[DRAFT] On Male Circumcision

[Astrobolt]

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."

By GA #430, there is also a right to refuse to engage in religious practices. Therefore, in religions that practice circumcision, minors would have the right to refuse to be circumcised."

[Castle Federation]

I understand that medical safety and liberty are important to the author, but it is a very cultural act to some communities, and that can't be ignored. I think female circumcision and male circumcision are very different things because one prevents a biological function while the other is more of a cosmetic alteration that does not affect biological function. I do applaud the intention, but this is not a viable proposal.

[La Xinga]

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."

By GA #430, there is also a right to refuse to engage in religious practices. Therefore, in religions that practice circumcision, minors would have the right to refuse to be circumcised."

They can't refuse either.

[United Massachusetts]

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."

By GA #430, there is also a right to refuse to engage in religious practices. Therefore, in religions that practice circumcision, minors would have the right to refuse to be circumcised."

World Assembly Law already protects the right to circumcision. Under the current legal interpretations, circumcision of males is permitted. Thus, we cannot interpret GA 430 in such a way that it would contradict the protections afforded to Jewish and Islamic parents under GA 141. The reason? No two WA resolutions can contradict each other, so we have to backsolve the interpretations in such a way that the present system is legal. In short, GA 430 cannot contradict the legality of circumcision.

It certainly can contradict a ban on circumcision, however.

[La Xinga]

By GA #430, there is also a right to refuse to engage in religious practices. Therefore, in religions that practice circumcision, minors would have the right to refuse to be circumcised."

World Assembly Law already protects the right to circumcision. Under the current legal interpretations, circumcision of males is permitted. Thus, we cannot interpret GA 430 in such a way that it would contradict the protections afforded to Jewish and Islamic parents under GA 141. The reason? No two WA resolutions can contradict each other, so we have to backsolve the interpretations in such a way that the present system is legal. In short, GA 430 cannot contradict the legality of circumcision.

It certainly can contradict a ban on circumcision, however.

If this resolution wants to ban circumcision, that would very much be wiping out Judaism.

[Stellar Colonies]

By GA #430, there is also a right to refuse to engage in religious practices. Therefore, in religions that practice circumcision, minors would have the right to refuse to be circumcised."

World Assembly Law already protects the right to circumcision. Under the current legal interpretations, circumcision of males is permitted. Thus, we cannot interpret GA 430 in such a way that it would contradict the protections afforded to Jewish and Islamic parents under GA 141. The reason? No two WA resolutions can contradict each other, so we have to backsolve the interpretations in such a way that the present system is legal. In short, GA 430 cannot contradict the legality of circumcision.

It certainly can contradict a ban on circumcision, however.

"It is not a total ban on circumcision. It is merely blocking it until the patient, the one receiving this medically unnecessary and largely irreversible procedure, is capable of giving their consent."

World Assembly Law already protects the right to circumcision. Under the current legal interpretations, circumcision of males is permitted. Thus, we cannot interpret GA 430 in such a way that it would contradict the protections afforded to Jewish and Islamic parents under GA 141. The reason? No two WA resolutions can contradict each other, so we have to backsolve the interpretations in such a way that the present system is legal. In short, GA 430 cannot contradict the legality of circumcision.

It certainly can contradict a ban on circumcision, however.

If this resolution wants to ban circumcision, that would very much be wiping out Judaism.

"Surely this procedure can simply wait until the patient is able to give their consent? I doubt this would sound the death knell for Judaism."

[United Massachusetts]

If this resolution wants to ban circumcision, that would very much be wiping out Judaism.

"Surely this procedure can simply wait until the patient is able to give their consent? I doubt this would sound the death knell for Judaism."

It wouldn't wipe out Judaism, no. But it would force Jews to violate a covenant that they have held faithfully to thousands of years. And no, it can't "simply wait":

10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

[La Xinga]

If this resolution wants to ban circumcision, that would very much be wiping out Judaism.

"Surely this procedure can simply wait until the patient is able to give their consent? I doubt this would sound the death knell for Judaism."

