NationStates Jolt Archive

Draft Proposal: Male Genital Mutilation Vr. 0.9

Observing that ‘male genital mutilation’ (Circumcision) is performed around the world for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

*Decreased sexual sensitivity to promote abstinence and to stop masturbation
*Cultural tradition
*Religion
*Because the child’s father had it done to him and so on
*Looks (aesthetically pleasing)
*Increased sexual pleasure for their female partner

As well as for some long debunked medical reasons:
*Cleanliness
*Decreased chance of urinary track infections
*Cancer of the penis (Despite the fact that there have been significantly more fatalities do to MGM (Circumcision) than cancer and no proof that it lessens the chances of getting cancer.)
*To prevent STD’s

Recognizing that MGM is practiced for certain cultural and religious reasons. But further noting that restricting the use of MGM in no way interferes with a parent’s right to practice their religion. (A right which only applies on an individual level and not to others under the guardianship of an adult.)

Deeply disturbed by the fact that many young boys are subjected to MGM against their will, soon after birth and without any kind of anesthetic for a procedure that causes severe, persistent pain.

Alarmed by the number of cases of deaths, infections, lacerations, skin loss, skin bridges, chordee, meatitis, stenosis, urinary retention, glans necrosis, penile loss, hemorrhage, sepsis, gangrene, meningitis, disfigurements and other injuries resulting from this unnecessary practice, not including the many long-term effects that could arise later in life.

Dismayed by the fact that MGM destroys as much as two thirds of the nerve receptors and almost all of the specialized super sensitive touch receptors of the penis. Permanently robbing men of a substantial amount of erogenous sensitivity.

Urging member States to avoid using the name “circumcision” outside of medical terminology.

Demands that all member States immediately outlaw the use of this barbaric practice on anyone under the age of 18, as a violation of Human Rights, with the exception of medical necessity.

Further requiring that all states begin an education program for parents and adult males about the emotional, physical and sexual side effects, as well as any other problems which may arise after the procedure or in later years of life.

Suggests that all states require their medical community to learn about any of the negatives or positives associated with this procedure so that they will be better able to accurately inform the public and their patients.

This is only a rough draft so please let me know what you think.

the house of common at the Republic of Agnostic Deeishpeople eurpted in laughters..

http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/nationalsovereighty.jpg
'Nuff said.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

" studies indicate that circumcised infants are less likely to contract a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. About one out of every 1,000 circumcised boys has a UTI in the first year, whereas the rate is one in 100 (at most) for uncircumcised infants.

Circumcised men may also be at lower risk for penile cancer, although the disease is rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. Although some studies indicate that the procedure might offer an additional line of defense against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly HIV, the results of studies in this area are conflicting and difficult to interpret.

It's also easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, although uncircumcised boys can learn how to clean beneath the foreskin once the foreskin becomes retractable (usually some time before age 5). However, some uncircumcised boys can end up with infected foreskins as the result of poor hygiene"

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html


Signed
Madonna,
U.N Ambassador of ROADP.

this act takes away from the personal freedoms of each citizen to choose whether or not they should have circumcision. If I have read this bill right it says for mandatory circumcision...this would be a crime agaisnt civil rights. The nation of Vincinia, unless otherwised changed to our likeing, will not vote for this bill

" studies indicate that circumcised infants are less likely to contract a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. About one out of every 1,000 circumcised boys has a UTI in the first year, whereas the rate is one in 100 (at most) for uncircumcised infants.
The numbers that you’re using (Wiswell’s) are flawed, for several reasons.
“Some points of fact:

*

Littlewood (1972) found an association of UTI with maternal infection, perinatal anoxia, and high or low birthweight.1 Wiswell failed to account for these confounding factors, although they should have been known to him.
*

As acknowledged in the AAP's 1989 report, "these studies in army hospitals are retrospective in design and may have methodologic flaws. For example, they do not include all boys born in any single cohort or those treated as outpatients, so the study population may have been influenced by selection bias." Furthermore, the babies in the studies were all sick and hospitalized, so do not represent infants in the general population.
*

In Wiswell's retrospective reviews of old hospital records, the parents of some of the intact infants may have been instructed to retract the foreskin and scrub beneath. The act of retraction involves forcible separation that destroys a structural defense mechanism. This would allow E. coli to invade where it could not before. The insertion of parents' fingers into the foreskin, or even the handling of the baby's penis, could introduce the bacteria into the preputial space of those uncircumcised infants.

The same criticism applies to the later Wiswell studies and other American studies of infant UTI [Herzog, Roscelli] to date: None have taken care to ensure that there was a control group of infants whose foreskins were simply left alone.
*

The Wiswell studies considered bacteriuria as diagnostic of UTI. However, a positive urine culture alone is not necessarily indicative of symptomatic UTI requiring treatment.30 There is a significant false-positive rate in diagnosing UTI when urine cultures alone are used.31,32 This criticism was addressed to some extent in Wiswell's second review.11
*

No information on rooming-in or breastfeeding history for the infants before they were hospitalized was recorded. Breastfeeding is preventative of UTI, and rooming-in with the mother may be (see below).
*

The hospital chart data used in the retrospective studies are unreliable. Hospitals frequently omit to record a circumcision on a baby's chart. In Atlanta, O'Brien found that circumcision was recorded only 84.3% of the time for circumcised boys.33 If the records used in the retrospective bacteriuria studies are similarly inaccurate, then a statistically significant number of the infants with bacteriuria that were claimed to be intact were, in fact, circumcised. This would naturally overstate the rate of infection in intact boys.34
*

It is very possible that the use of surgical antiseptic (to kill pathogenic organisms during the circumcision procedure itself) was in part responsible for the slight reduction in bacteriuria observed in these studies. This possibility was not accounted for in the studies.
*

Breastfeeding was determined in the 1990s to substantially reduce incidence of UTI.19-21,35 Therefore breastfeeding is a major confounding factor in any study of the role of circumcision in UTI. The Wiswell studies and all other studies in the literature fail to control for the effects of breastfeeding. The AAP observes that "breastfeeding status has not been evaluated sytematically in studies assessing UTI and circumcision status."51

A number of studies about post-circumcision UTIs, and the role of the surgery in possibly facilitating UTIs, were not able to recommend neonatal circumcision.22,23,25,36 Significantly, a number of recent Israeli studies have reported an increase in urinary tract infection rates in the period following ritual circumcision.9,37,39

In a prospective study, Kayaba et al. found a zero incidence of UTI in 603 intact boys, over a range of ages.40 Although this study did not focus on UTI, the Japanese researchers concluded: "Awareness of these findings will eliminate unnecessary circumcision in boys."

Further more, even when using those numbers.

Wiswell's sensational statistic, that circumcision resulted in a "ten to hundred times decrease in urinary tract infections in circumcised boys," has often been quoted; however, it is misleading. In fact, UTIs are so rare in any case that, using Wiswell's data, 50 to 100 healthy boys would have to be circumcised in order to prevent a UTI from developing in only one patient. (Using more recent data from a better-controlled study, the number of unnecessary operations needed to prevent one hospital admission for UTI would jump to 195.48)


Circumcised men may also be at lower risk for penile cancer, although the disease is rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. Although some studies indicate that the procedure might offer an additional line of defense against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly HIV, the results of studies in this area are conflicting and difficult to interpret.
Ah no.....

Whether a man is circumcised or not, penile cancer can be avoided by practicing good hygiene. As pointed out earlier, good hygiene is easy to achieve. Natural Penis - Easy to Clean

The foreskin does not cause penile cancer. In a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society stated that it “does not consider routine circumicision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent [penile or cervical] cancers. ...Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the U.S.” Penile cancer occurs at the rate of 1 in 100,000 males in the U.S. circumcised or not.

Risk factors for penile and cervical cancer are the presence of the human papilloma virus and smoking. The HPV virus is found in both circumcised and uncircumcised men. “Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.” (For instance, read about the case of penile cancer of 76 year old circumcised male.)
"It has been suggested that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis and of the uterine cervix. Both kinds of cancer are associated with genital infection with specific types of human papillamoviruses. It has been alleged that cancer of the penis is virtually unknown among men circumcised in infancy. However penile carcinomas have in fact been reported among circumcised men. The incidence of cancer of the penis in the United States, where most men have been circumcised at birth, is reported to be between 0 and 2.1 per 100,000, representing less than 1 percent of all cancers in men. This incidence of penile cancer is similar to the rates in Denmark (1.1 per 100,0000 and Japan (0.3 per 100,0000 where neonatal circumcision is not routinely performed. One study, reporting contradictory data, claimed that the lifetime risk in American men is 1 in 600. This estimate was extrapolated from a study of the incidence of male circumcision and depended on three incorrect assumptions: that all penile carcinomas occur in men who are not circumcised at birth, that the circumcision rate between 1890 and 1905 was the same as that in 1959, and that men presenting at a cancer detection center in Los Angeles, 40 percent of whom were classified as professionals or managers, were representative of the U.S. male population. Thus the lifetime risk of cancer reported in this study is probably incorrect. The evidence that penile cancer has a viral cause and the disease's similar incidence rates in countries with very different rates of circumcision cast doubt on the proposition that circumcision is the most effective way to prevent cancer of the penis." THE QUESTION OF ROUTINE NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION, by Ronald L. Poland, M. D., THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Vol. 322, No. 18 (May 3, 1990), Pages 1312-1315. To read this entire article, click here.

The Maden study found that 37% of penile cancer cases occurred in circumcised men. Penile cancer is so rare among the intact, few people realize that more deaths result from the circumcision procedure itself than from penile cancer. It is possible that the general public has confused penile cancer with prostate cancer which is much more common.


And again no.

The foreskin has numerous protective, sensory, and sexual functions.

* Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.

* Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12 Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.14

* Erogenous Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.15 These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

* Coverage During Erection: As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

* Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated.

* Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.

* The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male's internal organ, the glans, to meet the female's internal organ, the cervix-a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.

The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood. Scientists in Europe recently detected estrogen receptors in its basal epidermal cells.24 Researchers at the University of Manchester found that the human foreskin has apocrine glands.25 These specialized glands produce pheromones, nature's chemical messengers. Further studies are needed to fully understand these features of the foreskin and the role they play.
------

The American Academy of Pediatrics previously held that "...the procedure has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as inherent disadvantages and risks. In other words, circumcision may or may not provide any benefits or advantages, but it does have built-in disadvantages and risks. It is not suprising , therefore, that the AAP had assigned a Task Force to re-examine Routine Infant Circumcision. On March 1, 1999, after a two year investigation, it was concluded that the "potential medical benefits" of infant circumcision aren't significant enough and therefore, the AAP does not recommend it as a routine procedure


It's also easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, although uncircumcised boys can learn how to clean beneath the foreskin once the foreskin becomes retractable (usually some time before age 5). However, some uncircumcised boys can end up with infected foreskins as the result of poor hygiene"
Wrong.

The natural penis requires no special care. A child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same reason it is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eyeballs, it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. Immersion in plain water during the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean.26

The white emollient under the child's foreskin is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma."27

Studies suggest that it is best not to use soap on the glans or foreskin's inner fold.28 Forcibly retracting and washing a baby's foreskin destroys the beneficial bacterial flora that protect the penis from harmful germs and can lead to irritation and infection. The best way to care for a child's intact penis is to leave it alone. After puberty, males can gently rinse their glans and foreskin with warm water, according to their own self-determined needs.

Although The Rpublic of BlueTiger almost laughed and mocked James_xenoland, we relized this would get us no where. Also since our society is based on the Golden Rule, we will treat you as we wish you to treat us, respectfully.

While we are entirely for giving our citizans their rights, this proposal takes, not gives, human rights.

It states:

Demands that all member States immediately outlaw this barbaric violation of Human Rights, with the exception of medical necessity.

By outlawing it, except for "medical necessity" you have striped the human right to choose. This choice being if they would like to have a circumcision or not. So while you may be trying to push to incress human rights, you are only taking them away.

Sincerely,

Allan Smith
The Republic of BlueTiger's Ambassador to the UN

BlueTiger']Although The Rpublic of BlueTiger almost laughed and mocked James_xenoland, we relized this would get us no where. Also since our society is based on the Golden Rule, we will treat you as we wish you to treat us, respectfully.

While we are entirely for giving our citizans their rights, this proposal takes, not gives, human rights.

It states:



By outlawing it, except for "medical necessity" you have striped the human right to choose. This choice being if they would like to have a circumcision or not. So while you may be trying to push to incress human rights, you are only taking them away.

Sincerely,

Allan Smith
The Republic of BlueTiger's Ambassador to the UN
Yeah I saw that to. Though that part is really meant to be for children, but as I said in my second post, this is only a rough draft. I still have some editing to do.

Other then that error what was so funny about this?

its funny because most men dont have problem with their circumsized genital..its even more funny because you want the U.N to tell people what to do with their gential.

i think it also violates religious beliefs, parents have a right to decide if their child will have a circumcision or not.

its funny because most men dont have problem with their circumsized genital..its even more funny because you want the U.N to tell people what to do with their gential.
Sorry but it's a sad fact that a lot of men don't even know that they were mutilated let alone the difference and there are a lot more people then you think, who do know and doesn't like it.

http://www.noharmm.org/

http://www.norm-socal.org/

http://www.notjustskin.org/en/index.html

http://med-fraud.org/

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

Here are some fun facts (http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm)

i think it also violates religious beliefs, parents have a right to decide if their child will have a circumcision or not.
This has nothing to do with parents rights, this is a Human Rights issue.

Article 2 of the 'Child Protection Act'

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

Article 5 of 'The Universal Bill of Rights'

All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

And you seem to have forgot about UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #62?

Female Genital Mutilation!

Deeply disturbed by the fact that many men are subjected to the very painful MGM against their will, soon after birth

This line reads strange to me. It makes it sound like baby boys are born men and capable of making their feelings about this known.

Perhaps you could consider rewording it to say something along the lines of "Some (or many) men circumcised as babies soon after birth, resent that an operation that was not medically necessary was forced on them as children and they were not able to give consent" or something along those lines.

This line reads strange to me. It makes it sound like baby boys are born men and capable of making their feelings about this known.

Perhaps you could consider rewording it to say something along the lines of "Some (or many) men circumcised as babies soon after birth, resent that an operation that was not medically necessary was forced on them as children and they were not able to give consent" or something along those lines.
Yeah I have few things that I have to fix. Thanks, we very much appreciate your suggestions. :)

My government does not believe that circumcision is a "physical or mental violence, injury or abuse."

My government is willing to be open to this proposal and we will set up committees to study this issue.

Madonna,
U.N ambassador.

Female circumcision is clearly an abusive practice. I would argue that male circumcision is not clearly abusive and, consequently, will not support this proposal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

You are certainly one of the more intriguing voices within the UN to have recently come out.

Considering the response, I wish you luck (though not support) in getting this proposal through the UN.

Female circumcision is clearly an abusive practice. I would argue that male circumcision is not clearly abusive and, consequently, will not support this proposal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I can't agree with you there Ecopoeia. I believe forcing an operation like this on a child (babies in a lot of cases), unless its medically necessary, is abusive. What an adult man chooses to do is up to him, but the children do need protection from this in my opinion. I don't believe parents have the right to mutilate their children, whether boys or girls.

This proposal will have my support (not that it will mean much, I'm not a delegate) if it bans the practice on children, but leaves it legal and the decision of circumcision up to the individual in the case of adults.

(OOC) Both my brothers had this done to them as babies. The elder is very resentful about what was done to him as a child without his knowledge or consent.

I think you may have an angle to work on when it comes to MGM towards babies. Though some could argue it is for hygenic purposes. . . and I am going to leave it at that...

Two of The Dominion of FoxBrookia's greatest scientists have studied this issue at great length.

Penn and Teller in thier Documentary "Bullshit: Season III Episode #1"

Circumcision is Bullshit and I will be communicating our support for this resolution to my region's representative.

Ok I just got done with vr.2.0. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated.


Observing that ‘male genital mutilation’ (Circumcision) is performed around the world for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

*Decreased sexual sensitivity to promote abstinence and to stop masturbation
*Cultural tradition
*Religion
*Because the child’s father had it done to him and so on
*Looks (aesthetically pleasing)
*Increased sexual pleasure for their female partner

As well as for some long debunked medical reasons:
*Cleanliness
*Decreased chance of urinary track infections
*Cancer of the penis (Despite the fact that there have been significantly more fatalities do to MGM (Circumcision) than cancer and no proof that it lessens the chances of getting cancer.)
*To prevent STD’s

Deeply disturbed by the fact that many young boys are subjected to MGM against their will, soon after birth and without any kind of anesthetic for a procedure that causes severe, persistent pain.

Alarmed by the number of deaths (2-10% or 25,000-125,000 of the 1.25 million MGM’s annually), infections, lacerations, skin loss, skin bridges, chordee, meatitis, stenosis, urinary retention, glans necrosis, penile loss, hemorrhage, sepsis, gangrene, meningitis, disfigurements and other injuries resulting from this unnecessary practice, not including the many long-term effects that could arise later in life.

Dismayed by the fact that MGM destroys as much as two thirds of the nerve receptors and almost all of the specialized super sensitive touch receptors of the penis. Permanently robbing men of up to 65%+ of erogenous sensitivity.

Urging member States to avoid using the name “circumcision” outside of medical terminology

Demands that all member States immediately outlaw the use of this barbaric practice on anyone under the age of 18, as a violation of Human Rights, with the exception of medical necessity.

