[ABANDONED] Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision"

[Alqania]

*snip*

"With all due respect to Ambassador Scaredilocks", Lord Raekevik started in a ceremonious tone, "I find his assertions that this is about anti-Semitism rather unfounded. First, it should be noted that a Semite and a Jew are not exactly the same thing, and the Ambassador's terminology is therefore questionable. The Ambassador asserts that this assembly 'obviously' had a row of anti-Semitic proposals against male circumcision with the intent to exclude Jewish nations from this assembly. Could the Ambassador back this up?

The Ambassador goes on to assert that the intention behind this repeal, milady Galadriel's intention, is anti-Semitic and against Jews. Could the Ambassador back this up?"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

First, it should be noted that a Semite and a Jew are not exactly the same thing, and the Ambassador's terminology is therefore questionable.

Considering that Arabs, as Semites, also circumcise baby boys, and could therefore be "excluded" from this body via a circumcision ban... er, not really.

[United Celts]

*snip*

"With all due respect to Ambassador Scaredilocks", Lord Raekevik started in a ceremonious tone, "I find his assertions that this is about anti-Semitism rather unfounded. First, it should be noted that a Semite and a Jew are not exactly the same thing, and the Ambassador's terminology is therefore questionable. The Ambassador asserts that this assembly 'obviously' had a row of anti-Semitic proposals against male circumcision with the intent to exclude Jewish nations from this assembly. Could the Ambassador back this up?

The Ambassador goes on to assert that the intention behind this repeal, milady Galadriel's intention, is anti-Semitic and against Jews. Could the Ambassador back this up?"

"While I don't think Ambassador Scaredilocks intended to imply that the author of this repeal proposal is anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic, I agree with what Lord Raekevik is getting at," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn insisted. "Which, I might add, often seems to be the case. There are good reasons to oppose non-consensual male circumcision besides either anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism -- not the least of which being that it's non-consensual. Why should Jews or people of any other religion or culture for that matter get to force circumcision on their sons, and if they can should we not also repeal GAR #114 so that the people of member nations can also be free to mutilate their daughters' genitalia for religious or cultural reasons?"

[Telepathic Fetuses]

We support this repeal. How barbaric is this world that the rights of Parents to mutilate the bodies of the newly Birthed are held sacrosanct?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Opposed, for the exact same reason that I oppose all legislation on the topic of Abortion. NatSov or not, IntFed or not, the fact is that if this gets repealed we'll have four threads on this topic, just like we currently have roughly four threads regarding the abortion debate.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

"With all due respect to Ambassador Scaredilocks", Lord Raekevik started in a ceremonious tone, "I find his assertions that this is about anti-Semitism rather unfounded. First, it should be noted that a Semite and a Jew are not exactly the same thing, and the Ambassador's terminology is therefore questionable. The Ambassador asserts that this assembly 'obviously' had a row of anti-Semitic proposals against male circumcision with the intent to exclude Jewish nations from this assembly. Could the Ambassador back this up?

The Ambassador goes on to assert that the intention behind this repeal, milady Galadriel's intention, is anti-Semitic and against Jews. Could the Ambassador back this up?"

Really?! My terminology is only questionable to someone who has been living under a rock for the last hundred years. Whether or not a "Semite" is the same thing as a Jew is completely irrelevant. There is no debate over the meaning of the term "anti-Semitism" - it means hostility, hatred, or discrimination against Jews. I've heard some strange things from Lord Raekevik during my time here, but this is by far the least credible thing I've ever heard from the Alqanian delegation. I don't know what madness lead you to challenge my word choice on this point, but I suggest you have a doctor check into it since it sounds like a particularly bad form of dementia.

I find it laughable that only two lines from suggesting that it is "questionable" to correlate anti-Semitism with Jewish people, I would be asked to back up my assertions. How wonderfully bizarre.

In any case, I don't have any direct evidence that the Permit Male Circumcision resolution was designed to protect Jewish people - I was not around for those debates. I'm relying on a common sense inference, as there's a particular religious culture to whom male circumcision is especially relevant and who would be especially hard hit if a WA ban on the practice was ever enacted. The resolution itself talks of efforts to enact a WA ban on male circumcision. Whether or not other rationales were proposed for those bans, it cannot be argued that the result of such a ban would be a great blow to Jewish people - regardless of the stated intent of the proposal. I would go so far as to say that such a ban would affect the Jewish populations of member nations more than any other group. And so I feel justified in calling the prior efforts to ban male circumcision "anti-Semitic" regardless of their stated aim.

