[Abandoned] Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision"

[Excidium Planetis]

Another repeal appears before General Assembly. Adelia Meritt, embarrassed by the inevitable talk of genitalia, does not appear in person before the chamber, but again has a telecommunications device set up in the drafting room.

Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #141 || Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description:

The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing that male circumcision is a controversial topic whose supporters and opponents both have strong opinions that are mutually exclusive of the opposing side,

Arguing that, given its status as an elective medical procedure with relatively minor benefits and risks, it is not, in the interest of public health, a pressing concern of this Assembly whether male circumcision is legal or not,

Stating that this is certainly not an international issue, and that it should be the sovereign right of nations to determine whether they will legalize male circumcision or not,

Encouraging the members of this Assembly to think carefully about the legislation they choose to enact in the future and whether it is really strictly necessary for this body to address,

Destroys "Permit Male Circumcision"

[Hulldom]

Perfectly fine by me.

I question whether this part of the stating clause is necessary there.

and the World Assembly will fight anyone who says so

[Heidgaudr]

Based repeal. Unabashed support & I echo Hulldom's concerns.

[Tinhampton]

Support.

1. GA#141 "Permit[s] Male Circumcision" inasmuch as it declares the practice "a medical procedure, and entitles patients undergoing male circumcision to all the protections associated with that status." However, there are no protections explicitly offered to recipients of medical procedures, by virtue of their receiving medical procedures. Most references to medical procedures in active resolutions are to declare something or other an MP.
Article II of GA#30 merely says that "All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available."
GA#141 refers to "any legal right that parents or guardians may have to consent to medical procedures on behalf of an individual" - but only to the extent that it declares that this right does not apply to FGM.
GA#487 says that anybody who is "undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received" may be forced into receiving such medications without their consent.

2. What Kenmoria said.

[Excidium Planetis]

I question whether this part of the stating clause is necessary there.

and the World Assembly will fight anyone who says so

OOC:
I have no idea what you're referring to.

[Trans-Uralia]

Based

[Umbratellus]

We absolutely support the repeal but find the fence-sitting attitude on the topic disturbing. It is our sincerest hope that some day the World Assembly will come to its sense and outlaw the barbaric practice of circumcision in its entirety. Until such a day comes, a lack of standing legislation is preferable to explicit license to continue.

[Excidium Planetis]

We absolutely support the repeal but find the fence-sitting attitude on the topic disturbing. It is our sincerest hope that some day the World Assembly will come to its sense and outlaw the barbaric practice of circumcision in its entirety. Until such a day comes, a lack of standing legislation is preferable to explicit license to continue.

"No, uh, 'fence-sitting' here, Ambassador. I believe I have made my stance quite clear on the matter." Adelia Meritt replies. "If another member nation allows circumcision, it doesn't affect you at all. Your nation is- I mean, should, er, this repeal pass, your nation will be free to ban circumcision, if that is, uh, what your people want."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"The Ice mission does not mind the passage of this repeal."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
Senior Staffer of the Ice World Assembly mission,
Temporary World Assembly Ambassador in the absence of Duke Vliet,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Heidgaudr]

We absolutely support the repeal but find the fence-sitting attitude on the topic disturbing. It is our sincerest hope that some day the World Assembly will come to its sense and outlaw the barbaric practice of circumcision in its entirety. Until such a day comes, a lack of standing legislation is preferable to explicit license to continue.

"We agree that the circumcision of unconsenting babies and children is barbaric and ought to be outlawed, but what a consenting adult does with their own body should not be our concern. Don't conflate infant circumcision with all circumcision."

[The Pacific Northwest]

We absolutely support the repeal but find the fence-sitting attitude on the topic disturbing. It is our sincerest hope that some day the World Assembly will come to its sense and outlaw the barbaric practice of circumcision in its entirety. Until such a day comes, a lack of standing legislation is preferable to explicit license to continue.

There are actually medical reasons for circumcision. It is mainly done for religious reasons or just because it’s the ‘normal’ thing to do, but there are certain scenarios in which it is necessary.

That being said I don’t like that performing an unnecessary procedure on someone who cannot consent is considered normal. If an adult wants to do that, fine. You do you. But someone making that decision for a baby doesn’t sit right with me as it’s not medically necessary, and with any procedure, while rare, complications can occur. I wouldn’t be outright against a ban on infant circumcision, but a blanket ban would mean people with medical reasons for it can’t get the care they need and infringe on the religious freedom of consenting adults.

[WayNeacTia]

So we are going to argue about baby penises again? Why not? Another NAPA repeal is coming up, so why not rehash history yet another time....

[Umbratellus]

"No, uh, 'fence-sitting' here, Ambassador. I believe I have made my stance quite clear on the matter." Adelia Meritt replies. "If another member nation allows circumcision, it doesn't affect you at all. Your nation is- I mean, should, er, this repeal pass, your nation will be free to ban circumcision, if that is, uh, what your people want."

My good ambassador, I apologize for the ambiguities of my statement; let me speak with clarity and certitude. Your position within your legislation is absolutely clear. I speak of your moral fence-sitting. In the face of depraved and barbarous practices one must stand with conviction against them. We are quite pragmatic, however, and thus are still willing to lend our support to your legislation.

"We agree that the circumcision of unconsenting babies and children is barbaric and ought to be outlawed, but what a consenting adult does with their own body should not be our concern. Don't conflate infant circumcision with all circumcision."

It is absolutely our concern. Practices that degrade one's humanity and the moral fabric of society are repugnant and aught to be repudiated at every turn. It is the concern of both the state and broader society to ensure the health and wellbeing of their constituent members.

There are actually medical reasons for circumcision. It is mainly done for religious reasons or just because it’s the ‘normal’ thing to do, but there are certain scenarios in which it is necessary.