"No, it cannot. From my countries, wait wrong way...FROM my country's record of religion, it seems taht it contradicts the most important book of all.

OOC: It actually does. It says pretty clearly the 8th day, and if God says the 8th day, I don't think it can just wait.

[Stellar Colonies]

"Surely this procedure can simply wait until the patient is able to give their consent? I doubt this would sound the death knell for Judaism."

"No, it cannot. From my countries, wait wrong way...FROM my country's record of religion, it seems taht it contradicts the most important book of all.

OOC: It actually does. It says pretty clearly the 8th day, and if God says the 8th day, I don't think it can just wait.

"Surely this procedure can simply wait until the patient is able to give their consent? I doubt this would sound the death knell for Judaism."

It wouldn't wipe out Judaism, no. But it would force Jews to violate a covenant that they have held faithfully to thousands of years. And no, it can't "simply wait":

10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

"...but this imposition is medically unnecessary in most cases?"

[La Xinga]

"No, it cannot. From my countries, wait wrong way...FROM my country's record of religion, it seems taht it contradicts the most important book of all.

OOC: It actually does. It says pretty clearly the 8th day, and if God says the 8th day, I don't think it can just wait.

It wouldn't wipe out Judaism, no. But it would force Jews to violate a covenant that they have held faithfully to thousands of years. And no, it can't "simply wait":

"...but this imposition is medically unnecessary in most cases?"

alot of our world's people have religion before med.

[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:

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.

OOC: Unconvincing response. "Merely 12%"? The fact you're willing to dismiss a disease that infected 152 million and killed 190,000+ as insignificant in order to push through this anti-Semetic proposal is beyond absurd. Furthermore, your suggestions that these problems can just be fixed otherwise is both a failure to consider this proposal in the status quo instead of a hypothetical world where everyone has access to top medical advice and services, and in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the AAP and ACOG.

You also convieniently ignore the fact that the benefits decrease and the risks increase if someone is circumcised at a later age.

Unless the proposal is altered to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary treatments because "bodile autonomy", I struggle to see this as anything else than a hidden anti-Semitic and anti-Islam proposal.

[Kenmoria]

Unless the proposal is altered to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary treatments because "bodile autonomy", I struggle to see this as anything else than a hidden anti-Semitic and anti-Islam proposal.

(OOC: A ban on all forms of ritual body modification done without a person’s consent that are not medically necessary? That could actually work. Of course it would be far larger in scope than the current proposal, but it’s an interesting idea.

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."

By GA #430, there is also a right to refuse to engage in religious practices. Therefore, in religions that practice circumcision, minors would have the right to refuse to be circumcised."

I presume that infants can neither give consent nor refuse to engage in a religious practice, since they don’t have much in the way of reasoning by the 8th day of life. On the other hand, I don’t agree with those who are suggesting that a ban on circumcision would contradict GA #430, since it isn’t the adults who are engaging in the practice, but the infants.)

[La Xinga]

Unless the proposal is altered to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary treatments because "bodile autonomy", I struggle to see this as anything else than a hidden anti-Semitic and anti-Islam proposal.

(OOC: A ban on all forms of ritual body modification done without a person’s consent that are not medically necessary? That could actually work. Of course it would be far larger in scope than the current proposal, but it’s an interesting idea.

By GA #430, there is also a right to refuse to engage in religious practices. Therefore, in religions that practice circumcision, minors would have the right to refuse to be circumcised."

I presume that infants can neither give consent nor refuse to engage in a religious practice, since they don’t have much in the way of reasoning by the 8th day of life. On the other hand, I don’t agree with those who are suggesting that a ban on circumcision would contradict GA #430, since it isn’t the adults who are engaging in the practice, but the infants.)

Infants can't say yes, can't say no, so it should be up to the parents.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Unless the proposal is altered to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary treatments because "bodile autonomy", I struggle to see this as anything else than a hidden anti-Semitic and anti-Islam proposal.