As for my impression of the author's intentions, I'll admit that I have no earthly idea. I can only surmise what they might be based on my reading of the repeal and the reasons given for it. I rely on the part of the repeal that suggests a controversy exists because of "Opposition to any unnecessary modification of the human body undertaken for cultural and religious, rather then practical reasons." I wonder what cultural or religious practice of male circumcision she might be referring to if not that of the Jews. Even if she does not hold these views herself, the author would have us enshrine this rubbish in the body of WA law. Mentioning opposition to Jewish cultural practices as a reason to repeal a WA law that protects those practices seems pretty damn anti-Semitic to me.

The resolution being targeted for repeal protects the rights of Jewish people to comply with their religious covenant with god. My rhetoric may be harsh, but it is not unreasonable. I think it's fair for me to point out what removing this resolution would do - it would enable nations to discriminate against the religious practices of Jews living in their borders.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We support this repeal. How barbaric is this world that the rights of Parents to mutilate the bodies of the newly Birthed are held sacrosanct?

Interesting that this assumption is never corrected by the opponents of PMC. Could someone point out to me exactly where in PMC it authorizes parents to circumcise their children? The answer is: nowhere. Can someone else name the actual resolution that permits parents to make medical decisions for their children -- and for that matter, explain why the onus was never on PMC's opponents to repeal that resolution, but on PMC's author to contradict standing legislation?

[Alqania]

We support this repeal. How barbaric is this world that the rights of Parents to mutilate the bodies of the newly Birthed are held sacrosanct?

Interesting that this assumption is never corrected by the opponents of PMC. Could someone point out to me exactly where in PMC it authorizes parents to circumcise their children? The answer is: nowhere. Can someone else name the actual resolution that permits parents to make medical decisions for their children -- and for that matter, explain why the onus was never on PMC's opponents to repeal that resolution, but on PMC's author to contradict standing legislation?

"I can certainly name the actual resolution that permits parents to make medical decisions for their children, insofar as those children are under the age of majority: GA#29 Patient's Rights Act", Lord Raekevik stated matter-of-factly. "The following clause is the one of particular interest:"

(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.

[United Celts]

I rely on the part of the repeal that suggests a controversy exists because of "Opposition to any unnecessary modification of the human body undertaken for cultural and religious, rather then practical reasons." I wonder what cultural or religious practice of male circumcision she might be referring to if not that of the Jews. Even if she does not hold these views herself, the author would have us enshrine this rubbish in the body of WA law. Mentioning opposition to Jewish cultural practices as a reason to repeal a WA law that protects those practices seems pretty damn anti-Semitic to me.

"Gotta stop you there, Ambassador," said Ambassador Mac Lochlainn, more than a little testily. "Maybe the author was just adapting some of the language used by GAR #114 to prohibit female genital mutilation, referred to by its proponents as female circumcision. They, too, claim to have religious and cultural reasons for their barbaric practices -- and yet as you'll note, this Assembly banned female genital mutilation by a vote of 5,009 to 665. It should do the same in regard to male genital mutilation."

Can someone else name the actual resolution that permits parents to make medical decisions for their children -- and for that matter, explain why the onus was never on PMC's opponents to repeal that resolution, but on PMC's author to contradict standing legislation?

"Ambassador, I think you're referring to the Patient's Rights Act," Mac Lochlainn said, "but that doesn't apply here as we're talking about male circumcision forced upon infants for religious and cultural rather than valid medical reasons. Again, I would point to GAR #114. What this Assembly did for women it should also do for men."

[Of the Quendi]

Opposed. Circumcision does no harm, why prevent it? I have never heard of a person who wished that they had not been circumcised.

"Then it is fortunate that the proposal will not prevent circumcision, but merely make it a matter for the membersstates themselves to decide." The SMFAWA replied. Her own thoughts on the sensibility of an individual who was able to maintain ignorance of an entire medical practise dedicated to foreskin restoration specifically targetting circumcised men, she found it best not to mention.

For protection of the religious eights of Jews world wide, I stand against this repeal. The USSV will not support.

"The Amanitte delegation generally has the utmost respect of all religions but allowing religious practise to dictate policy is not something that the WA should ever tolerate." The SMFAWA replied, pondering what the religious eights of judaism, a religion she knew little about, was.