That being said I don’t like that performing an unnecessary procedure on someone who cannot consent is considered normal. If an adult wants to do that, fine. You do you. But someone making that decision for a baby doesn’t sit right with me as it’s not medically necessary, and with any procedure, while rare, complications can occur. I wouldn’t be outright against a ban on infant circumcision, but a blanket ban would mean people with medical reasons for it can’t get the care they need and infringe on the religious freedom of consenting adults.

Medical "reasons" are few and far between and are almost exclusively invoked as a smokescreen with the faintest veneer of legitimacy to protect regressive religious practices. Perhaps one day a more enlightened World Assembly would see to stamping out the plague that is religion; alas, today is not that day.

[The Orwell Society]

Opposed. I see no problem with the target resolution, and this is the most Nat-Sov repeal I’ve ever seen…

[Toonela]

Seeing that another repeal is being prepared, Sophonisba quickly scrolls through a list to read the relevant resolution before responding.

"I'm not entirely sure this has much of a practical effect, given the targeted resolution already allows member states to do everything short of a blanket ban. I'd assume that something like regulation of infant circumcision falls within the permissible scope. Am I failing to consider something here beyond national sovereignty or is that the only perceived harm?"

[Juansonia]

OOC: Full support, pending a non-NatSov argument or a rule change.

If someone asks for a replacement, I might help you whip together something that allows member states to define policy to a greater extent while still being (hopefully) legal.

Seeing that another repeal is being prepared, Sophonisba quickly scrolls through a list to read relevant resolution before responding.

"I'm not entirely sure this has much of a practical effect, given the targeted resolution already allows member states to do everything short of a blanket ban. I'd assume that something like regulation of infant circumcision falls within the permissible scope. Am I failing to consider something here beyond national sovereignty or is that the only perceived harm?"

Arguably, a "circumcision may not be performed on a minor unless medically necessary" policy may fall afoul of the last clause, depending on how you interpret other WA legislation that has been passed.

[The Pacific Northwest]

Medical "reasons" are few and far between and are almost exclusively invoked as a smokescreen with the faintest veneer of legitimacy to protect regressive religious practices. Perhaps one day a more enlightened World Assembly would see to stamping out the plague that is religion; alas, today is not that day.

While not common, rare does not mean nonexistent and as such I really don’t think anyone who legitimately has a medical reason for it should be denied that treatment solely because it’s mostly done for other reasons.

If a consenting adult wants it done for any reason other than medical then it’s just an elective surgery. Under normal circumstances an adult can consent, and therefore I don’t feel they should be denied. I’m not religious personally but I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Someone choosing to get circumcised as an adult doesn’t affect me just like someone getting a nose job doesn’t affect me, therefore I see no reason to ban the procedure in consenting adults.

[Excidium Planetis]

My good ambassador, I apologize for the ambiguities of my statement; let me speak with clarity and certitude. Your position within your legislation is absolutely clear. I speak of your moral fence-sitting. In the face of depraved and barbarous practices one must stand with conviction against them. We are quite pragmatic, however, and thus are still willing to lend our support to your legislation.

"The World Assembly, should not, be in the business of passing resolutions for moral reasons." Adelia replies. "Imagine that the World Assembly mandated the practice of a specific religion for the sake of morality. Nobody would like that, I am sure."

[Heavens Reach]

There are currently no in-force resolutions to broadly protect a patient's medical autonomy, and that's ostensibly what this resolution is about, albeit on an extremely restricted scale. We're ambivalent about a repeal in that respect, but we are not ambivalent about the lack of broad medical autonomy protections. That said, the target resolution does not seem to protect those who cannot consent -- particularly owing to not yet being the age of majority -- and for that reason, we support this repeal.

[Goobergunchia]

Contrary to the arguments raised in the draft proposal, it is clear that many members of this Assembly would view its passage as an opportunity to attempt passage of a WA-wide ban of male circumcision. While we do not believe such a ban would pass, we also do not believe that the frequent debates on this subject, which were only (and mercifully) ended by the passage of the target resolution, are good for any ambassador's sanity.

We encourage all members to review the debates relevant to the passage of the target resolution before jumping to support its repeal.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Stellar Colonies]

"The Confederacy will take this opportunity to reiterate its puzzlement with what appears to be an unnecessary distinction made in the realm of genital cutting regarding physical sex, along with measured distaste towards the highly regressive application of it upon those unable to provide consent for such modifications made upon their bodies. However, it will also point out that the current resolution allows enough leeway for age-based restrictions to be enacted in accordance with the laws currently regulating the procedure in the Confederate Charter which can be emulated by others disdainful of it, and is concerned by the possibility of an upset in WA law allowing for conservative elements to impose their culture upon the WA at large in an attempted replacement of the currently less than perfect compromise."

- Confederate representative to the World Assembly

[Upper Tuchoim]

I really hope no one involved in these resolutions are members of the Silent Hill Wiki.

[Simone Republic]

Perfectly fine by me.

I question whether this part of the stating clause is necessary there.

and the World Assembly will fight anyone who says so

I support the principle of the repeal but yeah I find the tone of the resolution jarring.

Yes there are minor health benefits to this procedure (I quickly looked this up as I am not familiar with this topic) but the medical aspects of this topic are too minor.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 20in%20men.

[Barfleur]

"I fully support this repeal. The target resolution is truly barbaric not only in its desire to elevate the right to mutilate the bodies of infants over the right of infants not to be mutilated, but in its overriding of national and local laws intended to protect the just-born. Barfleur stands behind Amb. Meritt in this endeavor."

OOC: Based and security of the person pilled. I do not wish to give too much away about my personal life, but this means a lot to me. I really hope it passes.

[Pangurstan]

I support this resolution so the WA can pass make circumcision mandatory