I'd like to suggest that you change this to just circumcision rather than MGM. The problem is that there's a lot of people that don't feel it's Genetilia Mutilation - but they may be more willing to acknowledge that there is something wrong with pushing this on children without the child's consent.

Oh - and the stats need to go - RL != NS issue. It's a good argument, but we aren't allowed to use RL stats in proposals

Oh - and the stats need to go - RL != NS issue. It's a good argument, but we aren't allowed to use RL stats in proposals

we are not????

My government does not believe that circumcision is a "physical or mental violence, injury or abuse."

My government is willing to be open to this proposal and we will set up committees to study this issue.

Madonna,
U.N ambassador.
We very much appreciate your keeping an open mind about this issue.


Female circumcision is clearly an abusive practice. I would argue that male circumcision is not clearly abusive and, consequently, will not support this proposal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN
I can't agree with you there Ecopoeia. I believe forcing an operation like this on a child (babies in a lot of cases), unless its medically necessary, is abusive. What an adult man chooses to do is up to him, but the children do need protection from this in my opinion. I don't believe parents have the right to mutilate their children, whether boys or girls.

This proposal will have my support (not that it will mean much, I'm not a delegate) if it bans the practice on children, but leaves it legal and the decision of circumcision up to the individual in the case of adults.

(OOC) Both my brothers had this done to them as babies. The elder is very resentful about what was done to him as a child without his knowledge or consent.
We unequivocally agree with our esteemed colleague from Waterana and thank them for their support.

We would also ask our colleague from Ecopoeia to please explain their reasoning in not considering MGM an abusive practice?


You are certainly one of the more intriguing voices within the UN to have recently come out.

Considering the response, I wish you luck (though not support) in getting this proposal through the UN.
Thank you..... I think..?

Could you please explain why you don’t agree with this issue though?


Two of The Dominion of FoxBrookia's greatest scientists have studied this issue at great length.

Penn and Teller in thier Documentary "Bullshit: Season III Episode #1"

Circumcision is Bullshit and I will be communicating our support for this resolution to my region's representative.
We thank you for your support.

I remain undecided on the issue - though I think my later post addresses more directly what I think it the source of my....edginess on this resolution.

I'd like to suggest that you change this to just circumcision rather than MGM. The problem is that there's a lot of people that don't feel it's Genetilia Mutilation - but they may be more willing to acknowledge that there is something wrong with pushing this on children without the child's consent.

Indeed, this is likely the only thing standing in the way of the Commonwealth of Kayros supporting this issue. If the references to MGM are replaced with 'circumcision', it would seem to be less inflammatory, and would likely garner the support of more nations, such as our own.

- D. Ross, Interim Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

Best proposal ever written. HANDS DOWN.

We will not approve it, nor vote for it, but it has honestly got to be the GREATEST THING ever to be devised by the mind the man.

(OOC) Both my brothers had this done to them as babies. The elder is very resentful about what was done to him as a child without his knowledge or consent.

OOC: There are other men whom have had this done to them as babies and have had perfectly normal and active sex lives. I will say no more on this subject! :)

Let's think about this in different terms, are you equally prepared to draft a UN resolution preventing parents from piercing their baby's ears? I happen to work with a large number of Indians and Nepalese. A minority of the Nepalese have pierced ears and have done the same to their infant boys ... I've never bothered to ask them why, perhaps I should. :)

What makes pierced ears different than removal of skin?

I remain undecided on the issue - though I think my later post addresses more directly what I think it the source of my....edginess on this resolution.
Indeed, this is likely the only thing standing in the way of the Commonwealth of Kayros supporting this issue. If the references to MGM are replaced with 'circumcision', it would seem to be less inflammatory, and would likely garner the support of more nations, such as our own.

- D. Ross, Interim Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
- The Commonwealth of Kayros
I’ll definitely consider doing it but what exactly do you find so offensive about it? :confused:


Best proposal ever written. HANDS DOWN.

We will not approve it, nor vote for it, but it has honestly got to be the GREATEST THING ever to be devised by the mind the man.
With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?!


OOC: There are other men whom have had this done to them as babies and have had perfectly normal and active sex lives. I will say no more on this subject! :)

Let's think about this in different terms, are you equally prepared to draft a UN resolution preventing parents from piercing their baby's ears? I happen to work with a large number of Indians and Nepalese. A minority of the Nepalese have pierced ears and have done the same to their infant boys ... I've never bothered to ask them why, perhaps I should. :)

What makes pierced ears different than removal of skin?
Have you read my earlier posts?

OOC: There are other men whom have had this done to them as babies and have had perfectly normal and active sex lives. I will say no more on this subject! :)

Let's think about this in different terms, are you equally prepared to draft a UN resolution preventing parents from piercing their baby's ears? I happen to work with a large number of Indians and Nepalese. A minority of the Nepalese have pierced ears and have done the same to their infant boys ... I've never bothered to ask them why, perhaps I should. :)

What makes pierced ears different than removal of skin?

The quickest answer to that is if a person with pierced ears decides they don't want them anymore, they just take the earrings out and the holes will eventually close and heal. A circumcised man can't get his foreskin back. Its irreversable.

I just don't believe its right to permenantly cut bits and pieces off children unless its medically necessary. Let the boys grow into men and decide for themselves, after all its their body :).

(OOC)
My brother isn't upset because of anything to do with his sex life. Its the fact it was done to him for no medical reason, and without his consent that he gets angry about. It hasn't ruined his life, made him hate our parents or anything like that and he only metions it if the subject comes up.

"Rotovia fully supports this proposal"

Ivona Flemmins
Regional Delegate
Ambassidor to the UN

We would also ask our colleague from Ecopoeia to please explain their reasoning in not considering MGM an abusive practice?
My position is not quite that simple. I would prefer that circumcision was a decision taken by the male upon adulthood; however, I am yet to be persuaded that any real harm comes from the act.

That said, I will endeavour to peruse the studies you have provided. Consider me undecided, rather than opposed (I can't speak for my Deputy).

VY

I have never associated Circumcision as being MGM before, nor have I heard people claim it as such. As such, it feels like you're trying to classify it as something it's not. Therefore, I am.....uncomfortable supporting a resolution that calls it as such. When I see a resolution that attempts to use a more connotatively negative term that I've never seen used before in that instance, I am less inclined to vote for it.

Seeing as you quite clearly distinguish Circumcision as MGM and seem to be targeting Circumcision, I think it would be better to just call a spade a spade (instead of a dagger) and just use the term Circumcision.

Anyways:
There are other men whom have had this done to them as babies and have had perfectly normal and active sex lives. I will say no more on this subject!

There are also men who have been tortured who were completely unscarred by the event. Doesn't matter, we still ban the practice because there is a significant percentage that are scarred - physically and emotionally - by the act (and various other logical reasons). We can always find the exception where the idea worked, we rarely legislate because of them.

We find this proposal as it leaves the question of medical need open to the individal is good. As here we do not cut for no reason but when the situation indicates it might be best we do. This is done under formal medical care and not by unqualified persons as might be in some procedures.. Thus causing infections and such due to poor medical treatment not so much the value of the procedure when done right.

We have also looked into this in children under 3 to see if it has any adverse effects on them. Our findings are that the procedure had none but the lack of education in the care of such children played a greater part in them getting certain infections than what medical procedures they underwent. Caregivers must be aware of the special care for children to prevent certain infections from setting in; failure to educate them is more a problem than cutting on them to prevent possible infections by the removal of some part of the body.. This was found on both males and females in the study.

Thus we would support this proposal as it reads now...

Doctor Waccum Willie
Chief Medical Advisor Zeldon

OOC: since this swings from RP to RL consider that copies of my nations study has been sent to the UN Committee of Distribution and that all of you will get copies in five to ten days. I saw where the mention of RL vrs RP here was taken up.. My question is if one person can't use RL stats then how can another even when they OOC it mention RL about their brothers adventures with this issue. I may be out of line but... trying to learn how to play the game in RP and still live RL....

While Compadria sees the merits and points of the proposal as being extensive, we feel it does not meet the standard for un-warranted intrusion in the private affairs to civillians (and how they administer to their genitals).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live genital-mutilation free Compadria!

We can debate using real life stats, we just can put these stats into the proposal. If you wish to state general trends, fine, but they don't want you to make it so that people are doing a research project checking all your sources, etc.

I’ll definitely consider doing it but what exactly do you find so offensive about it?

The references to "Mutilation" appear to set a sensationalist, rather than constructive, tone to the resolution, at least in our opinion.

K. Martin
Ambassador to the United Nations

Observing that ‘male genital mutilation’ (Circumcision) is performed around the world for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

*Decreased sexual sensitivity to promote abstinence and to stop masturbation
*Cultural tradition
*Religion
*Because the child’s father had it done to him and so on
*Looks (aesthetically pleasing)
*Increased sexual pleasure for their female partner

As well as for some long debunked medical reasons:
*Cleanliness
*Decreased chance of urinary track infections
*Cancer of the penis (Despite the fact that there have been significantly more fatalities do to MGM (Circumcision) than cancer and no proof that it lessens the chances of getting cancer.)
*To prevent STD’s

Deeply disturbed by the fact that many men are subjected to the very painful MGM against their will, soon after birth

Alarmed by the number of deaths, infections, disfigurements and injuries resulting from this unnecessary practice, not including the many long-term effects that could arise later in life.

Urging the member States to avoid using the name “circumcision” outside of medical terminology

Demands that all member States immediately outlaw the use of this barbaric practice on children or anyone under the age of 18, as a violation of Human Rights, with the exception of medical necessity.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.

I have read up on Circumcision, and it is truly Genital Mutilation.

If ur circ is too tight It will hold back a couple inches.
If its too tight It causes Turkey neck
If its too tight it causes Hairy Shaft.
It causes Keritinization of the glans. Which causes u to lose sensitivity. which explains as u get older u lose feeling in sex and circed men have a really hard time getting off.

I highly suggest looking into foreskin restoration which i am attempting.

www.norm.org
www.foreskinrestorationchat.info

Also, Penn and Teller had an episode on Bulls**** Debunking circumcision, download it and watch it. I am totally against circumcision and i will support this proposal.

Also The American Medical association does not even reccomend it to be performed anymore.

And finnaly, None of yall see the scheme of circumcision. Becuase guys are circed they lose natural lubrication that is natural from the foreskin which causes friction in sex so then they have to go to the store and buy some KYJELLY and other lubricants and stuff.

If they immediately stoped circumcision so many millions of dollors would be lost so they continue to brainwash Americans to keep the money coming in Too bad yall are too blind to see you are brainwashed to keep circumcision in practice.

I can speak from personal experience - I had an ex-boyfriend that was circumcised later in life ~18 as his parents let him wait. I met him around 4 years after.

At this stage he was looking into ways to grow it back.

He put it to me this way - Sex with a foreskin and then without is like going from seeing in colour to seeing in black and white.
I won't be TMI... well ok considering the subject matter instead I'll be medical... and spoiler cover it:

he had lost most of the sensation in the glans as it had become hardened, weathered looking and rough textured from constant exposure to abrasion/rubbing off his clothes

he felt that he was deprived of ever getting a proper sexual experience again

Anyways the thing is... imagine all those poor kids growing up only ever knowing oatmeal cause they're not able to taste pancakes, and they'll never know what pancakes taste like? Never ever, ever ever!!!

That's really really horrible, surely the mere fact that there's tons of websites out there about this, (and foreskin restoration) should highlight that there's a problem and yet most people are labouring under the misconception that it's merely an issue of custom/religion and nothing else.

Personally I'm glad my parents didn't circumcise me.

So I think the term should be kept as Male Genital Mutilation cause that's what it is, oh and refer to the child protection act

something like
HEREBY RECOGNISES that circumcision of a minor will be classed as an act of physical violence and thus prohibited under the UN Child Protection Act

This is something I feel strongly about and you have my kudos, cause I think even if you don't get the resolution through (cause a lot of people will simply laugh it off without really considering it as can be seen in some earlier posts here) at least you'll be increasing public awareness of the issue.

So by promoting this you get what.
Increase in population.
More abondoned children.
The quicker spread of Sexually Transmitted diseases.

Hmm...I don't think my country needs to grow that fast. Besides when under the age of 18 it should be the parents decision. You can have them reversed as well if you decide you want it back.

Also think about all the doctors that are probably going to be sued if this is passed for the willing mutilation of human genetalia. Also think of how most of the worlds religions promote such mutilation and have gone unquestioned for years.

he had lost most of the sensation in the glans as it had become hardened, weathered looking and rough textured from constant exposure to abrasion/rubbing off his clothes .

SO TRUE. As i said above this is Called Keritinization of the glans. Becuase the glans has no covering in the foreskin it creates many layers of skin to protect itself which causes circumsized males to lose sensitivity. I may have been circumsised and been in the dark but i found the light in male foreskin restoration. I suggest yall go through with it you wont be disapointed.

So by promoting this you get what.
Increase in population.
More abondoned children.
The quicker spread of Sexually Transmitted diseases.

Hmm ok ---where's your proof?


Besides when under the age of 18 it should be the parents decision. You can have them reversed as well if you decide you want it back.

Well that's the thing - I'm not too hot on the biology but here's how I see it.

I'm pretty sure it takes years to regrow a foreskin and it doesn't grow all the way back.

Secondly you've got to wear this bizarre almost fetishistic contraption that keeps the remainder of the foreskin stretched over the penis all this time. OW!!!

Thirdly during all this time, you're having a pretty crappy sex-life,

SO why not do the decent thing and get the kids (i.e. the person whose life it affects) to decide whether they want one as an adult rather than go through such a distressing physical and mental ordeal (cause lets face it, when you're a kid anything weird or different about you, especially sexually, causes a ton of stress)

true, Foreskin restoration takes years. It can be achieved through a variety of methods including: O-Rings, T-tape, Manual stretching of the shaft skin, many types of Pumps.

true, Foreskin restoration takes years. It can be achieved through a variety of methods including: O-Rings, T-tape, Manual stretching of the shaft skin, many types of Pumps.


Well - exactly! So why do some people want to put a kid through all this time and energy and stress when he can come to the decision as a mature informed adult? It's stress and time saving for those who decide they don't want it.

Proof?

The fact that if people enjoy it more means that they will do it more.

Doing it more causes more accidental children.

Which means more abandoned children.

It also means that since everybody is doing it more that the chance of somebody catching a Sexually Transmitted Disease is increased because more people would have those diseases. Making it all the harder to get rid of those once and for all.

Further more since the population of the world will have a massive jump food and energy will be a much more massive problem for our children.

So yeah they will feel good doing it but does that will be the only reason they want to live. I'd rather make sure we have the food and energy needed for a new generation rather than letting the new generation massively overpopulate the planet(s) because they can't stop having "fun."

Signed and Sealed by his Excelency the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Dey

The references to "Mutilation" appear to set a sensationalist, rather than constructive, tone to the resolution, at least in our opinion.

K. Martin
Ambassador to the United Nations

That's probably a better explanation to what I was getting to.

This isnt a matter for the UN to be discussing.

First and Fore most, this is a personal matter, not a governmental matter. But even if it were, it would be a STATE, not UN matter.

And Secondly, there are MUCH more important matters for the UN to be discussing than this. Like say, World Hunger and Epidemics.



*Side note*
where do we draw the line of MGM? Is a "Prince Albert" MGM? Or do we need a UN proposal to outlaw genital piercings? ...or for that matter, all forms of "non-medical" body modification?

The thing that In my opinion I hate the most about MGM is that circumcision is forced on Babies the second that they are born, they have no voice in the matter, Just misguided, Missinformed, and brainwashed parents making a bad decision that they might not have made themselves had they been of age to object.

I have no problem if Its somones choice to get circed when they are of age and have done research and know the after-effects. But the thing i hate is just the little kids have no say in it. It is a very Abusive surgery that is forced upon them without their consent.

This isnt a matter for the UN to be discussing.

First and Fore most, this is a personal matter, not a governmental matter. But even if it were, it would be a STATE, not UN matter.

And Secondly, there are MUCH more important matters for the UN to be discussing than this. Like say, World Hunger and Epidemics.



*Side note*
where do we draw the line of MGM? Is a "Prince Albert" MGM? Or do we need a UN proposal to outlaw genital piercings? ...or for that matter, all forms of "non-medical" body modification?
Hear hear! And to clarify as a person whom has been, erm, Hula Hooped! There are no issues with sensetivity, it is cleaner, and it is no where near as dangerous as Female Genital Mutilation, which is considered an assault on the female who is likely to suffer as a result. Circumcision of the male member is not likely to cause problems to the patient other than a sore penis for a couple of weeks.

Furthermore I Object strongly to my Wang being refered to as Mutilated! It Works perfectly well and ive been told looks beautiful!
I have had my say on this PERSONAL issue and shall say no more.
Thank You.
Prince Esheram Byron.

Hear hear! And to clarify as a person whom has been, erm, Hula Hooped! There are no issues with sensetivity, it is cleaner, and it is no where near as dangerous as Female Genital Mutilation, which is considered an assault on the female who is likely to suffer as a result. Circumcision of the male member is not likely to cause problems to the patient other than a sore penis for a couple of weeks.

Furthermore I Object strongly to my Wang being refered to as Mutilated! It Works perfectly well and ive been told looks beautiful!
I have had my say on this PERSONAL issue and shall say no more.
Thank You.
Prince Esheram Byron.

Well U might as well be joking if u have been told it looks beutiful because American Women have been brainwashed into thinking a circed Penis is the only way. U show them a natural penis and they will say Eww becuase its been brainwashed into them.