The SMFWA, lady Galadriel nodded. "An understandable suggestion milord. My intention in including this particular clause has to do with the fact that male circumcision is something there has in the past been strong support for in the General Assembly. My hope with the clause would be to stress that the intent with the repeal is not to clear the way for a prohibition. Perhaps the clause could be rephrased to this?"

"Milady's intentions are duly noted and the reworded clause would be agreeable to the Queendom, however, I fear that for purely technical reasons the Secretariat may find it a violation of what can legally be included in a repeal. The following sentence from the GA Proposal Compendium springs to mind:"

Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

"While the clause in question de facto adds nothing, I fear it is worded in a way that it does add something de jure and would therefore render the repeal illegal. Perhaps it could be reworded to something along the lines of the following:"

But CLARIFYING that this repeal does not restrict the right of member states to allow male circumcision.

"That way, the clause clarifies only what this repeal is capable of, not this assembly."

The SMFAWA nodded enthusiastically. "That is certainly a wording I can agree to milord. I shall at once amend the proposal to include this most cunning phrasing."

"I will only support this if there isn't going to be a replacement attempt which will open up this can of worms again. Circumcision is as divisive as abortion without being even half as important."

"I can certainly understand the Astro-Malsitarian concern on this matter. It is by no means the interest of Aman to open up for a can of worms. Our concern for the "Permit Male Circumcision" is that it is inherently biased in favor of male circumcision rather then, as should such a controversial issue, being entirely neutral. Now one could of course interpret the phrasing " notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure" as permiting the membersstates to make it so difficult to undertake circumcision that it becomes de facto impossible, yet rather then allowing such cheap legal tricks the Amanitte delegation desires a truelly neutral WA policy on this controversial, and indeed insignificant, matter." The SAMFAWA replied.

World Assembly Ambassador for the Free Land of Sitka, Ašer Pinski, stands up and speaks:

"As you probably know, the majority of Sitka population are of Jewish faith, many of the citizens view male circumcision as a thing of deep importance. I don't want to bother you with theological explaining and I'm going to put it short - I'm worried about this proposal and I don't see any good reason behind this."

"While the abrahamic faiths is not something I have much experience with I would like to make it very clear that it is not the intention behind the repeal proposal to harrass jews and muslims. But as for the reasons behind this proposal I must highlight the fact that there remains much medical uncertainity about the pros and cons of the procedure. I must admit I find it distasteful that the membersstates are obligated to carry out a procedure that may nationally be considered dangerous. Another, and to Aman far more important, reason is the issue of infants, unable to consent, being subjected to the procedure." The SMFAWA replied.

"I will only support this if there isn't going to be a replacement attempt which will open up this can of worms again. Circumcision is as divisive as abortion without being even half as important."

FOR...but I hope this doesn't open this can of worms again.

You're quite mad if you seriously believe that a successful repeal will not re-invigorate the lobby to ban male circumcision.

As it stands, male circumcision is protected by all the rights and duties associated with a medical procedure, and states may decide for themselves to regulate it. This is a fair compromise and fully in line with the compromise legislation that we've recently passed on other controversial issues.

This repeal attempt is also blatantly illegal for "clarifying" the intent of the general assembly to refrain from passing legislation in the future. This is law-making and a repeal cannot do this.

"The issue with the unfortunate lawmaking aspects of the repeal has been altered to take into account concerns about this issue. Should the repeal of the proposal, which the amanitte delegation finds to be an admireable attempt to establish a compromise, re-invigorate the lobby to ban male circumcision then naturally the amanitte delegation will do its utmost to counter such tendencies. But as it stands we are not satisfied with the decision to force the membersstates to legalize male circumcision, regardless of their right to regulate." The SAMFAWA replied.

We would suggest to those concerned about the practise of male circumcision that under the wording of the proposal:

DECLARES male circumcision to be a medical procedure, and entitles patients undergoing male circumcision to all the protections associated with that status;

OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure.

Member nations have a large amount of freedom to regulate as they see fit, we would argue therefore that a nation can (and in our opinion should) require the patients consent before the procedure takes place.

