Page 2 of 5

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:42 am
by Kenmoria
Liberimery wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(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.)

(OOC: My family are Jewish - I know what circumcision is. Although it is true that most sects of Judaism do mandate circumcision on the 8th day of the boy’s life, it is also true that the world has progressed quite a lot since the days in which Abraham is said to have made the Covenant with God. There is strong precedent for banning religious practices on the basis that said practices unreasonable encroach upon other’s freedoms, particularly when the individual has not chosen to be part of that religion yet.

The importance of the sacrament is not in the physical act, but rather the symbolism of being part of the Jewish community and as a sign of recognition of the Covenant. As long as the symbolism is allowed, I do not see it as being antisemitic to require that all circumcisions are strictly voluntary. For precedent of this, see the fact that circumcision was historically often sealed with an animal sacrifice. As modern sensibilities evolved, this practice became obsolete.

For these reasons, I fully support this proposal.)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:47 am
by Araraukar
Liberimery wrote:(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
*snip*
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.)

OOC: So by your own explanation, allowing it only for 99 yo men would be totally fine according to semitic tradition. In addition to which it could only be antisemitic if it allowed it for other religions but Judaism.

You can call it anti-religious and be correct in some cases, but non-consenting people being one way or another sacrificed to religious demands has never been a reason for the WA to bow to religions before. Look at the sacrificing people ban, or female circumscision ban. Or decriminalization of suicide. Or any number of things that in RL are an issue to one religion or another.

And let's be real, the majority of circumscisions done in RL are not done on Jewish children. Unless most of Africa is Jewish... :P

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:50 am
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
Liberimery wrote: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.

OOC: Then the religion is wrong on this matter, and it is not the place of a secular government to accommodate it.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:37 am
by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
OOC: I will reiterate what I said on the WA Discord server: "But in conclusion, I won't support a WA-wide anti-circumcision crusade, which ignores recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Other crusades I will consider."

For reference, here is the AAP's policy statement endorsed by the ACOG:
Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure. Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections.

The procedure is well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management. Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare. Male circumcision performed during the newborn period has considerably lower complication rates than when performed later in life.

Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices. The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.

Findings from the systematic evaluation are available in the accompanying technical report. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:00 pm
by Savoir
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote: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.

"What about men who need to have vasectomies because it is known that they are not worthy of producing offspring? This resolution would prevent vasectomies from legally being carried out."

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:24 pm
by Isaris
Savoir wrote:
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote: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.

"What about men who need to have vasectomies because it is known that they are not worthy of producing offspring? This resolution would prevent vasectomies from legally being carried out."

"Ambassador, you are simply incorrect. Vasectomies are reversible. Please refer to medical journals on this topic."

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:32 pm
by Kenmoria
Savoir wrote:
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote: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.

"What about men who need to have vasectomies because it is known that they are not worthy of producing offspring? This resolution would prevent vasectomies from legally being carried out."

“Forcible sterilisation has, if my memory serves correctly, already been outlawed by the General Assembly. If not, then it is still a cruel and unnecessary punishment.”

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:41 pm
by Astrobolt
Savoir wrote:
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote: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.

"What about men who need to have vasectomies because it is known that they are not worthy of producing offspring? This resolution would prevent vasectomies from legally being carried out."



"The principle of bodily autonomy still applies here."

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:02 pm
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
"We are not sure as to whether this proposal contradicts the 141th Resolution passed by this august Assembly," remarked Quintus. "Some ambassadors have said that it does, and some have said that it does not. We therefore intend to write another draft of this proposal that would be compatible with the 141th Resolution."

PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:04 pm
by Kenmoria
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:"We are not sure as to whether this proposal contradicts the 141th Resolution passed by this august Assembly," remarked Quintus. "Some ambassadors have said that it does, and some have said that it does not. We therefore intend to write another draft of this proposal that would be compatible with the 141th Resolution."

“Your current proposal does, I think, contradict GA #141. However, I think that your goals are so different from those of that resolution that a repeal would be a better solution than attempting to bypass the contradiction issue. Other ambassadors are currently working on such a repeal, though you could of course draft your own.”

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:30 am
by Auze
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:Observing that this General Assembly has already outlawed female genital mutilation in its 114th 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."

