argument in favor of only permitting the procedure for consenting adults, or where medically necessary for minors. But when women lose sexual function due to FGM, this is by design - the only reason those procedures exist is specifically to destroy feminine sexual pleasure. The two types of surgery are simply qualitatively different."

"Even if all that weren't true, however, the requirement on the World Health Authority to actively campaign against a key component of the fight against sexually transmitted autoimmune diseases is utterly reprehensible. In countries with high infection rates, high poverty, and cultural stigma against condom use, circumcision is an important component of halting or slowing the spread of such diseases. The WHA would simply be committing treason against its basic mission if it were to conduct such a campaign."

"In short, ambassador, the only part of this proposal that has the slightest bit of merit is clause II; the rest is an abomination against reason and public health, and given your rhetoric we are not optimistic that those parts will be fixed. Thus we stand opposed."

Quintus reclined in his seat and scratched his chin in thought. "Well," he observed. "we will drop the line about male and female genital mutilation being equally egregious to one another. We meant that in the sense that it is equally egregious to mutilate a minor's genitals regardless of whether that minor is male or female. We did not mean to suggest that male and female genital mutilation are equally egregious in terms of their extent or ramifications. As for the issue of the World Health Authority campaigning against male genital mutilation, we will modify this clause in consideration of your objections, although it shall still mandate that the WHA campaign against the male genital mutilation of minors. If an adult wished to undergo circumcision to reduce his risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, that would be his prerogative. If you have any other recommendations, please let us know."

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, perhaps the second clause two should be under a subclause rather than two clauses with same number, though on second glance, it seems the numbering is all over the place. The second clause two also sounds like you are trying to ban male genital mutilation outright and not just those forced on minors."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Even if all that weren't true, however, the requirement on the World Health Authority to actively campaign against a key component of the fight against sexually transmitted autoimmune diseases is utterly reprehensible. In countries with high infection rates, high poverty, and cultural stigma against condom use, circumcision is an important component of halting or slowing the spread of such diseases. The WHA would simply be committing treason against its basic mission if it were to conduct such a campaign."

"Ambassador, I'd like to point out that male circumcision has primarily been studied in the prevention of transmission in male-female sexual activity. There has not been the same amount of study done on male-male sexual activity. It should also not be considered a replacement for other safe sex practices, like condom use, as the risk reduction rate is only estimated around 60%. It'd be far better for the WHA to try to dispel these cultural stigmas and supply condoms to impoverished nations than act as if this practice is the best method to prevent infection."

"All of this is true, ambassador, but then I never denied any of it. The WHA is not a magic cudgel, however, and it ought to spend its time and money on whatever works. In some countries, many men simply refuse to use condoms at all, even when given the facts and the condoms themselves. In these cases, it is better to have circumcision available than not."

<snip>

Quintus reclined in his seat and scratched his chin in thought. "Well," he observed. "we will drop the line about male and female genital mutilation being equally egregious to one another. We meant that in the sense that it is equally egregious to mutilate a minor's genitals regardless of whether that minor is male or female. We did not mean to suggest that male and female genital mutilation are equally egregious in terms of their extent or ramifications. As for the issue of the World Health Authority campaigning against male genital mutilation, we will modify this clause in consideration of your objections, although it shall still mandate that the WHA campaign against the male genital mutilation of minors. If an adult wished to undergo circumcision to reduce his risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, that would be his prerogative. If you have any other recommendations, please let us know."

Leo raises an eyebrow. "Well, sir, I admit to a degree of pleasant surprise. I shall look forward to seeing the next draft. Please note that we still oppose the repeal of the current WA regulation, but if you write as advertised, perhaps this could replace it with not too much damage done."

[Lucius Caecilius Iucundus]

Leo raises an eyebrow. "Well, sir, I admit to a degree of pleasant surprise. I shall look forward to seeing the next draft. Please note that we still oppose the repeal of the current WA regulation, but if you write as advertised, perhaps this could replace it with not too much damage done."