The only thing the resolution blocks is an out right ban on circumcision, other than that the circumstances under which it is permissable are left to us to decide. We see this as a useful protection against the kind of fairlytale nonsense that has swept the WA recently and would not wish to see it repealed without an extremely persuasive argument.

opposed

"The wording of the proposal isn't bad. Yet the proposal does serve to provide legitimacy to membersstates seeking to allow unrestricted male circumcision to be performed for religious and cultural reasons. The amanitte delegation opposes allowing WA legislature to provide legitimacy to such acts." The SAMFAWA replied.

It is our position that nonconsensual circumcision ought to be banned, and as the target resolution prevents the WA from requiring that member states ban nonconsensual circumcision, we support this repeal.

However, we think that this clause:

But CLARIFYING that the General Assembly shall not seek to restrict the right of the states to allow male circumcision.

in addition to very likely being illegal is also unnecessary, and that it would be best if this clause were removed.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

"We appear to be in agreement ... Oh, and done." The SAMFAWA replied.

"Noting along with other ambassadors the legality issue," Ambassador Finn Mac Lochlainn began, "the Kingdom offers its tentative support for this proposal pending the revision of the illegal clause in question. Moreover, the Kingdom favors prohibition of non-consensual male circumcision. It's amazing to me how many international federalists go wobbly even to the point of offering national sovereigntist arguments on the grounds that something might prove too controversial. Please, ambassadors, maintain the courage of your convictions or kindly step aside for those of us who will."

OOC: Seriously, though. Can we get the mods to start moderating against too controversial (or TooCon!) arguments? Granted, I haven't been here for very long, but I haven't seen a single proposal that hasn't proven controversial. Quelesh and Ossitania were ready to rip each other to pieces over habeas corpus double jeopardy. Sanctaria and Cowardly Pacifists were getting feisty over the title of the latter's proposal on WMDs. And somebody drafted a repeal of Renewable Research Commitment the same day it passed. Under the TooCon doctrine, we should probably just all stop legislating altogether. Let's lay the TooCon arguments to rest, shall we?

"The clause of the questionable legality has been adjusted in a manner we hope is within the exsisting practise of the WA. That said we gladly welcome any assistance the United Celts may be willing to lend to the repeal." The SAMFAWA replied.

The resolution that is targeted by this repeal is very brief, and yet it makes very clear why this Assembly felt the need to protect the practice of male circumcision:

HAVING VOTED to deny a ban on male circumcision on previous occasions;

Obviously there was once a problem with anti-Semitic nations trying to pass an international ban on male circumcision in order to frustrate the Jewish people of the world and effectively ban Jewish nations from this Assembly. It's sad, but I'm not surprised. And I doubt that we've come so far since March of last year that we no longer need this resolution. The moment this thing is repealed we're gonna have the same damn problem of bigoted nations trying to sneakily boot Jewish folk out of the WA.

So I'm opposed to any repeal on principle.

That said, this particular draft has many problems that make it useless even to those nations that want to see Permit Male Circumcision repealed. The whole thing is based on the Nat Sov argument that male circumcision is "controversial." The repeal tries to sneak this in as a reason for the "controversy:"

Opposition to any unneccesary modification of the human body undertaken for cultural and religious, rather then practical reasons

There can be no doubt about the anti-Semitic intentions of the author of this proposal when this is among the stated grounds for repealing "Permit Male Circumcision." The other reasons given for the "controversy" are hardly any better, and rest on highly questionable facts ("Some scientific indicators suggesting... risks for the patient;" "The possibility, however slim, of complications...")

And, of course, the repeal's author attempts to hide its intent with this blatantly illegal attempt to pacify the opposition:

But CLARIFYING that the General Assembly shall not seek to restrict the right of the states to allow male circumcision

This is illegal legislation in a repeal, and will prevent this from ever reaching the voting floor. The author is clearly aware that few will support this repeal if they believe it will open up the possibility of a WA Ban on Circumcision - and they included this illegal provision in order to placate those nations. Of course, this provision cannot stand, and this repeal - if ever successful - will absolutely result in a flood of proposals to ban circumcision in the WA. That's what was happening before Permit Male Circumcision that lead to its passage in the first place.

I ask my fellow ambassadors to join me in vocal opposition to this bad faith effort to repeal Permit Male Circumcision.