"This is a falsehood perpetuated by conflating one of the worst forms of FGM with a fairly middle-of-the-road form of Circumcision. There are much less harmful and more common forms of FGM, and more harmful and less common forms of MGM. The idea that FGM is worse is not backed up by evidence, and appears to be made by people who wish to ban one, but not question why the other is so acceptable in many societies.

Anyways, we are against this resolution."

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:33 am
by La xinga
OOC: 30% of people in my nation are Jewish. You can't have the consent of an 8-day-old baby. What shall we do?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:35 am
by Kenmoria
La xinga wrote:OOC: 30% of people in my nation are Jewish. You can't have the consent of an 8-day-old baby. What shall we do?

(OOC: Replace the circumcision with an equally-symbolic religious event, and allow the individual to be circumcised when able to consent to the practice.)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:37 am
by La xinga
Kenmoria wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: 30% of people in my nation are Jewish. You can't have the consent of an 8-day-old baby. What shall we do?

(OOC: Replace the circumcision with an equally-symbolic religious event, and allow the individual to be circumcised when able to consent to the practice.)

OOC: In Judaism, you can't do that. Needs to be done at 8 days unless the baby is yellow.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:40 am
by Kenmoria
La xinga wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Replace the circumcision with an equally-symbolic religious event, and allow the individual to be circumcised when able to consent to the practice.)

OOC: In Judaism, you can't do that. Needs to be done at 8 days unless the baby is yellow.

(OOC: It depends which branch of Judaism one follows. I accept that most groups do require circumcision on the 8th day of the baby’s life, but human rights overrule religious rituals. There are ways of demonstrating acceptance of the Covenant of God that don’t rely on violations of bodily sovereignty.)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:41 am
by La xinga
Kenmoria wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: In Judaism, you can't do that. Needs to be done at 8 days unless the baby is yellow.

(OOC: It depends which branch of Judaism one follows. I accept that most groups do require circumcision on the 8th day of the baby’s life, but human rights overrule religious rituals. There are ways of demonstrating acceptance of the Covenant of God that don’t rely on violations of bodily sovereignty.)

OOC: 100% disagree with you, but go ahead.

IC: It will be hard enforcing this if it passes, but I suppose we can try.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:08 am
by Isaris
La xinga wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Replace the circumcision with an equally-symbolic religious event, and allow the individual to be circumcised when able to consent to the practice.)

OOC: In Judaism, you can't do that. Needs to be done at 8 days unless the baby is yellow.

OOC: Unless the baby is "yellow"? What does that mean, Asian? And why is that an exception?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:39 am
by The New Nordic Union
Isaris wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: In Judaism, you can't do that. Needs to be done at 8 days unless the baby is yellow.

OOC: Unless the baby is "yellow"? What does that mean, Asian? And why is that an exception?


OOC: Neonatal jaundice; an illness that turns skin and sclerae yellow.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:51 pm
by La xinga
Isaris wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: In Judaism, you can't do that. Needs to be done at 8 days unless the baby is yellow.

OOC: Unless the baby is "yellow"? What does that mean, Asian? And why is that an exception?

:lol: :lol2:

OOC: No, more like a poison from the liver, a kind of something, it would be dangerous to preform a circumcision.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:03 pm
by Stellar Colonies
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:OOC: I will reiterate what I said on the WA Discord server: "But in conclusion, I won't support a WA-wide anti-circumcision crusade, which ignores recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Other crusades I will consider."

For reference, here is the AAP's policy statement endorsed by the ACOG:
Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure. Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections.

The procedure is well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management. Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare. Male circumcision performed during the newborn period has considerably lower complication rates than when performed later in life.

Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices. The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.

Findings from the systematic evaluation are available in the accompanying technical report. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life

Merely 12% at most of boys and men will experience a UTI during their lifetime, and those cases of it can be treated through similar, less drastic means which are used to treat the higher rates of UTIs in girls and women.

heterosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections

A combination of vaccines, protection such as condoms, more widespread testing, and post-infection treatments can solve this problem equally well.




Cultural and religious practices should not take precedence over bodily autonomy. Even if circumcision is really that important to them, it can wait until the kid is actually able to consent to it.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:08 pm
by Isaris
The New Nordic Union wrote:
Isaris wrote:OOC: Unless the baby is "yellow"? What does that mean, Asian? And why is that an exception?


OOC: Neonatal jaundice; an illness that turns skin and sclerae yellow.

OOC: Haha, oh my goodness, I feel silly. Thank you for the enlightenment!