I agree with Prince Byron completely, this is not an international issue, and besides, what about any theocracies based on religions that practise circumsicion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I agree with Prince Byron completely, this is not an international issue, and besides, what about any theocracies based on religions that practise circumsicion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
We concur with the representative from Flibbleites. This is not an issue of international concern, nor is it worthy of the UN's time. It has been, however, one of the most bizarre and sometimes amusing debate threads I have seen in some time.
I will quote Omigodtheykilledkenny, who sums up the position of the Yeldan government quite well:
Best proposal ever written. HANDS DOWN.

We will not approve it, nor vote for it, but it has honestly got to be the GREATEST THING ever to be devised by the mind the man.

Hear hear! And to clarify as a person whom has been, erm, Hula Hooped! There are no issues with sensetivity, it is cleaner, and it is no where near as dangerous as Female Genital Mutilation, which is considered an assault on the female who is likely to suffer as a result. Circumcision of the male member is not likely to cause problems to the patient other than a sore penis for a couple of weeks.

Furthermore I Object strongly to my Wang being refered to as Mutilated! It Works perfectly well and ive been told looks beautiful!
I have had my say on this PERSONAL issue and shall say no more.
Thank You.
Prince Esheram Byron.

Well then you would have no problem with sensitivity because you've never known what it is to be truly sensate in that area. It's like you see the world in black and white and therefore don't believe that other people can see colour.

The true acid test for the "decreased sensitivity" aspect of MGM is to ask people who've had a circumcision as an adult. And honestly have you never thought that sex was over-rated? If so that's cause you're not getting the full deal!!!

As for those who say this isn't an issue for the UN to deal with, well when it comes to violating the child protection act I would say it is.

Well then you would have no problem with sensitivity because you've never known what it is to be truly sensate in that area. It's like you see the world in black and white and therefore don't believe that other people can see colour.

The true acid test for the "decreased sensitivity" aspect of MGM is to ask people who've had a circumcision as an adult. And honestly have you never thought that sex was over-rated? If so that's cause you're not getting the full deal!!!

As for those who say this isn't an issue for the UN to deal with, well when it comes to violating the child protection act I would say it is.
So true Thermidore. Venerable Liberterians, You haven no idea what you are saying, You have never experianced sex with both a circed and natural penis. Therefore you are living in black and white and have to put up with your scabby, leather-like, numb, senseless, rotted, dried up bellend. And that goes for everyone that is pro- circumcision. Denial is the first step to admitting you have a problem

Ok I just got done with vr.2.0. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated.

Ok I was looking over the female genital mutilation resolution and would suggest an education programme as in it:


2. Calls upon States to fund programmes educating citizens about the dangers of FGM;

something like "understanding that many are unaware of the body of data that disproves circumcision as a valid medical practice we recommend...

also to solve the third part
3. Urges States to avoid using the alternative phrase 'female circumcision', as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision.


I'd suggest as you're doing here...

Urging the member States to avoid using the name “circumcision” outside of medical terminology

- splitting the terms circumcision to mean a voluntary practice undergone at age 18 or else for necessary medical reasons and then MGM defining all the rest.

Well then you would have no problem with sensitivity because you've never known what it is to be truly sensate in that area. It's like you see the world in black and white and therefore don't believe that other people can see colour.

I was Circed as an adult as a result of a nasty infection! I have seen in colour and i still see in colour. The Sensitivity issue is mute!

The true acid test for the "decreased sensitivity" aspect of MGM is to ask people who've had a circumcision as an adult. And honestly have you never thought that sex was over-rated? If so that's cause you're not getting the full deal!!!
Overrated! sex!! i have two words for you. Tantric sex!

As for those who say this isn't an issue for the UN to deal with, well when it comes to violating the child protection act I would say it is.
I have asked people whom I know were circed as children and all concur that they have no memory of the event! Surely if it was an assault on a child it would leave a lasting impression.

So true Thermidore.

Addressed to the contrary!

Venerable Liberterians, You haven no idea what you are saying, You have never experianced sex with both a circed and natural penis. Therefore you are living in black and white and have to put up with your scabby, leather-like, numb, senseless, rotted, dried up bellend. And that goes for everyone that is pro- circumcision.
Yes i have, Yes i Have, No I am not, and i would have you know My Bellend as you so eloquently put it, is none of the above!

Denial is the first step to admitting you have a problem
The same could be said for your arguement, As I presume you are not circed and therefore view in black and white having not yet been upgraded to the more slimline colour view that is removal of ones hood!

I have had my say on this proposal, which is as personal as it comes. I do not desire the UN to make the call as to wither or not I can have my end off. This is of no concern for the UN, of no concern of the Regions and definately NOT a concern of a national body. Circumcision is a personal choice or in my case a medical one. I therefore no longer care for this and play my card

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/521735/15299/user_15299/T0_15299_521735.JPG (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=521735)

the house of common at the Republic of Agnostic Deeishpeople eurpted in laughters..


The leader of New Hamilton has only one question:

"Are we trying to regulate penises now?"

The United Socialist States of Telesto supports this proposal. :)

Addressed to the contrary!


Yes i have, Yes i Have, No I am not, and i would have you know My Bellend as you so eloquently put it, is none of the above!


The same could be said for your arguement, As I presume you are not circed and therefore view in black and white having not yet been upgraded to the more slimline colour view that is removal of ones hood!

I have had my say on this proposal, which is as personal as it comes. I do not desire the UN to make the call as to wither or not I can have my end off. This is of no concern for the UN, of no concern of the Regions and definately NOT a concern of a national body. Circumcision is a personal choice or in my case a medical one. I therefore no longer care for this and play my card

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/521735/15299/user_15299/T0_15299_521735.JPG (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=521735)

Learn to read my statements i have repeatedly said that i am circumcised (sp?). And am going through foreskin restoration using the manual method of restoration. I have been restoring for 5 months and i have regained so much sensitivity in comparison to what i previously had.

I know what my numb leathery bellend once looked like before i started restoration and it was dull and took a bit to Get some feeling when wanking. now that my glans has shed some layers of skin it looks more shiny and natural. and it is so much easier to wank. The efforts of FR are definatly worth it.

Ok.....this is just getting too......descriptive for me

*Backs out of the discussion

Though my government is still a bit undecided on the issue itself, given that there is a female circumcision resolution on the UN books, we do feel this is a worthy item to discuss. If nations wish to submit proposals, I will at least attempt to convince my region that we should endorse the proposals to allow UN discussions on this issue.

[OOC: It has been some time since we discussed the other issue, and I'd love for UN newbies to get a chance at a similar debate.]

Though my government is still a bit undecided on the issue itself, given that there is a female circumcision resolution on the UN books, we do feel this is a worthy item to discuss. If nations wish to submit proposals, I will at least attempt to convince my region that we should endorse the proposals to allow UN discussions on this issue.

[OOC: It has been some time since we discussed the other issue, and I'd love for UN newbies to get a chance at a similar debate.]

The people of New hamilton believe comparing the two is like comparing the Birds with the Bees.


Now New Hamilton believes everything is worthy of debate but because of time limitations, we most prioritize.


And frankly speaking, to debate a resolution where at best, the great out come is that males might get (theoretically, since sexuality is all mental and has NOTHING to do with your...unit) more pleasure sexually.


Seems a bit inefficient to my Nation.



But that's us. We're freaky about maximizing our efficacy.

Just as in the case of the Female Genital Mutilation resolution, I'll be against on the usual national sovereignty grounds, despite agreeing with it in principle.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Now New Hamilton believes everything is worthy of debate but because of time limitations, we most prioritize.

That is of course logical, and an argument I can't refute. :)

However, if there was no other resolution on the floor or proposal about to reach quorum, would you feel this topic is still not fair enough to discuss?

That is of course logical, and an argument I can't refute. :)

However, if there was no other resolution on the floor or proposal about to reach quorum, would you feel this topic is still not fair enough to discuss?

There's a saying in my country "It doesn't take much to make a Hamilton talk about his penis".


We make cars...it goes hand in hand (pun intended).

But with Micro-credit Bazaar (which is fantastic, it's quite brilliant) and the UN Constitution being so obnoxiously lopsided regarding Social and civil rights...


Now we believe that Social issues are an infinite struggle...

We mush have our Yin with our yang.



The UN has flat out not addressed Security and Environmental issue and economical issues are treated like it HAS to be mutually excluded.




So to "free Speak it" as my people like to through in my face "let's not be lazy, let's discuss REAL issues, the ones we REALLY don't want to admit."




No military, no internet.

We need it. It's evil...but a necessary Evil.

No environment, no life.

Enough said.

OOC: The US Military invented the Internet as a way to communicate during a Nuclear holocaust. In 1992, the US Denfense Department "Open Sourced" Mosaic to Public Universities. Later the commercial name was Netscape.

But then again...I can take 4 days and talk about my penis...


Seriously, I got years of practice.

Ok sorry this took so long. I’ll try to respond to everything but since there are so many posts I’m only going to be able to address most of the issues mentioned. So if I miss anything just repost it or direct me to the original post.
----------------------

First off, the misguided argument that Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) is a medically beneficial procedure. It’s not.

“Circumcision is not essential to a child’s well-being at birth

The American Academy of Pediatrics

“Infant male circumcision is not medically necessary.

The Canadian Pædiatric Society
“You can, and should, respectfully decline to perform the prodedure just as you respectfully decline to carry out other requested medical acts that you regard to be inappropriate.”

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan


Do medical benefits exist which justify routine circumcision? No, according to the American Medical Association. No, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. No, according to the American Cancer Society. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists searched for but could locate no such benefits, nor could the American Urological Association, the British Medical Association, the Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, the Australian College of Paediatrics, the Canadian Paediatric Society, or the United Kingdom's General Medical Council. Every single national medical association which has examined the issue has failed to find medical benefits which can justify routine removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting infant.
------------------------------

Does MGM prevent or even help to prevent cancer of the penis? No, the American Cancer Society sent a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics in February 1996 discouraging them from continuing to promote circumcision as a preventive measure for cancer of the penis.

“Penile cancer is extremely rare in the United States and accounts for less than one half a percent of cancers diagnosed among men and less than one tenth of a percent of cancer deaths among men.”

“Proven penile cancer risk factors include having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking.”

“The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis.”
-------------------------------

Does MGM help prevent urinary tract infection? No.

“A recent study by Toronto researchers, which involved almost 60,000 boys born in Ontario between 1993 and 1994. Suggests 195 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one hospital admission for urinary tract infection in the first year of life.

Since a conservative estimate of the number of significant complications of circumcision is 2-3%, this would mean that circumcising nearly 200 boys to prevent one urinary tract infection would result in at least 4 boys suffering a major complication to prevent one easily treatable urinary tract infection.”
--------------------------------

So if the medical benefits of MGM are not significant enough to recommend the procedure. This is clearly a violation of medical ethics (physicians are only allowed to perform surgery when medically necessary).
---------------------------------


On to the next issue.

The argument that Male circumcision is completely different from female Genital Mutilation.

NOTE: I didn’t just come up the name MGM, I first read it from sites which correctly took the next step in classifying male circumcision as a form of mutilation. (The same as what happened with female circumcision.)

“Comparison to female genital mutilation:

The international community has declared female genital mutilation to be a violation of human rights. This is a procedure that is clearly in keeping with long-standing religious traditions in the area where it is practiced. It is chosen for a minor who is unable to consent, by the parents. The goal of the procedure is to reduce sexual pleasure with the goal of preserving chastity and fidelity in marriage.

The international community has declared that male genital mutilation is medically unnecessary. This procedure is most commonly performed either out of ignorance regarding its medical utility, bigotry regarding appearances, or for religious purposes. It is usually perfomed on a baby who is unable to consent or defend himself. The goal of the procedure has changed and morphed over the years, as wave after wave of quacks, charlatans, and religious fundamentalists have attempted to re-justify it in the face of scientific evidence.

There's a lot of similarities there. Why one is illegal worldwide and the other is still practiced by first-world medicine is a complete mystery to me.”

Here are some fun facts -

http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm)

UN Human Rights Commission Oral Arguments
United Nations Human Rights Commission
Sub-Commission on Promotion and Development of Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland
Tuesday, 14 August 2001

The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, a non-governmental organization in Roster status with the United Nations, has requested the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to conduct hearings to determine if involuntary non-therapeutic circumcision of male minor children should be considered a human rights violation.
This file contains the oral arguments by J. Steven Svoboda, JD, Esq, Director, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, before the fifty-third session of the Sub-Commission on Promotion and Development of Human Rights, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, 14 August 2001.

The current era is an exciting time for human rights. We are pleased to see a panoply of protections being extended to women and girls to assist them in overcoming all the various systemic and individual burdens which tend to fall on females around the world. Thanks in no small part to the efforts of the experts, the governments, the inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations in this room, serious headway is being made in the elimination of a number of different forms of discrimination and violence against women. Special Rapporteur Mrs. Warzazi deserves our special commendation for her considerable achievements in this area.

One of the many problems affecting girls and women on which significant progress has been made is the fight against female genital mutilation. NOCIRC works toward elimination of FGM and is elated at progress and developments in this area. Yet are we forgetting anyone? Are we turning away from certain human wrongs?

Everywhere that FGM occurs, male circumcision also occurs. Elimination of one practice may go hand-in-hand with elimination of the other. Male circumcision takes place more than six times for every one time that FGM occurs. Male circumcision occurs at infancy in the developed world while in the developing world it takes place any time between infancy and early adulthood.

The Parliament of Sweden recently voted decisively, 249 to 10, in favor of Law 2001:499, new legislation which regulates male circumcision and in its preliminaries also ordered a study to determine what effect the new law will have and whether male circumcision should be considered a human rights violation. Many Swedish Members of Parliament stated that male circumcision violates children's rights. The 10 dissenters in the Swedish vote objected only because they supported total criminalization, rather than mere regulation, of non-therapeutic circumcision of male children.

If one had just arrived in Geneva from another planet and spent time reviewing all the work done here, one might be forgiven for wondering: Are males not also human beings? Do they not also enjoy the right against removal of healthy tissue from their bodies without their consent?

Yes, according to Jacqueline Smith of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, "By condemning one practice and not the other, another basic human right, namely the right to freedom from discrimination, is at stake."

Yes, according to Ms. Gay J. McDougall, the Sub-Commission's Special Rapporteur on Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices During Armed Conflict. Ms. McDougall stated: "That international humanitarian law, insofar as it provides protection against rape and other sexual assaults, is applicable to men as well as women is beyond any doubt as the international human right not to be discriminated against (in this case on the basis of sex) does not allow derogation.

Article 13 of the United Nations Charter, as well as Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child bar discrimination on the basis of sex. United Nations experts have acknowledged that at least under certain circumstances male circumcision constitutes a human rights violation.

If males are included in human rights, then why have they been eliminated from the mandate given to Special Rapporteur Warzazi, which previously encompassed traditional practices harmful to women and children but now only includes traditional practices harmful to women and the girl child? Smith writes, "Male circumcision is, like female genital mutilation, a 'harmful traditional practice' and as such in violation with the rights of the child. Regardless of whether a child is a boy or a girl, neither should be subject to a tradition which is harmful."

It may be tempting to dismiss the issue as trivial. Our own discomfort and reluctance to open up a new area of human rights inquiry can combine to encourage attempts to write the matter off as unimportant. But nothing could be further than trivial for David Reimer, whose penis was entirely burned off. He was raised and surgically "reassigned" as a girl but his life and the lives of everyone in his family were catastrophically altered. Nothing could be further than trivial for Demetrius Manker of Carol City, Florida, one of the many boys who die in hospital after a circumcision. And nothing could be further than trivial for the 35 boys who according to the New York Times have already died this year in South Africa alone from circumcisions. Ten percent or more of initiates have been left with no penis or a "disfigured stump."

The pain has been proven conclusively, and cannot be prevented even with anesthetic, which carries its own risks. Male circumcision harms infant neurological development and memory, has permanent impacts on sexuality and as mentioned, deaths occur regularly. Male circumcision harms women by impairing bonding between the child and the mother and by interfering with breastfeeding.

Do medical benefits exist which justify routine circumcision? No, according to the American Medical Association. No, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. No, according to the American Cancer Society. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists searched for but could locate no such benefits, nor could the American Urological Association, the British Medical Association, the Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, the Australian College of Paediatrics, the Canadian Paediatric Society, or the United Kingdom's General Medical Council. Every single national medical association which has examined the issue has failed to find medical benefits which can justify routine removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting infant.

What about religion? For boys and girls alike, under basic human rights principles, another's right to practice a religion must end where that individual's body begins. Otherwise, individual protections carry little meaning. Many Jews and Muslims are involved with NGO's working to stop male circumcision, and many are questioning whether removal of healthy tissue from the bodies of their children is required by or even consistent with their faith.

One of the Sub-Commission's prime functions is to undertake studies, particularly in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to make recommendations to the Commission concerning the prevention of discrimination OF ANY KIND relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms. In accordance with Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." NOCIRC respectfully requests the Sub-Commission to immediately undertake a study of male circumcision as a human rights violation.

The best way to do justice to the rights of the child is to do no harm, to let it enjoy life in every aspect and to protect it and to love it. When the child is of the age of consent, he or she can make up his or her own mind about his or her own body. Some day, we will come to understand the misguided nature of our attempts to explain why any violation of female genitals is criminal while a serious, extremely painful, and disfiguring alteration of male genitals is permissible. In the meantime, the screaming babies can't tell the difference. All we need to is open our ears and start to hear their cries.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/ (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/)

http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm)

http://www.courtchallenge.com/ (http://www.courtchallenge.com/)

For the people that say that this is a waste of time or not for the UN to talk about.