"We have already made some modifications, although we shall await more recommendations before publishing a second draft," Quintus informed.

[Savoir]

[*]Male genital mutilation shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and applying the terms of this Resolution, as the removal of any part of the penis, including the foreskin.

"As someone who greatly supports the rights of transgender individuals to embrace their proper role through surgery, I am strongly against this proposal on the basis that it bans genital reassignment surgery for transgender individuals. This proposal, if passed, would serve as a barrier for any man who wants to become a woman. This proposal as it stands is transphobic, and as such, Savoir rejects it."

:: Ambassadeur Nicolas Savoie, comte de Chambéry

[Lucius Caecilius Iucundus]

[*]Male genital mutilation shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and applying the terms of this Resolution, as the removal of any part of the penis, including the foreskin.

"As someone who greatly supports the rights of transgender individuals to embrace their proper role through surgery, I am strongly against this proposal on the basis that it bans genital reassignment surgery for transgender individuals. This proposal, if passed, would serve as a barrier for any man who wants to become a woman. This proposal as it stands is transphobic, and as such, Savoir rejects it."

:: Ambassadeur Nicolas Savoie, comte de Chambéry

"The intention of this proposal is not to prevent individuals from undergoing sex-change operations. This shall be clear in the second draft."

[Savoir]

"As someone who greatly supports the rights of transgender individuals to embrace their proper role through surgery, I am strongly against this proposal on the basis that it bans genital reassignment surgery for transgender individuals. This proposal, if passed, would serve as a barrier for any man who wants to become a woman. This proposal as it stands is transphobic, and as such, Savoir rejects it."

:: Ambassadeur Nicolas Savoie, comte de Chambéry

"The intention of this proposal is not to prevent individuals from undergoing sex-change operations. This shall be clear in the second draft."

"Thank you. I look forward to the clarifications of the second draft."

[Aclion]

Circumcision bans are patently anti-semitic. Like how could it not be?

Well you could argue that it's wrong to permanently alter someone's body without their consent when there is no duty of care justification for it, as it irreversibly robs that individual of their personal autonomy and self-ownership. Indeed this is the exactly the argument already made to ban female genital mutilation.

[Lucius Caecilius Iucundus]

"Look at the second draft," said Quintus. "We have made some changes."

[Stellar Colonies]

Circumcision bans are patently anti-semitic. Like how could it not be?

Well you could argue that it's wrong to permanently alter someone's body without their consent when there is no duty of care justification for it, as it irreversibly robs that individual of their personal autonomy and self-ownership. Indeed this is the exactly the argument already made to ban female genital mutilation.

“Precisely this. Basic human rights must take precedence over religious practices. If there is ever an issue in which one or the other must be protected, the correct answer should be obvious.”

[Kenmoria]

Circumcision bans are patently anti-semitic. Like how could it not be?

(OOC: A total ban on even voluntary circumcision would of course be antisemitic. However, this draft only bans involuntary circumcision and therefore cannot be reasonably argued to constitute a religiously-discriminatory piece of legislation. The focus here is not on prohibiting a religious practice but on upholding the right to bodily sovereignty.)

[Liberimery]

Circumcision bans are patently anti-semitic. Like how could it not be?

(OOC: A total ban on even voluntary circumcision would of course be antisemitic. However, this draft only bans involuntary circumcision and therefore cannot be reasonably argued to constitute a religiously-discriminatory piece of legislation. The focus here is not on prohibiting a religious practice but on upholding the right to bodily sovereignty.)

(The custom in the Jewish faith is symbolic of God’s pact with Abraham. While it is traditionally believed that Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised, the procedure occurs days after the birth of a male child and is a major celebration for the family. Of the child akin to baptism in some sex’s of Christianity (notably Catholicism which traditionally holds the sacrament about a month after the birth). In addition circumcision is also practiced in some sects of other Abrahamic religions but Judaism is notable as the practice occurs in all major secs.

Thus by not allowing the religious exception, a ban is anti-semetic by its vary nature, as the religion dictates it must be done early in a boy’s life.)