(OOC: A ban on all forms of ritual body modification done without a person’s consent that are not medically necessary? That could actually work. Of course it would be far larger in scope than the current proposal, but it’s an interesting idea.

OOC: Why would you limit it to "ritual" procedures only? If the argument is that only medically necessary procedures are to be performed until someone reaches adulthood and can consent, we should have to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary procedures, including e.g. any orthodontic treatment for cosmetic purposes (the vast majority, which modify the body too).

I again implore people to actually listen to the doctors and stop this anti-circumcision crusade.

[Stellar Colonies]

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.

OOC: Unconvincing response. "Merely 12%"? The fact you're willing to dismiss a disease that infected 152 million and killed 190,000+ as insignificant in order to push through this anti-Semetic proposal is beyond absurd. Furthermore, your suggestions that these problems can just be fixed otherwise is both a failure to consider this proposal in the status quo instead of a hypothetical world where everyone has access to top medical advice and services, and in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the AAP and ACOG.

You also convieniently ignore the fact that the benefits decrease and the risks increase if someone is circumcised at a later age.

Unless the proposal is altered to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary treatments because "bodile autonomy", I struggle to see this as anything else than a hidden anti-Semitic and anti-Islam proposal.

"Nothing about this is intended as a hidden 'anti-Semitic' or 'anti-Islamic' plot, and ignoring our actual concerns in favor of framing our views as that is inaccurate. Our only concern is simultaneously preserving the right of individuals to modify their own bodies and also promoting alternative treatments which are more beneficial than a marginally helpful and ethically dubious medical procedure promoted for all that genuinely help only a few."

"At most, infant circumcision should be considered a stopgap measure until it is rendered medically unnecessary, and then fully abolished to preserve the bodily autonomy of those infants."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: A ban on all forms of ritual body modification done without a person’s consent that are not medically necessary? That could actually work. Of course it would be far larger in scope than the current proposal, but it’s an interesting idea.

OOC: Why would you limit it to "ritual" procedures only? If the argument is that only medically necessary procedures are to be performed until someone reaches adulthood and can consent, we should have to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary procedures, including e.g. any orthodontic treatment for cosmetic purposes (the vast majority, which modify the body too).

I again implore people to actually listen to the doctors and stop this anti-circumcision crusade.

(OOC: Assuming that non-ritual procedures were included, in my mind, the hypothetical legislation would use the standard of agreement rather than the higher standard of informed consent. Therefore, it would not ban putting braces on children, but rather ban forcing children to have braces, which is illegal in my country (the UK) and probably a lot of others.

To bring this back to the original topic, circumcision, medical procedures should only be forced on someone when there is otherwise an imminent danger to life, permanent injury or disability. I cannot see a circumcision on a healthy infant as avoiding any of those outcomes.)

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Unconvincing response. "Merely 12%"? The fact you're willing to dismiss a disease that infected 152 million and killed 190,000+ as insignificant in order to push through this anti-Semetic proposal is beyond absurd. Furthermore, your suggestions that these problems can just be fixed otherwise is both a failure to consider this proposal in the status quo instead of a hypothetical world where everyone has access to top medical advice and services, and in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the AAP and ACOG.

You also convieniently ignore the fact that the benefits decrease and the risks increase if someone is circumcised at a later age.

Unless the proposal is altered to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary treatments because "bodile autonomy", I struggle to see this as anything else than a hidden anti-Semitic and anti-Islam proposal.

"Nothing about this is intended as a hidden 'anti-Semitic' or 'anti-Islamic' plot, and ignoring our actual concerns in favor of framing our views as that is inaccurate. Our only concern is simultaneously preserving the right of individuals to modify their own bodies and also promoting alternative treatments which are more beneficial than a marginally helpful and ethically dubious medical procedure promoted for all that genuinely help only a few.

OOC: I never stated that you or anyone else is anti-Semetic or holds anti-Semetic views. Instead, I called this specific proposal what it is: anti-Semetic and anti-Islam. More often than not, such policies are advanced not by bigots, but mostly by fine people acting out of ignorance and stubbornness. Instead of repeating that the procedure is "marginally helpful", please reread the AAP policy statement I cited earlier.