This IS NOT about parent’s rights or religion, it’s about basic Human Rights! And we took the time to pass a resolution about female Genital Mutilation. So it’s time we stop this sexual discrimination against males and afford them the same rights and protections.
------------------

I have more to come a little later....

In light of the amount of research presented, my government now FIRMLY believes this is an issue we should consider with more seriousness, and should any proposal be submitted to the queue, please telegram my nation and my office will ask our UN Delegate to endorse the proposal.

Considering the data, my government will support the resolution if MGM is dropped in favor of solely using the term Circumcision.

Also, for effectiveness purposes (just because we all know those idiots who LOVE finding loopholes), perhaps define Circumcision (not a factor in determining my support, merely a suggestion).

Considering the data, my government will support the resolution if MGM is dropped in favor of solely using the term Circumcision.

Also, for effectiveness purposes (just because we all know those idiots who LOVE finding loopholes), perhaps define Circumcision (not a factor in determining my support, merely a suggestion).

We would urge the candidate of forgotten lands to view the female genital mutilation resolution which incorrectly defines circumcision as "safe". This was the sole reason I voted against the FGM resolution the first time. Now, in order to avoid this loophole it is my belief that you'd have to define an adult and informedly-chosen medical practice as circumcision, and MGM as the practice that is done without the recipient's consent (typically being underage). Otherwise you could suggest that a "safe circumcision" is only one that has the full informed consent of the adult receiving it, and everything else is unsafe and thus a form of physical abuse, and thus a violation of the child protection act.

The thing is, it's going to be very hard to repeal the FGM resolution and this resolution deperately needs to be passed, thus instead of me endlessly arguing on semantics I'd like you to consider these issues and perhaps suggest an alternative yourself.

This resolution has my full fledged support as i have been argueing.

Learn to read my statements i have repeatedly said that i am circumcised (sp?). And am going through foreskin restoration using the manual method of restoration. I have been restoring for 5 months and i have regained so much sensitivity in comparison to what i previously had.

I know what my numb leathery bellend once looked like before i started restoration and it was dull and took a bit to Get some feeling when wanking. now that my glans has shed some layers of skin it looks more shiny and natural. and it is so much easier to wank. The efforts of FR are definatly worth it.

OOC. OK like totally TMI!

IC. Suffice it to say I dissagree with this on the grounds of personal Sovergnity. The United Nations has no right to interfere with matters of a personal nature such as this. The Female Genital Mutilation ban was worthy due to the dangers posed to the victim and due to the reason that there are no Medical benefits to having it done thus making it an assault.
The two are chalk and cheese.

Also, for effectiveness purposes (just because we all know those idiots who LOVE finding loopholes), perhaps define Circumcision (not a factor in determining my support, merely a suggestion).
Hey, I happen to be one of those, as you put it, idiots, and I don't appreciate being called one.

That being said, I still don't see how this issue merits the UN's attention, and in fact I might actively campaign against such a proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hey, I happen to be one of those, as you put it, idiots, and I don't appreciate being called one.

Would you prefer geek?

Considering the data, my government will support the resolution if MGM is dropped in favor of solely using the term Circumcision.

Also, for effectiveness purposes (just because we all know those idiots who LOVE finding loopholes), perhaps define Circumcision (not a factor in determining my support, merely a suggestion).
We would urge the candidate of forgotten lands to view the female genital mutilation resolution which incorrectly defines circumcision as "safe". This was the sole reason I voted against the FGM resolution the first time. Now, in order to avoid this loophole it is my belief that you'd have to define an adult and informedly-chosen medical practice as circumcision, and MGM as the practice that is done without the recipient's consent (typically being underage). Otherwise you could suggest that a "safe circumcision" is only one that has the full informed consent of the adult receiving it, and everything else is unsafe and thus a form of physical abuse, and thus a violation of the child protection act.
We understand Forgottenlands concerns about the MGM/circumcision name issue and agree that any loopholes must be closed. But as our colleague from Thermidore has pointed out. It’s not that simple. We’re still currently evaluating all options and would very much appreciate any input from other nations.

One of my main concerns is whether that line in the female genital mutilation resolution is binding in any way.

“as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision.”


The thing is, it's going to be very hard to repeal the FGM resolution and this resolution deperately needs to be passed, thus instead of me endlessly arguing on semantics I'd like you to consider these issues and perhaps suggest an alternative yourself.
I don’t think, nor do I hope that it comes to that but if it does we’ll worry about that then.


OOC. OK like totally TMI!

IC. Suffice it to say I dissagree with this on the grounds of personal Sovergnity. The United Nations has no right to interfere with matters of a personal nature such as this.
How could you disagree with this on the grounds of “personal Sovereignty?!”

It is very much the right of the UN to interfere in matters pertaining to Human Rights. Again I refer you to the resolution on female genital mutilation. As well as at least a dozen other Human Rights resolutions.


The Female Genital Mutilation ban was worthy due to the dangers posed to the victim and due to the reason that there are no Medical benefits to having it done thus making it an assault.
The two are chalk and cheese.
Right there you just justified this resolution. There are no Medical benefits worth justifying the use of MGM. Doing so is tantamount to removing a young woman's breasts based on the argument that it may help to prevent breast cancer.

More like American cheese and Swiss cheese.

In the end though it comes down to the fact that we have a resolution on the books that protect females from this horrible practice and nobody has provided or could provide a reason as to why males shouldn’t protected from this as well.

Would you prefer geek?

I prefer "nerd" over either "idiot" or "geek", myself.

Ok sorry this took so long. I’ll try to respond to everything but since there are so many posts I’m only going to be able to address most of the issues mentioned. So if I miss anything just repost it or direct me to the original post.
----------------------

First off, the misguided argument that Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) is a medically beneficial procedure. It’s not.






------------------------------

Does MGM prevent or even help to prevent cancer of the penis? No, the American Cancer Society sent a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics in February 1996 discouraging them from continuing to promote circumcision as a preventive measure for cancer of the penis.


-------------------------------

Does MGM help prevent urinary tract infection? No.

“A recent study by Toronto researchers, which involved almost 60,000 boys born in Ontario between 1993 and 1994. Suggests 195 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one hospital admission for urinary tract infection in the first year of life.

Since a conservative estimate of the number of significant complications of circumcision is 2-3%, this would mean that circumcising nearly 200 boys to prevent one urinary tract infection would result in at least 4 boys suffering a major complication to prevent one easily treatable urinary tract infection.”
--------------------------------

So if the medical benefits of MGM are not significant enough to recommend the procedure. This is clearly a violation of medical ethics (physicians are only allowed to perform surgery when medically necessary).
---------------------------------


On to the next issue.

The argument that Male circumcision is completely different from female Genital Mutilation.

NOTE: I didn’t just come up the name MGM, I first read it from sites which correctly took the next step in classifying male circumcision as a form of mutilation. (The same as what happened with female circumcision.)



Here are some fun facts -

http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm)



http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/ (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/)

http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm)

http://www.courtchallenge.com/ (http://www.courtchallenge.com/)

For the people that say that this is a waste of time or not for the UN to talk about.

This IS NOT about parent’s rights or religion, it’s about basic Human Rights! And we took the time to pass a resolution about female Genital Mutilation. So it’s time we stop this sexual discrimination against males and afford them the same rights and protections.
------------------

I have more to come a little later....


I'm sorry but New Hamilton believes that the science that you are using is a bit...weak.


With our long history with dealing with developing nations, we have first hand experience with dealing with sub-human conditions.



And frankly speaking, whenever you fold skin albeit it be an arm pit, a butt cheek or yes, foreskin.


You trap bacteria. And unless you clean it regularly (and I mean once a day) you will increase your health risks.

There's a reason why STDs are ramped in developing nations even though the population is sparse with little or no International tourism.

When you take sub-human living condition, the inability to properly conduct the necessary hygiene and the lack of clean water...

With the need to procreate.

That's how you end up with a population that is 40% to 50% HIV Positive.

And not just STDs, but also Urinary track infections, bladder infections...

Not to mention the religious aspects




New Hamilton strongly feels that this Proposal is as bad as one that would force all males in the UN to be circumcised.

I'm sorry but New Hamilton believes that the science that you are using is a bit...weak.


With our long history with dealing with developing nations, we have first hand experience with dealing with sub-human conditions.



And frankly speaking, whenever you fold skin albeit it be an arm pit, a butt cheek or yes, foreskin.


You trap bacteria. And unless you clean it regularly (and I mean once a day) you will increase your health risks.

There's a reason why STDs are ramped in developing nations even though the population is sparse with little or no International tourism.

When you take sub-human living condition, the inability to properly conduct the necessary hygiene and the lack of clean water...

With the need to procreate.

That's how you end up with a population that is 40% to 50% HIV Positive.

And not just STDs, but also Urinary track infections, bladder infections...

Not to mention the religious aspects




New Hamilton strongly feels that this Proposal is as bad as one that would force all males in the UN to be circumcised.
The only problem with that is the facts don't agree with you. And even if you were right - There are no Medical benefits worth justifying the use of MGM. Doing so is tantamount to removing a young woman's breasts based on the argument that it may help to prevent breast cancer.
How many ****ing times am I going to have to say this.

You just gotta deal with the fact that in this world there is many stupid people. No matter how much evidence u present them they will continue to blind themselves to the fact that they are wrong and they make themselves look like idiots.

CIRCUMCISION HAS NO MEDICAL BENEFITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang: :headbang:

It needs to be BANNED!!

CIRCUMCISION HAS NO MEDICAL BENEFITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang: :headbang:

It needs to be BANNED!!
So ban it in your nation, there's no need for the UN to be involved.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I do think the UN should be involved in this subject for the protection of children. Have just read the The Child Protection Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26) and in my opinion circumcision performed on a child without their consent does fall under article 2.1. It may be a stretch, but I personally consider non-necessary circumcision on a child as sexual abuse of a minor, not to mention that it probably falls under a few of the other definitions there as well.

The only problem with that is the facts don't agree with you. And even if you were right -
How many ****ing times am I going to have to say this.

You can keep on saying it, but it does not make it true.




Removing a woman's breast makes the area unusable for breast feeding.


Removing foreskin does not restrict any use of the penis.



OOC: This is starting to feel a little anti-semetic here. To compare circumcision to a Mastectomy is both insensitive to women and Jews.

Let's stop comparing the two can we.

OOC:Is it just me, or does there seem to to be a lot of threads lately in which we are meant to discuss our private parts?

You can keep on saying it, but it does not make it true.


You are a fool, you saying that makes you sound like an idiot, You are embarrasing yourself. Do us a favor and go away.

You have a stupid line of reasoning, If u have nothing good to say F*** OFF.

Circumcision is a violation of Child's rights and it needs to quit.

New Hamilton how would you like it if the minute you were born I got some scizzors and Buchered Your penis to the point to where you couldnt hardly piss, It was only 3 inches when ERECT, and u could not enjoy Sexual Activities at all. Oh but wait using your line of reasoning its not restricting the use of the penis since you could still piss and u still have a dick.

you have a messed up line of reasoning. Go away

OOC:Is it just me, or does there seem to to be a lot of threads lately in which we are meant to discuss our private parts?
OOC. snap! ive been thinking the very same!

You just gotta deal with the fact that in this world there is many stupid people. No matter how much evidence u present them they will continue to blind themselves to the fact that they are wrong and they make themselves look like idiots.

CIRCUMCISION HAS NO MEDICAL BENEFITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang: :headbang:

It needs to be BANNED!!

Again, not true. It helps with reduce the likely of infection against HIV.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050727-08493600-bc-brazil-aids-circumcision.xml

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=247222&area=/insight/insight__national/


http://www.mydna.com/health/kidney/news/resources/news/200508/news_20050802_uti.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/26/health/webmd/main711923.shtml


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html



So please. Stop pushing inflammatory misinformation.

You are a fool, you saying that makes you sound like an idiot, You are embarrasing yourself. Do us a favor and go away.

You have a stupid line of reasoning, If u have nothing good to say F*** OFF.

Circumcision is a violation of Child's rights and it needs to quit.

New Hamilton how would you like it if the minute you were born I got some scizzors and Buchered Your penis to the point to where you couldnt hardly piss, It was only 3 inches when ERECT, and u could not enjoy Sexual Activities at all. Oh but wait using your line of reasoning its not restricting the use of the penis since you could still piss and u still have a dick.

you have a messed up line of reasoning. Go away

OOC: well the BBC is on my side...so is almost every Science journal out there.



And frankly speaking...your argument is specious. At what point do you have the experience of living both sides of the foreskin issue?


You haven't, so then stop speaking with absolutes. As I demonstrated in my last post...you are wrong. circumcision reduces your likelihood of HIV infection by 65%.

So there goes the cornerstone of your argument.

So let me get this straight.

You believe the UN should pass legislation saying what a guy can and cannot do with his genitals?

Please do not waste the UN's time.

So let me get this straight.

You believe the UN should pass legislation saying what a guy can and cannot do with his genitals?

Please do not waste the UN's time.

I absolutely agree wholeheartedly.

So let me get this straight.

You believe the UN should pass legislation saying what a guy can and cannot do with his genitals?

Please do not waste the UN's time.

No I believe the resolution is about what a parent can and can't do with their children's genitals,please read the resolution before you dismiss it.

Lol, You are so misguided and stupid, You are a desperate fool who has no arguement. If u notice he only has 1 arguement, and that is less HIV rates.

But using your line of reasoning lets go get our prostate removed becuase we could get prostate cancer, Or lets go Burn our skin off becuase we could go get skin cancer, Or hey How bought lets go chop our nuts off becuase we could get Testicular Cancer, Or we could even go and cut out a womens ovaries and cut our Liver becuase you know there is always is a chance for Cancer.

Do u realise how stupid you sound? this is basically what you are saying and there is no medical reason to cut off a perfectly good part of the body just as you wouldnt do any of the above that i listed just to prevent cancer.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org A baby died of herpes after a due to circumcision

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/
http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/doulacrc.html

Heh, Do you really want to live with a Short Penis, Hairy Shaft of the penis, Turkey Neck, Greatly reduced Sensitivity just to prevent HIV? Man I got a short mutilated penis thats 4.5 inches when erect ,hardly any sensitivity, and a bent penis, but i have a reduced risk of HIV.(SARCASM)

Having a big long Penis is every mans dream. I mean come on who wouldnt want to have an 8 or 9 incher. But circumcision can remove too much skin which if its too tight will hold back inches.

Man I got a short mutilated penis thats 4.5 inches when erect ,hardly any sensitivity, and a bent penis, but i have a reduced risk of HIV.(SARCASM)

They're still not even sure on this AI clan, - I went to circumstitions.com and they say the south african study has yet to be released to peer review?

Secondly this study took over a 21 month period, where it's safe to say the time the men were having sex was reduced on the circ'ed side owing to recovery period. Secondly the time would have been reduced because sexual pleasure is reduced in circumcised men. So that's a big statistical gap.

Thirdly I think what they're getting at is either it's easier for HIV to last longer in the foreskin area and enter through foreskin tears, than people without foreskins , and they say that this is because the foreskin isn't keratinised - which means hardened, which is what happens the glans when circumcised (leading to reduced sensitivity and sexual pleasure)

So, I can understand, if your population is ignorant of std's, in basic personal hygiene, lacking in free condoms/education about the use of a condom, where there's an AIDS epidemic, it might seem prudent for MEN to have circumcisions (if they're not getting any of the other things offered above, but as they're not even able to access condoms - where are they going to get circumcisions?) Oh wait I've got it, let's deprive them of the choice by inflicting it on them at birth, that way they're bound to thank us for taking away 60% of their erogenous sensitivity and satisfaction in sex and making a presumption about their sexual lifestyle years before they start having one! even then unprotected sex has a far higher risk than protected - note that they didn't put this into the equation. Frankly HIV prevention is all about behaviour, cause if you've got two guys, one of which is circumcised, who are both promiscuous in an AIDS-stricken area and both practice unsafe sex, it's a question of "when" both of them get AIDS, not "if".

Having a circumcision for HIV prevention presumes way too much, and costs children far far too much and in countries where there is easy access to condoms it is absolutely ridiculous. South Africa is an extreme case to push circumcision on the rest of the world where at least in areas with better standards of living there's access to condoms completely negating any (minor) positive benefit and keeping a whole host of life-long negative ones

Read here for more
http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html

It seems a simple arguement once you cut throught the waffle and linkage:Most circumcisions are carried out not long after birth,before the infant male in question can fully understand,and consider the consequences of,this procedure.

if the resolution were to be passed a male could,after his 18th birthday,choose to have himself circumsicised,but his parents could not elect to have him circumsicised before this point unless it were medically necessary.

The Republic of Ifreann understands that there are advantages to circumsicision,just as there are disadvantages,but it feels that the important factor is the right to choose,a right many would be jump at the oppurtunity to avail themselves of.

every single bit of your body is God given and it's not really up to us to start cutting pieces off unless it's cancerous. There is a reason for certain types of human behaviour but you can't expect that circumcision will solve all societies problems

CIRCUMCISION HAS NO MEDICAL BENEFITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang: :headbang:

It needs to be BANNED!!

Neither do piercings or tattoos.... are they to be banned as well?
What about cosmetic surgery.

medical benifits have nothing to do with this... its a persons right to do what they want to them selves, and with thier families.

As I've said before, this isnt the concern of the UN. Its the concern of the individual.

Now, if you really think the "MGM" is a bad thing...then EDUCATE! Banning something right off the bat is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. You take away a persons right to free-will and choice. Why not instead GIVE them a choice and point them in the "right" direction?