"Mesire, please refrain from these conspiracy theories. My, and my state's, oppinion on judaism is that of indifference and ignorance. The jewish minority in Aman is one of the smallest in the country even if this does not hold true in the colonies. We have no interest in kicking out jewish membersstates of the WA, and kindly asks that they do not attempt to kick us out by forcing us to accept a doctrine we cannot fully back. You mention the lack of any real medical research on this matter as being in favor of allowing male circumcision. Curiously enough the amanitte Ministry of Health used that exact arguement when asking that the amanitte WA delegation to take steps to repeal the "Permit Male Circumcision" proposal." The SAMFAWA replied, mildly annoyed by the offensive accusation.

[Linux and the X]

We support this repeal. How barbaric is this world that the rights of Parents to mutilate the bodies of the newly Birthed are held sacrosanct?

Interesting that this assumption is never corrected by the opponents of PMC. Could someone point out to me exactly where in PMC it authorizes parents to circumcise their children? The answer is: nowhere. Can someone else name the actual resolution that permits parents to make medical decisions for their children -- and for that matter, explain why the onus was never on PMC's opponents to repeal that resolution, but on PMC's author to contradict standing legislation?

PMC did not directly authorise parents to demand circumcision, but it defined circumcision as a medical procedure. As it happens, I would prefer to amend (yes, I know that's not possible, which is why I said it was merely a preference) PRA.

[Knootoss]

We believe that this is fundamentally a matter of national choice, and therefore support this repeal - but could care less either way.

By supporting a repeal Moronist Decisions is aligning itself directly with those who would ban a medical procedure because of their own cultural prejudices. You can be sure that a successful repeal will herald renewed attempts at cultural imperialism by the anti-circumcision crowd. The "national choice" option in this case is to oppose a repeal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

We believe that this is fundamentally a matter of national choice, and therefore support this repeal - but could care less either way.

By supporting a repeal Moronist Decisions is aligning itself directly with those who would ban a medical procedure of their own cultural prejudices. The "national choice" option in this case is to oppose a repeal.

I firmly agree with the Ambassador from Knootoss. PMC is fine the way it is. Let it lie.

[Flibbleites]

This whole debate is best summed up with:
(Image)

No, it's best summed up with.


Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Quelesh]

The resolution being targeted for repeal protects the rights of Jewish people to comply with their religious covenant with god.

To correct this statement, the resolution being target for repeal protects, at least in member states that allow parental consent for medical procedures, the "right" of Jewish parents to force their infant children, against those infant children's will, to comply with the parents' religious covenant with god. This is a problem.

I have no problem with Jewish people being circumcised; I do have a problem with Jewish people, or anyone else, forcing someone else to get circumcised without their consent.

That some religions require nonconsensual circumcision no more justifies allowing nonconsensual circumcision than that some religions require nonconsensual female genital mutilation justifies allowing nonconsensual female genital mutilation (or that some religions require human sacrifice justifies allowing human sacrifice).

To the extent that an individual's religion requires him to cut off a part of someone's body, whether clitoris or foreskin, without that other person's consent, the WA is justified in preventing that individual from practicing his religion. Religious freedom does not extend to forcing one's religion, including permanent body modification, upon others without their consent.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sitka]

Ašer Pinski seems a little upset but, however, he speaks in a calm voice.

"You see, even though this repeal doesn't mean direct discrimination towards Jews, it has clear implications. Firstly, any nation would be allowed to ban male circumcision and as I see, there are nations which are more than ready and willing to do it and secondly - and this has been already mentioned here - it opens the space for them to try to formulate a resolution that would ban the practise. The resolution which this draft tries to repeal I understand as a protection of Jewish people against discrimination. And the only effect of the repeal would be a withdrawal of this protection. And one more thing - it seems to me absurd and bizarre that someone views the circumcision as a body mutilation. And as for the consent, it's just as absurd. We all know that when it comes to new-born children, it's their parents who choose many things for them. Following this logic, we could also ban the practice that lets parents to name their children or whatsoever. Thank you."

[Paper Flowers]

And as for the consent, it's just as absurd. We all know that when it comes to new-born children, it's their parents who choose many things for them. Following this logic, we could also ban the practice that lets parents to name their children or whatsoever. Thank you."

The two main differences being:
1. The child can choose to change it's name later in life, (depending on the medical technology available in the country) a child cannot choose to have the forskin reattached.
2. The WA (to the best of my knowledge, please point me in the direction of the resolution if I'm wrong) has not legislated in such a way as to force nations to allow parents to name their children, it has left the area alone. By legislating in any way on the issue the WA has chosen to become involved in this area, so there will naturally be arguments about exactly how it should be involved.