OOC: Why would you limit it to "ritual" procedures only? If the argument is that only medically necessary procedures are to be performed until someone reaches adulthood and can consent, we should have to ban all medically beneficial but not medically necessary procedures, including e.g. any orthodontic treatment for cosmetic purposes (the vast majority, which modify the body too).

I again implore people to actually listen to the doctors and stop this anti-circumcision crusade.

(OOC: Assuming that non-ritual procedures were included, in my mind, the hypothetical legislation would use the standard of agreement rather than the higher standard of informed consent. Therefore, it would not ban putting braces on children, but rather ban forcing children to have braces, which is illegal in my country (the UK) and probably a lot of others.

To bring this back to the original topic, circumcision, medical procedures should only be forced on someone when there is otherwise an imminent danger to life, permanent injury or disability. I cannot see a circumcision on a healthy infant as avoiding any of those outcomes.)

Why would other forms of non-medically necessary procedures only require agreement, whereas this procedure - under the current proposal - would require informed consent? In addition, I hope it is clear that requiring "imminent danger to life, permanent injury or disability" for a procedure to be performed on children excludes more than just circumcision and orthodontics, and would require us to keep babies in pain if there is no risk for permanent injury in doing so. In addition, if men circumcise at a later age, benefits decrease and risks increase, so this proposal further unnecessarily puts Jewish and Muslim men in danger.

[Kenmoria]

“I recommend that the italicisation is removed throughout the proposal, apart possibly from where it marks what terms are being defined. Also, you should have capital letters at the beginning of all your preambulatory clauses.”

"Nothing about this is intended as a hidden 'anti-Semitic' or 'anti-Islamic' plot, and ignoring our actual concerns in favor of framing our views as that is inaccurate. Our only concern is simultaneously preserving the right of individuals to modify their own bodies and also promoting alternative treatments which are more beneficial than a marginally helpful and ethically dubious medical procedure promoted for all that genuinely help only a few.

OOC: I never stated that you or anyone else is anti-Semetic or holds anti-Semetic views. Instead, I called this specific proposal what it is: anti-Semetic and anti-Islam. More often than not, such policies are advanced not by bigots, but mostly by fine people acting out of ignorance and stubbornness. Instead of repeating that the procedure is "marginally helpful", please reread the AAP policy statement I cited earlier.

(OOC: Assuming that non-ritual procedures were included, in my mind, the hypothetical legislation would use the standard of agreement rather than the higher standard of informed consent. Therefore, it would not ban putting braces on children, but rather ban forcing children to have braces, which is illegal in my country (the UK) and probably a lot of others.

To bring this back to the original topic, circumcision, medical procedures should only be forced on someone when there is otherwise an imminent danger to life, permanent injury or disability. I cannot see a circumcision on a healthy infant as avoiding any of those outcomes.)

Why would other forms of non-medically necessary procedures only require agreement, whereas this procedure - under the current proposal - would require informed consent? In addition, I hope it is clear that requiring "imminent danger to life, permanent injury or disability" for a procedure to be performed on children includes more than just circumcision and orthodontics, and would require us to keep babies in pain if there is no risk for permanent injury in doing so. In addition, if men circumcise at a later age, benefits decrease and risks increase, so this proposal further unnecessarily puts Jewish and Muslim men in danger.

(OOC: With regards to the first point, this is a hypothetical piece of legislation that has not yet been written, so finding issues with it isn’t really a problem. With regards to the second, there is a point at which the gains become sufficiently marginal that violations of bodily sovereignty are not worth it. Circumcision is beyond that point, as it has both benefits and costs that, when taken together, are not more compelling than the right to not have a medical procedure forced upon someone.)

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Regarding GAR#29. I am entirely sceptical of the claim advanced by UM that circumcision is generally covered. Section II covers "medical [procedures] deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional." This proposal does not outlaw such procedures. Claims made regarding RL US health authorities' attitudes towards circumcision are irrelevant in this light.