Lol, You are so misguided and stupid, You are a desperate fool who has no arguement. If u notice he only has 1 arguement, and that is less HIV rates.

But using your line of reasoning lets go get our prostate removed becuase we could get prostate cancer, Or lets go Burn our skin off becuase we could go get skin cancer, Or hey How bought lets go chop our nuts off becuase we could get Testicular Cancer, Or we could even go and cut out a womens ovaries and cut our Liver becuase you know there is always is a chance for Cancer.

Do u realise how stupid you sound? this is basically what you are saying and there is no medical reason to cut off a perfectly good part of the body just as you wouldnt do any of the above that i listed just to prevent cancer.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org A baby died of herpes after a due to circumcision

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/
http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/doulacrc.html

Heh, Do you really want to live with a Short Penis, Hairy Shaft of the penis, Turkey Neck, Greatly reduced Sensitivity just to prevent HIV? Man I got a short mutilated penis thats 4.5 inches when erect ,hardly any sensitivity, and a bent penis, but i have a reduced risk of HIV.(SARCASM)

Having a big long Penis is every mans dream. I mean come on who wouldnt want to have an 8 or 9 incher. But circumcision can remove too much skin which if its too tight will hold back inches.

Name calling is a sign of a weak argument.

And I will stand by my sources (and I do believe my sources carry a little more respect).

So don't argue with me...you need to argue with the BBC, National Geographic Science Daily and the rest of the Modern Science community.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050727-08493600-bc-brazil-aids-circumcision.xml

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=247222&area=/insight/insight__national/


http://www.mydna.com/health/kidney/news/resources/news/200508/news_20050802_uti.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/26/health/webmd/main711923.shtml


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html

Neither do piercings or tattoos.... are they to be banned as well?
What about cosmetic surgery.

medical benifits have nothing to do with this... its a persons right to do what they want to them selves, and with thier families.

As I've said before, this isnt the concern of the UN. Its the concern of the individual.

Now, if you really think the "MGM" is a bad thing...then EDUCATE! Banning something right off the bat is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. You take away a persons right to free-will and choice. Why not instead GIVE them a choice and point them in the "right" direction?

Thats why most of us are against this when practiced for non-medical reasons on children. Adults can do whatever they like with that paticular part of their anatomy (within the law of course).

Sorry but I don't agree with you that a person has a right to do whatever they like with their families, and there are a few passed resolutions that agree with me including (as I've posted before) The Child Protection Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26).

It seems a simple arguement once you cut throught the waffle and linkage:Most circumcisions are carried out not long after birth,before the infant male in question can fully understand,and consider the consequences of,this procedure.

the parents choose...not the child. Now, any one who's had a child is, for the most part, inteligent enought to grasp the concept of cause and effect, and can therefore make at least an educated decision.

if a patent isnt trust worthy enought to choose for their child, why the hell are they allowed to take them home from the hospital in the first place? should we have the doctor making the choices instead of parents?

"I'm sorry Mr and Mrs Anderson, but i deem it 'necessary' for the child that you NOT breast feed him, and instead feed them with a bottle."

what the hell?

Its the guardians desision. Thats why they are called GUARDIANS.

every single bit of your body is God given and it's not really up to us to start cutting pieces off unless it's cancerous. There is a reason for certain types of human behaviour but you can't expect that circumcision will solve all societies problems

So we should not get ride of tonsils or hang nails or moles...


You know we cut moles off before they become cancerous. Because once moles become cancerous...you have a BIG problem.

And you know what? Most moles they remove were never going to become cancerous...they do it as a precaution.





As I said earlier, Legislators should not play doctors. Doctors should be doctors.




This is a twisted example of Dr. Seuss and the Star Bellied Sneetches.

Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches
Had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches
Had none upon thars.

I'd like to mention that circumcision does NOT decrease sensitivity, as I know from experience. Unless it's done in a horrifically inept fashion.

Name calling is a sign of a weak argument.

And I will stand by my sources (and I do believe my sources carry a little more respect).

So don't argue with me...you need to argue with the BBC, National Geographic Science Daily and the rest of the Modern Science community.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050727-08493600-bc-brazil-aids-circumcision.xml

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=247222&area=/insight/insight__national/


http://www.mydna.com/health/kidney/news/resources/news/200508/news_20050802_uti.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/26/health/webmd/main711923.shtml


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html

Great so there may be a lower risk of HIV in uncircumcisedd men if they have unprotected sex......

Yet if you use a condom, suddenly the odds are equalled but hey instead the only difference is that you've lost 60% sensitivity and sexual satisfaction

is this the best you can come up with for a reason to mutilate a child which has no say in the matter?

Because that sounds like you're clutching at straws to find a reason for an outmoded abusive practice

I'd like to mention that circumcision does NOT decrease sensitivity, as I know from experience. Unless it's done in a horrifically inept fashion.

keratinisation of the glans is a natural protection mechanism the body engages to protect the sensitive area, ergo there's a thicker layer on the glans, and the foreskin an area with its own errogenous receptors is lost too. Sounds like you're talking about colour only having ever seen in black and white. Sorry man...

AI Clan - you are hurting your argument more than you're helping it. Your unreasonable level of insults and seeming amount of anger (whether it is actually there or not) means that people have more reason to ignore your posts and vote against you than to work with you. Calm down, don't insult people and maybe you'll get your point across. Thermidore did more to help your position in his response to your last post than you did in either of your last two posts.

Great so there may be a lower risk of HIV in uncircumcisedd men if they have unprotected sex......

Yet if you use a condom, suddenly the odds are equalled but hey instead the only difference is that you've lost 60% sensitivity and sexual satisfaction

is this the best you can come up with for a reason to mutilate a child which has no say in the matter?

Because that sounds like you're clutching at straws to find a reason for an outmoded abusive practice


Again, that argument is specious.


The penis does not control the pleasure nods of the brain.


It may seem like it to some men. But it is a fact that it is the other way around.



Field case study after field case study has shown that the foreskin cause the inter skin to more susceptible to infectious diseases.



The cornerstone of the argument against circumcision is that it doesn't help prevent diseases.

Which is in fact, not true.


And since the foreskin has no relation to the pleasure nod in the brain...

Your second argument is...again...not true.


So WHY should we ban circumcision?

So we can make it as painful and humiliating as possible to adults at the cost of public health?


Is that your reasoning?

keratinisation of the glans is a natural protection mechanism the body engages to protect the sensitive area, ergo there's a thicker layer on the glans, and the foreskin an area with its own errogenous receptors is lost too. Sounds like you're talking about colour only having ever seen in black and white. Sorry man...

And for a final thought on this topic for today.

If the leader of New Hamilton can be so bold to say, isn't the orgasm the apex of sexual stimulation?


How does the foreskin affect the orgasm?


And since the orgasm is not affected...


Wouldn't that lead to the fact that sexual pleasure is not affected?


You know...a lot of men have experience ejaculation without physical stimulation.

Nocturnal emission or "wet dreams" are not mutually exclusive to people with foreskin.


So not yet have I heard an argument where circumcision prevents a man from experiencing anything different than a person who wasn't circumcised.



Expect for the occasional boasting about how poor circumcised guys "just don't understand".



Again, how does non-circumcised men know?


All I know is that I never met a circumcised man who wanted foreskin.

Why not just say nobody can be circumsized against their will. And why csan't someone under 18 make this decision themselves. And what if a minor is jewish, can't they have a right to choose?

The Republic of Libertaville sees this as an infringment on Religious and Parental rights.

It is the right of the parent to make decisions regarding their children while they are minors. If a parent so chooses to get their children circumcised for any reason, then who are we to tell them they are not allowed.

There are also religions who believe circumcision is neccessary. The Republic of Libertaville refuses to tamper with the rights of the religion, by outlawing their practices, which in essence cause no harm.

The Republic of Libertaville whole heartedly denies any support.

Antonio Masticoverre
The Republic of Libertaville.

this act takes away from the personal freedoms of each citizen to choose whether or not they should have circumcision. If I have read this bill right it says for mandatory circumcision...this would be a crime agaisnt civil rights. The nation of Vincinia, unless otherwised changed to our likeing, will not vote for this bill

The nation of Cybertoria would have to agree.

You can keep on saying it, but it does not make it true.


Removing a woman's breast makes the area unusable for breast feeding.


Removing foreskin does not restrict any use of the penis.


OOC: This is starting to feel a little anti-semetic here. To compare circumcision to a Mastectomy is both insensitive to women and Jews.

Let's stop comparing the two can we.
Sorry but you seem to be “overlooking” a few facts in your dismissal.

1. The foreskin is part of the penis; it is not just skin it is an organ.

2. Even if MGM helped prevent every little ridiculous ailment it still amounts to nothing more then a preventive measure.

3. The glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins as an immunological defense. It also contains two thirds of the nerve receptors and almost all of the specialized super sensitive touch receptors of the penis. As well as other sexual functions during intercourse.

MGM is nothing short of the removal of an organ for no other reason then to possibly help prevent something in later life.

Using basic logic I fail to see how any logically thinking person can not see the comparison between the two.


Again, not true. It helps with reduce the likely of infection against HIV.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050727-08493600-bc-brazil-aids-circumcision.xml

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=247222&area=/insight/insight__national/


http://www.mydna.com/health/kidney/news/resources/news/200508/news_20050802_uti.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/26/health/webmd/main711923.shtml


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html



So please. Stop pushing inflammatory misinformation.
That’s not going to fly here. For one thing we’re talking about children not adults and two we’re talking about disease that is 100% preventable, without having to do anything. And I’m not even going to get in to the validity of these studies.


So let me get this straight.

You believe the UN should pass legislation saying what a guy can and cannot do with his genitals?

Please do not waste the UN's time.
No I believe the UN should pass legislation saying that nobody could tell a guy what he can and cannot do with his genitals?


Neither do piercings or tattoos.... are they to be banned as well?
What about cosmetic surgery.

medical benifits have nothing to do with this... its a persons right to do what they want to them selves, and with thier families.

As I've said before, this isnt the concern of the UN. Its the concern of the individual.

Now, if you really think the "MGM" is a bad thing...then EDUCATE! Banning something right off the bat is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. You take away a persons right to free-will and choice. Why not instead GIVE them a choice and point them in the "right" direction?
Individual = One person
Not “family”

Thanks you did a good job of summing up why we need to pass this.

“Medical benefits have nothing to do with this... its a persons right to do what they want to them selves.”

If that’s what you think then why are you not fighting to repeal the FGM and children's rights resolutions?


the parents choose...not the child. Now, any one who's had a child is, for the most part, inteligent enought to grasp the concept of cause and effect, and can therefore make at least an educated decision.

if a patent isnt trust worthy enought to choose for their child, why the hell are they allowed to take them home from the hospital in the first place? should we have the doctor making the choices instead of parents?

"I'm sorry Mr and Mrs Anderson, but i deem it 'necessary' for the child that you NOT breast feed him, and instead feed them with a bottle."

what the hell?

Its the guardians desision. Thats why they are called GUARDIANS.
If that's what you think then go repeal the FGM and children's rights resolutions because they say otherwise.


So we should not get ride of tonsils or hang nails or moles...


You know we cut moles off before they become cancerous. Because once moles become cancerous...you have a BIG problem.

And you know what? Most moles they remove were never going to become cancerous...they do it as a precaution.

As I said earlier, Legislators should not play doctors. Doctors should be doctors.

This is a twisted example of Dr. Seuss and the Star Bellied Sneetches.

Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches
Had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches
Had none upon thars.
Doctors are supposed to heal, not mutilate and their are NOT supposed to perform unnecessary surgeries.


I'd like to mention that circumcision does NOT decrease sensitivity, as I know from experience. Unless it's done in a horrifically inept fashion.
Sorry but you’re wrong. The foreskin contains two thirds of the nerve receptors and almost all of the specialized super sensitive touch receptors of the penis.


Again, that argument is specious.

The penis does not control the pleasure nods of the brain.

It may seem like it to some men. But it is a fact that it is the other way around.

And since the foreskin has no relation to the pleasure nod in the brain...

Your second argument is...again...not true.
Ok you need to come back down to reality.

“The outer surface of the foreskin is specialized to detect feather-light touch and other sensations, including painful ones. The infamous “zipper injury” is an extreme example of the sort of damage the outer skin was designed to detect and prevent, long before the zipper posed a threat to the uninitiated.

Compared with the true (outer) skin of the foreskin, the glans is only feebly sensitive to light touch, pain, heat and cold. This is part of the reason we call the foreskin the primary sensory tissue of the penis. Without the foreskin, the end of the penis is numb to a host of sensations that tell the owner whether one of his most prized organs is in good company, or should move to safety.”
http://research.cirp.org/func1.html

The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis. These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.

As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

The foreskin's double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated.

The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood. Scientists in Europe recently detected estrogen receptors in its basal epidermal cells.24 Researchers at the University of Manchester found that the human foreskin has apocrine glands.25 These specialized glands produce pheromones, nature's chemical messengers. Further studies are needed to fully understand these features of the foreskin and the role they play.

MGM could rob men of up to 65%+ of erogenous sensitivity.


Field case study after field case study has shown that the foreskin cause the inter skin to more susceptible to infectious diseases.
That’s never been proven and is a moot point anyway.


The cornerstone of the argument against circumcision is that it doesn't help prevent diseases.

Which is in fact, not true.
No that’s the smallest part of the argument.


So WHY should we ban circumcision?

So we can make it as painful and humiliating as possible to adults at the cost of public health?


Is that your reasoning?
So your saying that we should subject innocent children to an irreversible, dangerous and unnecessary procedure that they don’t even want done instead?


And for a final thought on this topic for today.

If the leader of New Hamilton can be so bold to say, isn't the orgasm the apex of sexual stimulation?


How does the foreskin affect the orgasm?


And since the orgasm is not affected...


Wouldn't that lead to the fact that sexual pleasure is not affected?


You know...a lot of men have experience ejaculation without physical stimulation.

Nocturnal emission or "wet dreams" are not mutually exclusive to people with foreskin.
ahhhhh............................ Read my fourth to last response please... :| ^^^


So not yet have I heard an argument where circumcision prevents a man from experiencing anything different than a person who wasn't circumcised.

Expect for the occasional boasting about how poor circumcised guys "just don't understand".

Again, how does non-circumcised men know?


All I know is that I never met a circumcised man who wanted foreskin.
1. You haven’t been paying attention to this debate then.

2. That’s a rather ironies assertion. :rolleyes:


The Republic of Libertaville sees this as an infringment on Religious and Parental rights.

It is the right of the parent to make decisions regarding their children while they are minors. If a parent so chooses to get their children circumcised for any reason, then who are we to tell them they are not allowed.

There are also religions who believe circumcision is neccessary. The Republic of Libertaville refuses to tamper with the rights of the religion
Again I direct you to the FGM and children's rights resolutions because they state otherwise.


by outlawing their practices, which in essence cause no harm.

The Republic of Libertaville whole heartedly denies any support.

Antonio Masticoverre
The Republic of Libertaville.
Did you even read ANY of this debate or have any idea about what it is you’re talking about?! :headbang:

Are you guys still talking about your penises?
Move on people! this is not an issue for the NSUN!

Using basic logic I fail to see how any logically thinking person can not see the comparison between the two.
These isn't really appropriate. It's a personal attack, and it's only hurting your argument.
If that’s what you think then why are you not fighting to repeal the FGM and children's rights resolutions?

If that's what you think then go repeal the FGM and children's rights resolutions because they say otherwise.
My understanding of FGM is that it's intended to stop those who would hurt female reproductive ability or enjoyment later in life with a destructive, youth mutilation. I understand circumcision to be a non-destructive procedure, with minimal chances of hurting reproductive capabilities or enjoyment. I haven't yet seen any compelling reasons in this thread to believe otherwise.

Besides the fact that I disagree with your interpretation of these two resolutions, it really isn't for you to decide where he exerts his or her energy. whether this player tries to stop this proposal from passing, or attempts a repeal of either of these, you really have no say. It's his or her right to do so.
Doctors are supposed to heal, not mutilate and their are NOT supposed to perform unnecessary surgeries.
Maybe in your country, but that's not necessarily the case everywhere. Besides that, I have yet to see it proven that this is an "unnecessary surger[y]"


Sorry but you’re wrong. The foreskin contains two thirds of the nerve receptors and almost all of the specialized super sensitive touch receptors of the penis.

MGM could rob men of up to 65%+ of erogenous sensitivity.
I'm interested in where exactly you're getting these numbers, and what other medical information is available about the foreskin (whether it helps your argument or not).

Is any one else getting tired of hearing how their somehow "defective" simply because their "captain has lost his cap?"

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Is any one else getting tired of hearing how their somehow "defective" simply because their "captain has lost his cap?"

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
I know I am. This would be a perfect topic for the General forum.

I know I am. This would be a perfect topic for the General forum.

I too agree.

Excuse me for being a tad bit OOC here, but I was circumcised and I can promise I'm as fully functioning as the next guy.

Upon further consideration I conclude that this proposal is in violation of UN resolution #19 Religious Tolerance (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18) as it would unduly restrict the rights of people who practice judaism or other religions which practice circumcision on infants, to practice their religion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Upon further consideration I conclude that this proposal is in violation of UN resolution #19 Religious Tolerance (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18) as it would unduly restrict the rights of people who practice judaism or other religions which practice circumcision on infants, to practice their religion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The BoogooOootoo Plant People of planet Omicron Seti Nine have a religion that involves taking over other civilians to the point of genocide and believe that their Plant God Fungomungus told them that nations do NOT have the right to own nukes. I can think of about 3 UN resolutions that were adopted without consideration of the BoogooOootoo Plant People's customs, so if we want to start down this path, sadly I fear we'd be able to justify repealing every single UN resolution on the cause of conflicts with cultural practices.