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:10 pm
by La xinga
Isaris wrote:
The New Nordic Union wrote:
OOC: Neonatal jaundice; an illness that turns skin and sclerae yellow.

OOC: Haha, oh my goodness, I feel silly. Thank you for the enlightenment!

OOC: As such, a circumcision would be dangerous.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:03 pm
by United Massachusetts
This is foundationally unacceptable. United Massachusetts would campaign against it vigourously. Bans on male circumcision are anti-Semitic.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:08 pm
by Kenmoria
United Massachusetts wrote:This is foundationally unacceptable. United Massachusetts would campaign against it vigourously. Bans on male circumcision are anti-Semitic.

(OOC: This isn’t a ban on circumcision; it’s a ban on involuntary circumcision. Religious practices don’t mean much if they are forced and, besides, religious practices generally shouldn’t be forced on anyone.)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:31 pm
by United Massachusetts
Kenmoria wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:This is foundationally unacceptable. United Massachusetts would campaign against it vigourously. Bans on male circumcision are anti-Semitic.

(OOC: This isn’t a ban on circumcision; it’s a ban on involuntary circumcision. Religious practices don’t mean much if they are forced and, besides, religious practices generally shouldn’t be forced on anyone.)

Might as well ban the baptism of infants at this rate, too. Circumcision is a perfectly safe and normal practice with religious significance to Jewish, Islamic, and other families.

I will also remind delegations that under existing World Assembly law, parents are able to make medical decisions on behalf of infants. This much is already established under World Assembly Law under the Patient's Rights Act:

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


Given that parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children with or without this act, I think we ought to turn to the text of GA 430, "Freedom of Religion" which "asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order."

As it stands, this resolution prevents Jewish parents from performing a procedure that they are fully in their rights to perform under the Patient's Rights Act. This procedure, for what it's worth, is also a religious practise.

Is there a compelling, practical public interest relating to safety, health, or good order preventing the circumcision of males? Certainly not safety -- that my neighbour is circumcised has no bearing on my safety. Health? Not really -- medical evidence suggests that there are no significant health consequences take make circumcision a good or bad option from a health standpoint. And if we're going to talk about the bodily sovereignty of infants as a matter of "good order", we might as well just repeal the Patient's Rights Act altogether for giving parents a say in the medical decisions of their children.

United Massachusetts maintains that the resolution proposed, as written, is illegal for contradiction of GA 430. Even if it were not illegal, this resolution is profoundly anti-Semitic in effect.

Kenmoria wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: 30% of people in my nation are Jewish. You can't have the consent of an 8-day-old baby. What shall we do?

(OOC: Replace the circumcision with an equally-symbolic religious event, and allow the individual to be circumcised when able to consent to the practice.)

You can't just force religions to change their rituals like that, though. The vast majority of Jewish sects maintain that infants ought to be circumcised. Yes, circumcised -- not offered some symbolic baptism. And it's also an important ritual in Islam, so we aren't just even talking about Judaism.

Auze wrote:This is a falsehood perpetuated by conflating one of the worst forms of FGM with a fairly middle-of-the-road form of Circumcision. There are much less harmful and more common forms of FGM, and more harmful and less common forms of MGM. The idea that FGM is worse is not backed up by evidence, and appears to be made by people who wish to ban one, but not question why the other is so acceptable in many societies.

Anyways, we are against this resolution."

I honestly do not understand these comparisons at all. FGM -- in all its forms -- is genuinely harmful, causes girls to lose their sexual function, causes countless deaths, and is rooted in misogyny. Comparisons between FGM and circumcision do injustice to the horror that is FGM. This whole resolution kind of endangers the fight against FGM, which we've made significant progress over the past few years. Any declaration that FGM and male circumcision are of equally grave medical consequence would leave people to believe that FGM isn't a serious matter. Because circumcision, medically speaking, isn't a serious matter. No equivalency can be made. It is hauntingly telling that the first draft of this resolution would have the WHA divert funding from the fight against FGM in order to wage wars against a perfectly normal procedure.

This World Assembly believes that the right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over the right to practice religious or cultural traditions.

This clause does absolutely nothing. It should, at the very least, be moved to the preamble.

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.

"So, let's all add the passport question," Bishop Pierce muses. "'Are you travelling abroad for the purposes of circumcising your child?"' Seriously, though, how is this to be enforced? Are we doing to have doctors at routine check-ups reporting Jewish and Muslim parents for child abuse? "