Regarding GAR#430. I don't see contradiction. Prohibiting non-consensual mutilation of the bodies of minors seems to be consistent with the exception in section 3. Even if it isn't, I note section 7 allows action against religious beliefs which manifest themselves in violence or coercive action. I doubt anyone could maintain that generally non-consensual body modification is not violent or coercive.

IC: "Opposed. Current law on the topic is sufficient."

[La Xinga]

OOC: Regarding GAR#29. I am entirely sceptical of the claim advanced by UM that circumcision is generally covered. Section II covers "medical [procedures] deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional." This proposal does not outlaw such procedures. Claims made regarding RL US health authorities' attitudes towards circumcision are irrelevant in this light.

Regarding GAR#430. I don't see contradiction. Prohibiting non-consensual mutilation of the bodies of minors seems to be consistent with the exception in section 3. Even if it isn't, I note section 7 allows action against religious beliefs which manifest themselves in violence or coercive action. I doubt anyone could maintain that generally non-consensual body modification is not violent or coercive.

IC: "Opposed. Current law on the topic is sufficient."

OOC: Why not, if it's protecting you from a place which is much more violent?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Regarding GAR#29. I am entirely sceptical of the claim advanced by UM that circumcision is generally covered. Section II covers "medical [procedures] deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional." This proposal does not outlaw such procedures. Claims made regarding RL US health authorities' attitudes towards circumcision are irrelevant in this light.

Regarding GAR#430. I don't see contradiction. Prohibiting non-consensual mutilation of the bodies of minors seems to be consistent with the exception in section 3. Even if it isn't, I note section 7 allows action against religious beliefs which manifest themselves in violence or coercive action. I doubt anyone could maintain that generally non-consensual body modification is not violent or coercive.

IC: "Opposed. Current law on the topic is sufficient."

OOC: Why not, if it's protecting you from a place which is much more violent?

(OOC: Questions of legality are resolved within the context of the World Assembly not Earth, meaning that statements from real-life religions or real-life health authorities don’t matter per se.)

[La Xinga]

OOC: Why not, if it's protecting you from a place which is much more violent?

(OOC: Questions of legality are resolved within the context of the World Assembly not Earth, meaning that statements from real-life religions or real-life health authorities don’t matter per se.)

Then we can't exactly say anything is antisemitic, am I right?

[Euclid Island]

"Is it not possible to put a clause making countries decide whether they should allow circumcision for religious practices by themselves? I'm new to being an ambassador, so maybe this isn't a thing, but leaving circumcision for religious reasons up to the government lets Jewish nations practice their own faith without violating this bill. Regardless, as this bill does stop involuntary action, we will be supporting this bill."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Questions of legality are resolved within the context of the World Assembly not Earth, meaning that statements from real-life religions or real-life health authorities don’t matter per se.)

Then we can't exactly say anything is antisemitic, am I right?

(OOC: It’s very possible to argue that OOC, since circumcision is a part of Judaism in real life. Also, from an IC perspective, there are religions that do practice circumcision. Complicating the matter is the fact that some nations have Judaism as part of their canon, despite the fact that mentioning Judaism in a proposal would make that legislation illegal for RL reference.

When it comes to roleplay, the whole thing’s a grey area because everyone has their own canons. However, overall, antisemitism can generally be mentioned in General Assembly debates.)

[La Xinga]

Then we can't exactly say anything is antisemitic, am I right?

(OOC: It’s very possible to argue that OOC, since circumcision is a part of Judaism in real life. Also, from an IC perspective, there are religions that do practice circumcision. Complicating the matter is the fact that some nations have Judaism as part of their canon, despite the fact that mentioning Judaism in a proposal would make that legislation illegal for RL reference.

When it comes to roleplay, the whole thing’s a grey area because everyone has their own canons. However, overall, antisemitism can generally be mentioned in General Assembly debates.)

OOC: So it's a whole mess?