The BoogooOootoo Plant People of planet Omicron Seti Nine have a religion that involves taking over other civilians to the point of genocide and believe that their Plant God Fungomungus told them that nations do NOT have the right to own nukes. I can think of about 3 UN resolutions that were adopted without consideration of the BoogooOootoo Plant People's customs, so if we want to start down this path, sadly I fear we'd be able to justify repealing every single UN resolution on the cause of conflicts with cultural practices.
Bear in mind that I'm primarially just trying to kill this idea, if for no other reason than I'm tired of hearing from the proponants of this idea, that I'm somehow less than fully functional simply because my "monk has been defrocked."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Bear in mind that I'm primarially just trying to kill this idea, if for no other reason than I'm tired of hearing from the proponants of this idea, that I'm somehow less than fully functional simply because my "monk has been defrocked."

:)
I'm of the mind it should be brought to the UN floor so we can just settle this via a vote. You'll notice I've not mentioned what the custom is in Mikitivity. There are just something things that will remain Top Secret.

Given the amount of spam that makes it to my government's Office of International Affairs advertising certain male products, the opinion of "functionality" is something somebody somewhere finds important or profitable.

I'd really rather take the debate to the question of ear piercing. Should the United Nations prohibit parents from piercing the ears of children??? Is this a serious enough mutilation that the rights of these children need to be protected? If the answer is yes, then I think the majority of us would find the subject at hand equally important. If the answer is "Whacha talkn bout Willis?", then maybe this is best left to nations to decide on their own.

:)
I'm of the mind it should be brought to the UN floor so we can just settle this via a vote. You'll notice I've not mentioned what the custom is in Mikitivity. There are just something things that will remain Top Secret.And I don't believe that it's worth the UN time to vote on it to begin with.

Given the amount of spam that makes it to my government's Office of International Affairs advertising certain male products, the opinion of "functionality" is something somebody somewhere finds important or profitable.Don't get me started on spam (which is a offense punishable by death in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites) the problem I have with the functionality argurment is that "removing batman's cowl" doesn't cause any loss of functionality.


I'd really rather take the debate to the question of ear piercing. Should the United Nations prohibit parents from piercing the ears of children??? Is this a serious enough mutilation that the rights of these children need to be protected? If the answer is yes, then I think the majority of us would find the subject at hand equally important. If the answer is "Whacha talkn bout Willis?", then maybe this is best left to nations to decide on their own.This probably goes without saying but, you can count me amongst those who feel it should be left up to the individual nations to decide on that. :D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Don't get me started on spam (which is a offense punishable by death in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites) the problem I have with the functionality argurment is that "removing batman's cowl" doesn't cause any loss of functionality.

Actually, I'd like to convey my government's gratitude ... as we've not had any recent problems with spam originating from your nation. Campy sitcoms, well that is another matter altogther.

-snip-

the problem I have with the functionality argurment is that "removing batman's cowl" doesn't cause any loss of functionality.


Look if you can't think outside your own personal experience and actually open your mind that either - you have no experience of what sex is like with a foreskin, or that just because you don't feel any different doesn't mean others don't either, then why do you name yourself a "representative" if you can't even comprehend what it takes to "represent"

It's called empathy, and as a representative you are also representing women and children, people you may not be physically like but have to think what's best for them anyway.

The proponents of circumcision argue that it can act as a preventative of a few diseases, - we've argued back that there's a higher risk of surgical complications arising from circumcision than any benefit from avoiding urinary infections, and as regards std's it doesn't matter if you use protection - ergo the prevention reason is firmly debunked

So what does circumcision do then? Well unless you're the lucky kid who it prevented a urinary tract infection (which instead would have meant a course of antibiotics - oh no!) and not one of the many more which had surgical complications - see the previous posts, then all it does is remove a piece of your body and leave your glans exposed.

So what's the big deal? Well it's a very big deal, because it robs you of nerve receptors from your foreskin (are you saying that a circumcised penis is a sensitive as your lips or fingertips? Cause that's how it should be when it's intact) and the exposure of the glans leads to keratinisation which further robs you of sensation during sex, a lot of sexual activities are ruled out because of this i.e. "sorry but X does nothing for me." Now if you've grown up all your life with that well then you don't know any better

but before you think this post is an attack on your equipment and probably post more one sentence posts about how this isn't worth the UN's time, actually consider it from other's points of view.

I guess you could say ignorance is bliss, but not all circumcised people are ignorant of what they're missing out on, and for all those that went before couldn't you at least postpone the age of circumcision until the person it truly effects gets to make the decision on their own?

If you had the choice at 18 knowing how it is to be intact, you either wouldn't go through with this procedure after talking to other people who've seen both sides of the fence, and can tell you what they've lost, or else you'd end up like them, impoverished of sexual satisfaction in relation to what you once had.

This mutilation (lets call a spade a spade) should not be inflicted on children where there is absolutely no reason for it, and the only thing it is gauranteed to do is deprive people of sexual satisfaction.

As it stands, I'm not getting laid one way or the other so I don't care if I'm circumcised or not

-snip-

the problem I have with the functionality argurment is that "removing batman's cowl" doesn't cause any loss of functionality.
OOC: Am I the only person who sees the humor is using the word "snip" in this discussion? ;)
Look if you can't think outside your own personal experience and actually open your mind that either - you have no experience of what sex is like with a foreskin, or that just because you don't feel any different doesn't mean others don't either, then why do you name yourself a "representative" if you can't even comprehend what it takes to "represent"First off, for all you know, I could be a virgin, but whether or not I am is irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly "UN Representative" is my title, I'm here to represent The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites in the UN and our position on this idea is that it's a pointless waste of the UN's time.

It's called empathy, and as a representative you are also representing women and children, people you may not be physically like but have to think what's best for them anyway.And we are, our nation has a large population of people whose religion practices ritual circumcision, and this resolution would effectively prevent them from practicing their religion.

The proponents of circumcision argue that it can act as a preventative of a few diseases, - we've argued back that there's a higher risk of surgical complications arising from circumcision than any benefit from avoiding urinary infections, and as regards std's it doesn't matter if you use protection - ergo the prevention reason is firmly debunkedSo?

So what does circumcision do then? Well unless you're the lucky kid who it prevented a urinary tract infection (which instead would have meant a course of antibiotics - oh no!) and not one of the many more which had surgical complications - see the previous posts, then all it does is remove a piece of your body and leave your glans exposed.So?

So what's the big deal? Well it's a very big deal, because it robs you of nerve receptors from your foreskin (are you saying that a circumcised penis is a sensitive as your lips or fingertips? Cause that's how it should be when it's intact) and the exposure of the glans leads to keratinisation which further robs you of sensation during sex, a lot of sexual activities are ruled out because of this i.e. "sorry but X does nothing for me." Now if you've grown up all your life with that well then you don't know any betterSo?

but before you think this post is an attack on your equipment and probably post more one sentence posts about how this isn't worth the UN's time, actually consider it from other's points of view.I have, and I still feel that this issue is best left to the individual nations to decide on.

I guess you could say ignorance is bliss, but not all circumcised people are ignorant of what they're missing out on, and for all those that went before couldn't you at least postpone the age of circumcision until the person it truly effects gets to make the decision on their own?As it would obstruct religious practices in my nation, no.

If you had the choice at 18 knowing how it is to be intact, you either wouldn't go through with this procedure after talking to other people who've seen both sides of the fence, and can tell you what they've lost, or else you'd end up like them, impoverished of sexual satisfaction in relation to what you once had.Tell the truth, how often do you really talk about your penis with other people? Hell, I've heard more talk about genitals in just the past week than I have for years.

This mutilation (lets call a spade a spade) should not be inflicted on children where there is absolutely no reason for it, and the only thing it is gauranteed to do is deprive people of sexual satisfaction.
And your claim about "loss of sexual satisfaction" is debunked in this very thread i refer you to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9383312&postcount=56) by Venerable libertarians.
I was Circed as an adult as a result of a nasty infection! I have seen in colour and i still see in colour. The Sensitivity issue is mute!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Upon further consideration I conclude that this proposal is in violation of UN resolution #19 Religious Tolerance (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18) as it would unduly restrict the rights of people who practice judaism or other religions which practice circumcision on infants, to practice their religion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Agreed, it is illegal. Now lets quit talking about it.

This proposal would bring us into compliance to the child protection act.

All we ask is for people to wait till they are 18 so they can make an educated choice for themselves. For all we know there parents could have been stupid and didnt make a good decision its his penis and its his choice whether he wants to be circed or not.

Bottom Line ____: We need this resolution to stop this form of Child abuse.

Are you guys still talking about your penises?
Move on people! this is not an issue for the NSUN!
Again, UN law states otherwise.


These isn't really appropriate. It's a personal attack, and it's only hurting your argument.
No it was a personal observation and not meant to be taken as an attack.


My understanding of FGM is that it's intended to stop those who would hurt female reproductive ability or enjoyment later in life with a destructive, youth mutilation. I understand circumcision to be a non-destructive procedure, with minimal chances of hurting reproductive capabilities or enjoyment. I haven't yet seen any compelling reasons in this thread to believe otherwise.
Except for “reproductive ability” yeah that’s basically the reasoning behind it FGM, though physical and mental abuse are also sited as well.

MGM like FGM is in general a very painful and almost totally unnecessary, destructive procedure that inflicts both physical and mental abuse upon innocent male and female children every day. As well as robbing them of various levels of sexual enjoyment and putting them in great danger of developing complications later in life.

You should pay attention then.


Besides the fact that I disagree with your interpretation of these two resolutions, it really isn't for you to decide where he exerts his or her energy. whether this player tries to stop this proposal from passing, or attempts a repeal of either of these, you really have no say. It's his or her right to do so.
I was just making a general statement.

I’m sorry but it is because if you don’t think that MGM is a violation of basic human rights or child protection rights then I can’t really see how you could favor those resolutions in almost any way.

“1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)”


Maybe in your country, but that's not necessarily the case everywhere. Besides that, I have yet to see it proven that this is an "unnecessary surger[y]"
......................

So you’re saying we should perform any and all medical procedures that ANYONE comes up with for any reason and it’s the burden of everyone else to prove it wrong before we stop using it?!

Ah sorry but that’s quiet possibly the most illogical assertion I’ve ever heard.


I'm interested in where exactly you're getting these numbers, and what other medical information is available about the foreskin (whether it helps your argument or not).
http://research.cirp.org/ (http://research.cirp.org/)

http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm)

http://med-fraud.org/medical_fraud__and_the_criminal_63.htm (http://med-fraud.org/medical_fraud__and_the_criminal_63.htm)

To list a few.


I know I am. This would be a perfect topic for the General forum.
So you claim to disagree, choose not to look at it with a open mind and feel that it’s not worth anyone else’s time either? Am I hearing this right?


Upon further consideration I conclude that this proposal is in violation of UN resolution #19 Religious Tolerance (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18) as it would unduly restrict the rights of people who practice judaism or other religions which practice circumcision on infants, to practice their religion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Just where in that resolution do you find anything of relevance to this debate exactly?


Bear in mind that I'm primarially just trying to kill this idea, if for no other reason than I'm tired of hearing from the proponants of this idea, that I'm somehow less than fully functional simply because my "monk has been defrocked."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Talk out your ass much?

*coughspamcough*


And I don't believe that it's worth the UN time to vote on it to begin with.

This probably goes without saying but, you can count me amongst those who feel it should be left up to the individual nations to decide on that. :D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Again for the 50th time, there are at least two or three other resolutions that say otherwise.


OOC: Am I the only person who sees the humor is using the word "snip" in this discussion? ;)
First off, for all you know, I could be a virgin, but whether or not I am is irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly "UN Representative" is my title, I'm here to represent The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites in the UN and our position on this idea is that it's a pointless waste of the UN's time.
I find it especially funny because the “little snip” as people like to characterize it as is actually 15 square inches!


And we are, our nation has a large population of people whose religion practices ritual circumcision, and this resolution would effectively prevent them from practicing their religion.
No it doesn’t stop them at all. After all we’re talking about their children, not them. And again resolutions #25 and #26.

So?

So?

So?
What’s the matter, getting owned by the truth (facts) leave you with nothing to say?


I have, and I still feel that this issue is best left to the individual nations to decide on.

As it would obstruct religious practices in my nation, no.
I’d argue that MGM obstructs the religious practices of children by imposing something irreversible on then. And anyway, nobody has the right to abuse his or her children. Even for religious reasons.


And your claim about "loss of sexual satisfaction" is debunked in this very thread i refer you to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9383312&postcount=56) by Venerable libertarians.


Bob Flibble
UN Representative
You mean because of one person who can prove none of it and has already said that he disagrees with this issue? :rolleyes:


Agreed, it is illegal. Now lets quit talking about it.
............ Leave now if you don‘t want to debate it. :|

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA All this arguement over some guys who want to keep their penises looking like something out of a science fiction movie.

I have YET to hear a guy complain that he was circumcised. As a woman, I would run screaming if i ever was with a guy that was not circumcised. And yes, woman can and will be that shallow. Speaking as a Marriage and Family Therapist, a penis is something that is part of a man's ego, this would probably be more damaging in the long run to their self-esteem than having the circumcision done while they are babies. Babies will not remember the pain. If say your parents chose not to have you circumcised and you decide to at a later age, the pain will be worse and it may be more damaging.

If you go to the local hack shack and have it completed then sure you will probably have problems now and later in life. i think what should be done is educating the nations rather than banning it. Give them both sides of the coin (as unbiased as possible). Let them decide and if they so chose than make sure that your hospitals are fulling equiped and trained to do so properly.

If you ban it completly you will end up with back alley circumcisions or people leaving the country to have it done.

(why is this argument sound like abortion??)

Again, UN law states otherwise.

I find it rather interesting that so many regulars of the UN are saying "not worth the UN's consideration", and three nations who are relatively unknown are fighting for this resolution to be passed.

No it was a personal observation and not meant to be taken as an attack.

And you made another attack later on

Except for “reproductive ability” yeah that’s basically the reasoning behind it FGM, though physical and mental abuse are also sited as well.

MGM like FGM is in general a very painful and almost totally unnecessary, destructive procedure that inflicts both physical and mental abuse upon innocent male and female children every day. As well as robbing them of various levels of sexual enjoyment and putting them in great danger of developing complications later in life.

You should pay attention then.

You should stop demeaning those you're debating with (if you haven't noticed, I'm far past the point of arguing facts with you - because quite frankly, I'm just sick of the attitudes held by you and your supporters in general - in fact, I'm less and less inclined to support your resolution just because that attitude is frustrating me so much)

I was just making a general statement.

I’m sorry but it is because if you don’t think that MGM is a violation of basic human rights or child protection rights then I can’t really see how you could favor those resolutions in almost any way.

Now you can understand why you see so much opposition...

“1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)”

And circumcision violates.....what - and how?

......................

So you’re saying we should perform any and all medical procedures that ANYONE comes up with for any reason and it’s the burden of everyone else to prove it wrong before we stop using it?!

Yes, your point? If it is an accepted medical procedure....

Ah sorry but that’s quiet possibly the most illogical assertion I’ve ever heard.

Why?

http://research.cirp.org/ (http://research.cirp.org/)

http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm)

http://med-fraud.org/medical_fraud__and_the_criminal_63.htm (http://med-fraud.org/medical_fraud__and_the_criminal_63.htm)

To list a few.

So you claim to disagree, choose not to look at it with a open mind and feel that it’s not worth anyone else’s time either? Am I hearing this right?

And yes, you are doing such a wonderful job of having an open mind yourself and any time someone disagrees with you, you find it in your heart to demonize them or - in a few cases - insult them

Just where in that resolution do you find anything of relevance to this debate exactly?

Talk out your ass much?

Act like an a-hole much?

*coughspamcough*

Again for the 50th time, there are at least two or three other resolutions that say otherwise.

I find it especially funny because the “little snip” as people like to characterize it as is actually 15 square inches!

Who said "little"?

No it doesn’t stop them at all. After all we’re talking about their children, not them. And again resolutions #25 and #26.

Um.......what?

What’s the matter, getting owned by the truth (facts) leave you with nothing to say?

No - he (like myself, and I'm sure many others) don't see the relevance of arguing the increase in sexual pleasure. I, quite frankly, see it as an invalid argument for something that's being addressed as an International Law. When it comes to personal choice - fine. However, it has no place in International Law.

I’d argue that MGM obstructs the religious practices of children by imposing something irreversible on then. And anyway, nobody has the right to abuse his or her children. Even for religious reasons.

Obstructs? How?

You mean because of one person who can prove none of it and has already said that he disagrees with this issue? :rolleyes:

I've never understood that argument - "he has already stated an opposition to my position so his opinions will obviously be biased against me and therefore his argument is invalid" Sheesh - perhaps his opinion was FORMULATED BECAUSE of his opinions on the "pleasure". :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

............ Leave now if you don‘t want to debate it. :|

Hmm....wonder if that'll encourage Yelda to stay and take out the trash.....

This whole conversation seems silly to me. In my life, I have never met a man who regretted being circumsized, and I have never heard of a man who claimed he had "emotional or mental" trauma because his foreskin was removed as a small child.