To those who keep trying to hide behind religion as an excuse to allow this practise:

There are a great many things that various have claimed is their "right" or their "belief" and they should be allowed to do it as a result, that does not mean that these things are reasonable and should be allowed to happen. Over the years religions have commited countless crimes against innocent people attempting to justify it because of their beliefs, the WA has already legislated against some of these practises which shows that religion cannot be used as a "get out of jail free" card for something. If something is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of if someone declares it their religion, if something is right then it is right whether or not someones imaginary friend told them so. If you have an argument in favour of circumcision then make it, to make appeals to religion is simply to admit there are no true reasons for it.

[Sitka]

"If you want to grant religious freedom, you should grant permission of male circumcision. If you don't want to grant religious freedom, which is something I can understand from how you speak about the religion, it's a wholly different story. It's as simple as that. And your attempt to exclude religious arguments from this is, again, absurd. This is to a great extent about religion and religion is a very important issue for many people, whether you like it or not."

[Ossitania]

I'll never understand the people who voted for Quelesh's FGM proposal and then got all touchy when similar moves were made on MGM. At any rate, we are supportive of this repeal as, despite disingenuous comments to the contrary, PMC does not prevent parents from ordering the circumcision of their unwilling children.

[Paper Flowers]

"If you want to grant religious freedom, you should grant permission of male circumcision.

Religions have freedom, as long as they follow the law, if the law does not allow something a Religion wishes to do, that is their problem.

If you don't want to grant religious freedom, which is something I can understand from how you speak about the religion, it's a wholly different story.

See above.

And your attempt to exclude religious arguments from this is, again, absurd.

The law should be based on fact, not fairytale, as such we exclude religious argument. At the point a religion can prove a factual reason to do something our government would gladly consider it, as it stands very few religions seem capable of doing that however.

This is to a great extent about religion and religion is a very important issue for many people, whether you like it or not."

This is about parents forcing their Religion on their children in an irreperable way, we would suggest that those who support it consider why their Religion is not able to stand on its own merits, but must force it upon those who cannot make the decision themselves.

PMC does not prevent parents from ordering the circumcision of their unwilling children.

It does in a reasonable nation (seeing as it leaves the nation free to require the childs consent), unfortunatly we have very few reasonable nations in the WA these days it seems.

[Southern Patriots]

"While a repeal may be seen to have its benefits, the resolution in place is considerably generous to those states opposed to male genital mutilation. While the member-states are required to make it legal, they are given incredible leeway in how that is regulated. All instances of circumcision for minors can be made a bureaucratic nightmare and taxed at an impossible level, essentially ensuring the procedure never takes place." Lord Kunze smiled. "I recall a certain nation enacted similar bureaucratic and tax initiatives when the prostitution resolution was passed."

"I sympathize immensely with the idea of banning non-consensual male genital mutilation outright, barring absolute medical necessity of course, but I do wonder if this isn't a blocker best left in place."

[Ossitania]

PMC does not prevent parents from ordering the circumcision of their unwilling children.

It does in a reasonable nation (seeing as it leaves the nation free to require the childs consent), unfortunatly we have very few reasonable nations in the WA these days it seems.

Well, yes, that's the point I'm making, PMC itself doesn't prevent MGM in member-states.

[Alqania]

"Permit Male Circumcision may leave it an option for member states to require the child's consent, but if that child is a minor, the Patient's Rights Act negates that option by mandating that legal guardians can make medical decisions for their minors."

[Sitka]

"Calling religion a fairytale simply proves you have no respect for religious views of the people. I hope and believe there are not many who share your spiteful intentions."

[Paper Flowers]

"Permit Male Circumcision may leave it an option for member states to require the child's consent, but if that child is a minor, the Patient's Rights Act negates that option by mandating that legal guardians can make medical decisions for their minors."

Except that, to quote 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.

Since Permit Male Circumcision is not legislated as part of the PRA, we are still able to enforce additional regulations on top of it, such as the circumstances suggested by the representative of Southern Patriots.

"Calling religion a fairytale simply proves you have no respect for religious views of the people. I hope and believe there are not many who share your spiteful intentions."

Respect is earned, not given away. Religion is nothing more than an excuse to oppress it's membership and discriminate against those who do not support it, neither of these are things that deserve any respect.