You claim that it is genital mutilation, but mutilation means;to deprive of a limb or an essential part, cripple, to disfigure by damaging irreparably, or to make imperfect by excising or altering parts. You are not depriving the male of an essential part, seeing as the Foreskin is unneccessary. You are not disfiguring, seeing as you are making the penis look more "acceptable". And you are definently not making the penis imperfect by removing a small flap of skin. Now granted, the idea of "perfect" requires oppinion, I have yet to meet a female that thought the penis was more perfect with a foreskin.

Also, if the removal of the foreskin was so damaging mentally and emotionally wouldn't they medical boards across the nations have already banned such a hanus act? If it was so damaging, and caused so much pain, wouldn't men have already stepped forth, in an attempt to outlaw something that had caused them so much pain? If, by removing the foreskin, put babies at such a high risk, wouldn't parents in an attempt to give their baby the fullest life, have said No, centuries ago?

While you spew facts about how it doesn't medically benefit children, and how they are traumatized by such action, you fail to bring us proof that men are discouraged by it, or want it outlawed. In such situations as human rights, it is up to the people to speak out in an attempt to outlaw practices that harm them. Yet, out of all the men and leaders of nations who have debated this, the majority have spoken against your claim.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA All this arguement over some guys who want to keep their penises looking like something out of a science fiction movie.
Wow...just wow.


I have YET to hear a guy complain that he was circumcised. As a woman, I would run screaming if i ever was with a guy that was not circumcised. And yes, woman can and will be that shallow. Speaking as a Marriage and Family Therapist, a penis is something that is part of a man's ego, this would probably be more damaging in the long run to their self-esteem than having the circumcision done while they are babies.
Most of the civilized world has already abandoned this abusive practice and men from those nations don’t run in to that problem.

As for woman being shallow and not liking it. Well I addressed this in a debate on another site.
“If she gets breast implants, I’ll get circumcised. But it most cases I would just say have a nice life then.”

Note: I’m against breast implants for the most part.

And I take it that you’re in favor of FGM? Because a lot of men around the world find the female clitoris to be gross and refuse to “get close” to a woman that isn’t circumcised.


Babies will not remember the pain. If say your parents chose not to have you circumcised and you decide to at a later age, the pain will be worse and it may be more damaging.
Babies do remember pain, only in different ways then us. (Mental and emotional problems later in life)

What’s your proof for this?


If you go to the local hack shack and have it completed then sure you will probably have problems now and later in life. i think what should be done is educating the nations rather than banning it. Give them both sides of the coin (as unbiased as possible). Let them decide and if they so chose than make sure that your hospitals are fulling equiped and trained to do so properly.
Do you apply this same view to FGM as well?


If you ban it completly you will end up with back alley circumcisions or people leaving the country to have it done.

(why is this argument sound like abortion??)
I’m sorry but I’m going to have to respectfully decline to respond to this particular “argument.” :headbang:

I find it rather interesting that so many regulars of the UN are saying "not worth the UN's consideration", and three nations who are relatively unknown are fighting for this resolution to be passed.

And you made another attack later o

You should stop demeaning those you're debating with (if you haven't noticed, I'm far past the point of arguing facts with you - because quite frankly, I'm just sick of the attitudes held by you and your supporters in general - in fact, I'm less and less inclined to support your resolution just because that attitude is frustrating me so much)

Now you can understand why you see so much opposition...

And circumcision violates.....what - and how?

Yes, your point? If it is an accepted medical procedure....

Why?

And yes, you are doing such a wonderful job of having an open mind yourself and any time someone disagrees with you, you find it in your heart to demonize them or - in a few cases - insult them

Act like an a-hole much?

Who said "little"?

Um.......what?

No - he (like myself, and I'm sure many others) don't see the relevance of arguing the increase in sexual pleasure. I, quite frankly, see it as an invalid argument for something that's being addressed as an International Law. When it comes to personal choice - fine. However, it has no place in International Law.

Obstructs? How?

I've never understood that argument - "he has already stated an opposition to my position so his opinions will obviously be biased against me and therefore his argument is invalid" Sheesh - perhaps his opinion was FORMULATED BECAUSE of his opinions on the "pleasure". :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Hmm....wonder if that'll encourage Yelda to stay and take out the trash.....
You know what I’m not even going to respond to this whole thing but I will say one thing.... Hypocrisy seems to be the standard for most of the people arguing against this.

I was trying to be as respectful as I possibly could at the start of this debate but after 6 pages of nothing but being laughed at, wrote off and ignored... I just gave up on being nice about it. With the exception of the AIDS argument, not one person has shown or even attempted show any proof to backup their views. They just ignore any evidence submitted and continue to say the same thing over and over again, page after page. That they haven’t seen any proof. The only argument their really trying to use is that this isn’t worth the UNs time or that the UN has no right to dictate this type of thing. (Even though it does so regularly and has a resolution against this very thing, that only protects females.)

I have YET to hear a guy complain that he was circumcised.


Then u havent been paying attention to me. I absolutely HATE the fact that I am circumcised.

Then u havent been paying attention to me. I absolutely HATE the fact that I am circumcised.

While I understand this is an extrememly personal question, Why?

A lot of it is Becuase of what was robbed from me at birth. and that I had no choice in it.

Mainly its becuase of the loss of sensitivitity that angers me the most. And also the blindness of the knowledge of circumcision that my mom shows in saying how glad she is that i am circed which is to be expected from a woman.

A lot of it is Becuase of what was robbed from me at birth. and that I had no choice in it.

Mainly its becuase of the loss of sensitivitity that angers me the most. And also the blindness of the knowledge of circumcision that my mom shows in saying how glad she is that i am circed which is to be expected from a woman.

So, if in those meetings before a baby was born, the doctor, by law had to inform them of the Pro's and Con's of Circumcision if they had a boy, including the loss of sensitivity, so parents were 100% informed as to the decision they were making, would circumcision then be acceptable?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA All this arguement over some guys who want to keep their penises looking like something out of a science fiction movie.

That is an opinion, and I think it undermines your point ... here is my opinion. Somebody saw that we had a resolution on female circumcision and felt that there should be one for males too.

During the time of the Female Genital Mutilation resolution from June 2004 (the debates might be lost since that debate was pre-Jolt), many of the no votes were cast claiming that the resolution targeted only women. That in and of itself is a remarkable fact, given that the resolution was adopted by a 92% majority, making it the most popular resolution in NationStates history. :)




I have YET to hear a guy complain that he was circumcised. As a woman, I would run screaming if i ever was with a guy that was not circumcised. And yes, woman can and will be that shallow. Speaking as a Marriage and Family Therapist, a penis is something that is part of a man's ego, this would probably be more damaging in the long run to their self-esteem than having the circumcision done while they are babies.

It might damage some men's self esteem, but it works the other way too. That is all I'm gonna say about this subject, no TMI here! :)

Babies will not remember the pain. If say your parents chose not to have you circumcised and you decide to at a later age, the pain will be worse and it may be more damaging.

I was wondering about that. It would be a strong point to bring up a medical recommendation confirming this.

I will add that a number of my guy friends have had the other male "I'm done having kids" operation. OUCH!


I think what should be done is educating the nations rather than banning it. Give them both sides of the coin (as unbiased as possible).

If you ban it completly you will end up with back alley circumcisions or people leaving the country to have it done.

(why is this argument sound like abortion??)

That is actually a great compromise. :)

Would you care to write a few clauses about education and hand it to the author. That might be enough to get both sides to agree, as I still think the idea (especially education) is worth having.

[OOC: Another reason this is a good debate, is the previous resolution was about complex environmental / energy issues, the current resolution is about loans and finance, and the next one should be the transgendered issue ... but I personally think that resolution topics will naturally be hit or miss with people ... abortion and genitals are things that impact most folks, and that is why they are heated debates ... you can take a position and you won't be wrong or right, you just have an opinion. This is a good thing to stir up the mix in the forum.]

So you claim to disagree, choose not to look at it with a open mind and feel that it’s not worth anyone else’s time either? Am I hearing this right?
Well now James old boy, resorting to personal attacks are we? If you look back over my (admittedly minimal) history of posting in this fine thread, you'll note that I have never once made any statements about you personally. All of my comments have been directed at your proposal and my belief that it is unworthy of discussion or consideration by this assembly. I Strongly advise the representative from James_xenoland to refrain from further comments of this nature.

............ Leave now if you don‘t want to debate it. :|
Actually, I had planned to do just that.

Hmm....wonder if that'll encourage Yelda to stay and take out the trash.....
Not bloody likely.

What! This is completely wacko! What ever happened to religeous tolerance! I was circumcised when I was a baby and i lead a perfectly normal and happy sexual life. I do not like my penis being refered to as mutilated.

I would highly recomend this resolution being abandoned as, like abortion, it is a very sensitive issue and could make a lot of people very angry!

I completely agree that this is a topic totaly unworthy of UN attention, we should be focusing more on important issues rather than the views of a bunch of people who can not tolerate practices of other cultures because they dont like the idea of them.

Female circumscision is completly different, if you were to do the equivalant to female circumscision on a male, you would be chopping the entire top off his penis, now that is wrong.

like abortion, it is a very sensitive issue and could make a lot of people very angry!

Emphasis added ...
Yes, that is what people are talking about.

What! This is completely wacko! What ever happened to religeous tolerance! I was circumcised when I was a baby and i lead a perfectly normal and happy sexual life. I do not like my penis being refered to as mutilated.
Religious tolerance doesn’t allow people the right to abuse their children. To put this another way, should religious tolerance extend to people the right to have ANY type of risky and unnecessary surgery performed on their children in the name of religion?

Further more, the argument against this from a religious stand point is really moot because by definition there is NO legal, scientific or medical claim of benefit and or necessity to the procedure.


I would highly recomend this resolution being abandoned as, like abortion, it is a very sensitive issue and could make a lot of people very angry!

I completely agree that this is a topic totaly unworthy of UN attention
You might have had an argument with that if there wasn’t already a resolution pertaining to this very issue.
Any issue that might be hotly contested shouldn’t be debated? How are we supposed to get anything done then?


we should be focusing more on important issues rather than the views of a bunch of people who can not tolerate practices of other cultures because they dont like the idea of them.
Um excuse me but we have at least a half a dozen resolutions on the books that were conceived of because of just that type of attitude/reasoning. And you’re mistaken about my reasons for bringing this up. It has nothing to do with not liking the practices of other cultures. This is about Human Rights and equal protections.

Remember FGM is practiced for the same reasons and under a lot of the same religions as MGM is. If MGM should be allowed for no other reason then because it’s a normal practice of other cultures/religions, then shouldn’t FGM be as well?


Female circumscision is completly different
Ok please explain/prove to everyone exactly how it’s so completely different.


if you were to do the equivalant to female circumscision on a male, you would be chopping the entire top off his penis, now that is wrong.
No it’s not, where did you get that idea from? I could see maybe if you were only talking about the more extreme forms of “pharaonic circumcision” but not clitoridectomy. By its very definition clitoridectomy is the same type of procedure as male circumcision. As well as having the same negatives.

You know what the really sad part is? One of the “less severe” complications that regularly arise from MGM is the accidental severing of the glans, the only remaining source of erogenous sensitivity. It’s easily reattached, after all that’s why it’s only considered a “minor complication.” But unfortunately the severed nerves will never function again because of this “minor complication.”

You know what I’m not even going to respond to this whole thing but I will say one thing.... Hypocrisy seems to be the standard for most of the people arguing against this.

Dare I ask how?

I was trying to be as respectful as I possibly could at the start of this debate

And you did well

but after 6 pages of nothing but being laughed at, wrote off and ignored...

I didn't write you or the resolution off until you started getting that attitude about 3 posts ago. Before that, I had stated one issue I had with supporting this resolution and asked you to change it. Other than that, I was much more frustrated by AI_Clan's belief that whether or not it deprives us of sexual pleasure is even relevant.

I just gave up on being nice about it. With the exception of the AIDS argument, not one person has shown or even attempted show any proof to backup their views. They just ignore any evidence submitted and continue to say the same thing over and over again, page after page.

AI_Clan did not help in that respect

That they haven’t seen any proof. The only argument their really trying to use is that this isn’t worth the UNs time or that the UN has no right to dictate this type of thing. (Even though it does so regularly and has a resolution against this very thing, that only protects females.)

Quite frankly, you keep a level head ('cause I really do care about that) and change what I asked earlier (my position regarding that has never waivered), you'll have my vote.

U can Choose to ignore the truth if u want but after years of Keritinization it causes the glans to become dull looking and ull lose sensitivity.

I have been busy so thats why i havent been responding much as i am going out of town tommorow to minnesota to visit family. All i will say right now is that Other than the AIDS argument as he said people have just been talking out their ass showing no proof.

And yes i will admit i wasnt very calm and respectful at the begining but i will try .

This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed In some form or fashion.

with all due respect, if this is a matter of having more sensitivity then that could be concidered shallow up in itself. is it because when you wear a condom (lets really hope you do) you want to be able to feel more? is it so instead of a 2 pump chump you can be a 1 pump chump? (just trying to make ya laugh do not take it personal!)

Babies to feel pain, it is a matter of how the pain is handled by the parents on if they "remember" it. It is similar to women not remembering the pain of child birth. Everyone states they know it is painful but they cannot remember how it actually felt. with babies, they react more to the attention received. similar to the abandenment issue. if they cry because they are hungry or in pain or whatever and the parent does not respond they will remember that and we have classic Erikson's trust vs. mistrust. i broke my foot when i was 7. i remember it hurt, but i do not remember the actual pain.

as for FGM, that actually has the side effect of being steril. and some women opt to have it done anyway. I dont know what type of bemoth women you are finding that have a huge clitoris and ya might look into them actually being hermaphrodites.

your parents chose what is they believed is best for you [be thankful they cared or atleast kept you (if that is a good thing)]. what would be best in the long run. has this totally ruined your life forever? this arguement is getting to the point that we can blame all our problems in life on something our parents did in the past.

i personally do not want someone elses religious beliefs or lack there of imposed upon me. this is a personal matter, not something that i need a law telling me i can or cannot circumcise my son. I will do it.

surgery can go wrong no matter what type it is. and there is research out there to support both sides.......i would concider writting something saying the education should be made available etc, but i think this is a matter of individual nations and not the UN. other nations have different religios belief or maybe they have none.

as for psycological effects, remember back when you were bullied around at school or someone made fun of you or embarassed you. you remember that later in life. that has a lasting effect on you as an adult especially if it was a constant thing. if circumcision is a norm in your country and you are not image the emotional effect on you from a woman who does not like an uncircumcised man. people are shallow face it.

the fact that this turned into a serious debate makes me laugh. and all the "puns" you can find in posts is hilarious!

U can Choose to ignore the truth if u want but after years of Keritinization it causes the glans to become dull looking and ull lose sensitivity.

I have been busy so thats why i havent been responding much as i am going out of town tommorow to minnesota to visit family. All i will say right now is that Other than the AIDS argument as he said people have just been talking out their ass showing no proof.

And yes i will admit i wasnt very calm and respectful at the begining but i will try .

This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed In some form or fashion.

Please understand - it is not just HOW you argued, it was the line of arguing you chose. How much pleasure you get between the two scenarios is not welcomed by the majority of the debaters on this thread as a reason to make it a UN resolution. Your handful of arguments on health issues (which, I believe, were fewer than James Xenoland's even though he was much less active than you) were your good arguments. I note that the UN regular that supported this resolution did so because of children's rights - but there's been less than 10 posts out of the 144 (now 145) on this thread that have discussed this (and even then, it was only the earlier set where childrens rights was debated properly, the latter set.....not quite so well).

Your rather angry style is one matter, but your choice of arguments and the fact that most people are laughing at this thread (or ignoring it) because of the number of posts that discuss "sexual pleasure" says a lot - and its a position I agree with. It is not the UNs job to decide how much pleasure an individual should get from sex - but if there is a medical concern or if there truly is child abuse being done within our nations, that is something we can sit down and discuss.

Phimosis
The number one reason for circumcision after infancy is phimosis, a tightness of the foreskin that prevents it from being retracted. Phimosis can be normal in boys less than six months old. In males older than that, however, it can make urination and hygiene difficult and erection painful.

Paraphimosis
In paraphimosis, "the second most common reason for post-infancy circumcision," the foreskin is permanently retracted, constricting the shaft of the penis and causing swelling and pain.

Recurrent infections
Balanitis (infection of the head of the penis, often caused by accumulation of secretions) and posthitis (infection of the foreskin) can be treated without surgery. As a first measure, a urologist will likely prescribe an anti-fungal and anti-inflammatory ointment, which may help clear up the problem; there is often an associated yeast infection, which thrives in the warm, moist environment created beneath the foreskin. Unfortunately, these conditions often recur, and when they do, a circumcision is advisable.

Other foreskin problems
Tumors of the foreskin, loose foreskin, and tears in the fold of skin of the penis that attaches to the foreskin are all conditions that can be treated non-surgically. However, tumors of the foreskin—which occur very rarely—are often managed in part by circumcision


Circumcision for Sexual Reasons
In Dr. Sharlip's experience, less than 5% of men who undergo circumcision do so for non-medical reasons. Some of these men are prompted by the request of their sexual partners or by expectations that being circumcised will provide enhanced feeling during sex. One 1997 study found that in comparison to circumcised men, uncircumcised men over 45 years of age are significantly more likely to lack enjoyment of sex, be anxious about their performance, and have difficulty maintaining erection. These differences were not present in younger men."

"In newborns, circumcision takes only a few minutes, but the procedure in older children and adults is a more intricate operation. General anesthesia for adult circumcision was once routine, but now local pain blocks are usually used, and the procedure itself is usually done on an outpatient basis, even in older men.

If phimosis or paraphimosis has caused a lot of swelling, the circumcision may require two procedures: one to make a slit in the foreskin that relieves the pressure and the pain, and another at a later date to finish the circumcision after the swelling has gone down."


http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

http://www.somersetmedicalcenter.com/13720.cfm

On the subject of Phimosis, I found this interesting article on the website of the Australian Medical Association (http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5JQA7G). Apparently this condition isn't as wide spread as people think and circumcision isn't always the best cure.

Even so, medical conditions are a justified reason for performing this operation on a child and I have no arguement with it in those circumstances, but when the operation is performed on a healthy child for no medical reason, then it decends into abuse in my opinion. I also don't agree with religious reasons. Who knows if the child will even want to follow his parents religion when he grows up. The individuals right to bodily integrity is more important than the parents belief in a deity.

As I've said before, let the boys grow into men and decide for themselves. After all its their body.

but when the operation is performed on a healthy child for no medical reason, then it decends into abuse in my opinion.

If Circumcision is done in the first place, they cannot get any of those symptoms. Why put children through the pain of getting infections of the foreskin, when you could ensure that they don't get it, by a circumcision.

If Circumcision is done in the first place, they cannot get any of those symptoms. Why put children through the pain of getting infections of the foreskin, when you could ensure that they don't get it, by a circumcision.

And while we're at it, let's remove their tonsils so they don't have to go through the pain of tonsilitis while they're children.

Oh wait, not all children get tonsilitis.....

*says the man who's had his tonsils removed because he had tonsilitis

Does that mean its also ok to routinely take out a newborns appendix, just in case it gets infected and causes problems in later life?

Infections can happen on and in any part of the body at any age. I think its going a bit far to be permenantly cutting bits and pieces off children "just in case". Infections can be reduced simply by making sure the area is kept clean and teaching the boy from an early age how to clean himself properly. It won't stop infections, but will sure cut them down.

Does that mean its also ok to routinely take out a newborns appendix, just in case it gets infected and causes problems in later life?


thats a bit more of an evasive surgery than circumcision. same with tonsilectomy. even though i have never experienced tonsilitis or appendicitis at my age, if they could take them out while i was a baby i would be all for it.

it is now to the point we will have to some how make newborns talk right out of the womb so that they can tell us what they want.

this is a personal subject. if you dont want your children to have it then dont do it. if you do than do. but dont use it as a crutch for why you dont have good sex (with someone or alone).

from a woman's point of view, it is more aesthetically pleasing to see a penis without foreskin than it is to see one with.

thats a bit more of an evasive surgery than circumcision. same with tonsilectomy. even though i have never experienced tonsilitis or appendicitis at my age, if they could take them out while i was a baby i would be all for it.

it is now to the point we will have to some how make newborns talk right out of the womb so that they can tell us what they want.

this is a personal subject. if you dont want your children to have it then dont do it. if you do than do. but dont use it as a crutch for why you dont have good sex (with someone or alone).

from a woman's point of view, it is more aesthetically pleasing to see a penis without foreskin than it is to see one with.

:D to the last comment.

I am an older woman and have had relationships with men both snipped and unsnipped and believe me there is no real difference in either looks or performance. I actually find it funny that some woman would even care what her mans jolly roger looks like. Its how he uses it thats more important ;):D.

Besides if a grown man wants the operation to please women, then more power to him, its preforming it un-necessarily on children that I oppose :).

thats a bit more of an evasive surgery than circumcision. same with tonsilectomy. even though i have never experienced tonsilitis or appendicitis at my age, if they could take them out while i was a baby i would be all for it.

it is now to the point we will have to some how make newborns talk right out of the womb so that they can tell us what they want.

Unfortunately, I know what you mean

this is a personal subject. if you dont want your children to have it then dont do it.

You see, here's where I'm having difficulties with this one - because it very much is like Abortion. However, the only two arguments for it are "personal issue" and "AIDS" - and the only reason I validate personal issue is because we think of Abortion the way we do.

However, the thoughts regarding personal issue is slightly different. Two of the reasons we legalize abortion is:
1) The dependancy on the womb - they are connected to it and need it to survive
2) The discrepency on the belief where life begins

However, few believe that after birth, the baby isn't yet alive. Further, we are looking at an issue that will effect the child consciously later in life. So the questions change slightly for personal issues - and that's why I lean towards Waterana's point more

The concept of child abuse is a tricky subject because some people believe that just spanking your child should be considered abuse. However, I think if you took a whip and gave your child 10 lashes, most people today would take issue with it. That's minor, repairable, physical damage to your child (while spanking doesn't even do damage beyond pain). This resolution addresses something that is permanent in many ways (though I think AI_Clan was claiming he had it repaired) with only a questionable claim to health benefits that has been argued tirelessly using a variety of sources. As a result, there is no logical reason to choose this for your child.

if you do than do. but dont use it as a crutch for why you dont have good sex (with someone or alone).

from a woman's point of view, it is more aesthetically pleasing to see a penis without foreskin than it is to see one with.

And while we're at it, let's remove their tonsils so they don't have to go through the pain of tonsilitis while they're children.

Oh wait, not all children get tonsilitis.....

*says the man who's had his tonsils removed because he had tonsilitis

Does that mean its also ok to routinely take out a newborns appendix, just in case it gets infected and causes problems in later life?

Infections can happen on and in any part of the body at any age. I think its going a bit far to be permenantly cutting bits and pieces off children "just in case". Infections can be reduced simply by making sure the area is kept clean and teaching the boy from an early age how to clean himself properly. It won't stop infections, but will sure cut them down.

Neither of those are anywhere close to being comparable. Getting circumcised requires a snip of the foreskin, and some cleaning, while both of those are actual surgeries. How you can compare cutting skin, to actually going through two different surgeries, is beyond my comprehension.

If you can insure that the penis doesn't get infected, then why not fix it by a simple snip.

Neither of those are anywhere close to being comparable. Getting circumcised requires a snip of the foreskin, and some cleaning, while both of those are actual surgeries. How you can compare cutting skin, to actually going through two different surgeries, is beyond my comprehension.

If you can insure that the penis doesn't get infected, then why not fix it by a simple snip.

For what purpose?

Phimosis is easily cured by stretching the foreskin downward towrd (sp?) the body, without pain if u get pain then stop.

Why put children at risk of losing inches of every mans proudest part or cause a hairy shaft, or even having turkey neck.

Surgery is surgery. They all involve Doctors, pain and cutting skin. Actually I take that back, the tonsils don't even involve that much. The surgeon goes in through the mouth, snips and out they come.

All surgeries, including circumcision, involve risks and possible complications. Why inflict that on a baby for no medical reason, and I don't consider "just in case" as a valid reason.

A grown man can get all the infomation on the procedure, ask questions, weigh up the pros and cons and decide for himself if he wants it done. A baby/child can't.

Surgery is surgery. They all involve Doctors, pain and cutting skin. Actually I take that back, the tonsils don't even involve that much. The surgeon goes in through the mouth, snips and out they come.

All surgeries, including circumcision, involve risks and possible complications. Why inflict that on a baby for no medical reason, and I don't consider "just in case" as a valid reason.

A grown man can get all the infomation on the procedure, ask questions, weigh up the pros and cons and decide for himself if he wants it done. A baby/child can't.

But the parents can, and call it being a born & raised Italian, but when your under 18, that's all that matters.

Surgery is surgery. They all involve Doctors, pain and cutting skin. Actually I take that back, the tonsils don't even involve that much. The surgeon goes in through the mouth, snips and out they come.

All surgeries, including circumcision, involve risks and possible complications. Why inflict that on a baby for no medical reason, and I don't consider "just in case" as a valid reason.

A grown man can get all the infomation on the procedure, ask questions, weigh up the pros and cons and decide for himself if he wants it done. A baby/child can't.


so you can compare removing a mole to heart surgery? most people who have tonsillitis do not need to have a tonsillectomy yet they do. so are you now going to start a proposal to not have that done? most of the time it is done in children. is that abuse? not everyone gets bad tonsillitis

someone else had stated that they are upset their parents had it done to them, well i am upset that my parents put me in private school when i was young. i am upset my parents moved somewhere i didnt want to go. but i dont let that stop me. those all had major effects on my life. my brother and i went through emotional pain thru all that. you are saying that your parents are bad parents because they chose something they thought was the best for you.

although this is abortion and this subject have similar arguements, not having an abortion changes your life completely. keeping your foreskin doesnt.

it all boils down to looks no matter what. i still stick to it is a personal issue not a UN issue. i will always allow it in my country :-)

plain and simple....this just prove that men still think with the wrong head ;)

so you can compare removing a mole to heart surgery? most people who have tonsillitis do not need to have a tonsillectomy yet they do. so are you now going to start a proposal to not have that done? most of the time it is done in children. is that abuse? not everyone gets bad tonsillitis

Note the clause at the end of the resolution where it makes exception if there is an actual (not a chance of prevention, but actual) medical issue at hand. I would make it illegal to remove tonsils before the child gets tonsillitis

someone else had stated that they are upset their parents had it done to them, well i am upset that my parents put me in private school when i was young. i am upset my parents moved somewhere i didnt want to go. but i dont let that stop me. those all had major effects on my life. my brother and i went through emotional pain thru all that. you are saying that your parents are bad parents because they chose something they thought was the best for you.

Yes, and so does shouting and screaming and.... Wait a second, they don't create lasting PHYSICAL damage - but stuff like the strap (which created physical pain that lasted, usually at most, a week) was banned.

although this is abortion and this subject have similar arguements, not having an abortion changes your life completely. keeping your foreskin doesnt.

it all boils down to looks no matter what. i still stick to it is a personal issue not a UN issue. i will always allow it in my country :-)

plain and simple....this just prove that men still think with the wrong head ;)

Says who Waterana is a man? Actually, the men are as equally divided on this resolution as the women. With exception to AI_Clan, the men supporting it have refrained from or (in a few cases) admonished those that have argued for the resolution because of feeling.

Interestingly, we are having difficulties deciding whether or not this is abuse.....

yes i agree it is hard to agree if this is abuse or not.

banning it altogether takes religious rights away from some. so now you are saying they are wrong in their beliefs

i still stand to say that instead of banning we educate. emotional scars are more damaging than physical. emotional scars are harder to get rid of. they take "retraining" where physical scars can simply just disappear with time.

if your parents never told you that you were snipped would you still be this upset? or was your life just as well lived?

woulda, shoulda, coulda.....all in the past....

but do not force your views for your family upon me and mine. let people chose.

I agree with the option of educating people about the good and bad consequences of circumcision rather than outlawing it altogether. That would give them the facts and then they could more accurately make their decision rather than not being allowed to do it at all, because that would be stripping the parents of their right to circumcise their child, which is not abusive in any way.

Unless this resolution is changed to education rather than outlawing it, the Republic of Bayzbollistan will not accept it.

I stand 100% behind forcing the people to be educated about it. I don't believe it should be outlawed, because that infringes on personal and religious beliefs, however, I do believe that people should be educated about it, before making the decision.

but do not force your views for your family upon me and mine. let people chose.

That is the entire crux of my arguement for this proposal. Let the people choose and the people who should be doing the choosing are the men themselves. Its their body, not their parents, not religions, not womens, not societys, theirs and theirs alone.

I find it a bit strange that some people think parents are perfectly capable and within their rights to choose to do this operation to their child, but the child shouldn't have the right to grow up and make his own decision about what he wants done to his body.

your parents chose what is they believed is best for you [be thankful they cared or atleast kept you (if that is a good thing)]. what would be best in the long run. has this totally ruined your life forever? this arguement is getting to the point that we can blame all our problems in life on something our parents did in the past.

i personally do not want someone elses religious beliefs or lack there of imposed upon me. this is a personal matter, not something that i need a law telling me i can or cannot circumcise my son. I will do it.

surgery can go wrong no matter what type it is. and there is research out there to support both sides.......i would concider writting something saying the education should be made available etc, but i think this is a matter of individual nations and not the UN. other nations have different religios belief or maybe they have none.


I completley agree with you, they are talking about parents imposing their religious beliefs on the children, well what about them imposing their religious beliefs (or lack of) on the parents.

I stand by the educating proposal 100%

You do realize that you're not exactly going to make friends with the religious community if this one passes. You're essentially infringing on people's rights to freedom of religion.

I’ll respond to everything later but for now I’m just going to respond to the religious argument.

People seem to be under the misconception that this some how violates religious freedoms. As others have argued before though, it doesn’t restrict anybody's rights in any way. Children are not the property of their parent(s) nor are a child’s rights dependent on those of the parent(s). Parents are only the guardians of their children.

Restricting parents from circumcising their children in no way restricts a parent’s ability to practice their religion. On the contrary, if anything circumcision violates a child’s religious rights by imposing an irreversible, medically unnecessary and detrimental religious practice upon the child against their will.

The very basis of religious freedom is that everyone has the right to personally believe in and practice any religion they so desire. Without having to worry about the religious beliefs or practices of others being imposed on them.

PLEASE NOTE - this bill only addresses the procedure for CHILDREN

If a child decides they wish to practice the religion in question, then yes it would be appropriate to let them have circumcision (actually - perhaps a change to take this into consideration - maybe give nations the right to determine when they feel a child is capable of making their own decision.... After all, there are places (like my home province) where kids can legally have sex at the age of 14). While it is the parent's right to encourage their child to practice a religion, it is not the right of the parent to FORCE the child to practice that religion - and that include physical damage for the purposes of practicing the religion (just as I'm sure we'd make it illegal for parents to force their kids to tattoo a swastika on their arm if they supported Nazi movements - I know, extreme argument, but I think you get my point).

I stand by the educating proposal 100%

Ok people are opposed to the circumcising of children for various reasons, and I stand by my sensitivity argument for I believe there is an irretrievable loss of pleasure not just a delay in achieving climax, but others raise the issues of unnecessary surgery, complications, and forcing an irreversible (as far as I can tell - I think foreskin restoration only retrieves part of what was there and only works some of the time - perhaps AI clan can further inform us) change to someone's body who isn't able to decide themselves.

I agree and think "education of both sides of the argument" should be put into the proposal, so that when a boy reaches 18* they make an informed decision.

I still think you should ban it for children under that age though.

maybe give nations the right to determine when they feel a child is capable of making their own decision
*or an age that the nation believes the person is fit to make such decisions - I concur. Wow I agree with you on something!

Ok people are opposed to the circumcising of children for various reasons, and I stand by my sensitivity argument for I believe there is an irretrievable loss of pleasure not just a delay in achieving climax, but others raise the issues of unnecessary surgery, complications, and forcing an irreversible (as far as I can tell - I think foreskin restoration only retrieves part of what was there and only works some of the time - perhaps AI clan can further inform us) change to someone's body who isn't able to decide themselves.

I agree and think "education of both sides of the argument" should be put into the proposal, so that when a boy reaches 18* they make an informed decision.

I still think you should ban it for children under that age though.Yeah agreed. There's a good chance that something like that will be in the next draft.

Draft Proposal: Male Genital Mutilation Vr. 0.9

Observing that ‘male genital mutilation’ (Circumcision) is performed around the world for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

*Decreased sexual sensitivity to promote abstinence and to stop masturbation
*Cultural tradition
*Religion
*Because the child’s father had it done to him and so on
*Looks (aesthetically pleasing)
*Increased sexual pleasure for their female partner

As well as for some long debunked medical reasons:
*Cleanliness
*Decreased chance of urinary track infections
*Cancer of the penis (Despite the fact that there have been significantly more fatalities do to MGM (Circumcision) than cancer and no proof that it lessens the chances of getting cancer.)
*To prevent STD’s

Recognizing that MGM is practiced for certain cultural and religious reasons. But further noting that restricting the use of MGM in no way interferes with a parent’s right to practice their religion. (A right which only applies on an individual level and not to others under the guardianship of an adult.)

Deeply disturbed by the fact that many young boys are subjected to MGM against their will, soon after birth and without any kind of anesthetic for a procedure that causes severe, persistent pain.

Alarmed by the number of cases of deaths, infections, lacerations, skin loss, skin bridges, chordee, meatitis, stenosis, urinary retention, glans necrosis, penile loss, hemorrhage, sepsis, gangrene, meningitis, disfigurements and other injuries resulting from this unnecessary practice, not including the many long-term effects that could arise later in life.

Dismayed by the fact that MGM destroys as much as two thirds of the nerve receptors and almost all of the specialized super sensitive touch receptors of the penis. Permanently robbing men of a substantial amount of erogenous sensitivity.

Urging member States to avoid using the name “circumcision” outside of medical terminology.

Demands that all member States immediately outlaw the use of this barbaric practice on anyone under the age of 18, as a violation of Human Rights, with the exception of medical necessity.

Further requiring that all states begin an education program for parents and adult males about the emotional, physical and sexual side effects, as well as any other problems which may arise after the procedure or in later years of life.

Suggests that all states require their medical community to learn about any of the negatives or positives associated with this procedure so that they will be better able to accurately inform the public and their patients.

This is the final draft I’m going to make BEFORE I submit it. So make sure you voice any concerns or problems you have with it now. The same goes for any changes you think should be made.

Feedback would be much appreciated.

I would still like to suggest that you let nations decide when a child is able to make an educated choice. Not all nations feel that is 18, and not all nations feel it is the same age for all matters (drinking, sex, driving, dropping out of school and voting are some important examples - respectively, where I live, the ages are 18, 14, 14, 16, and 18 - while there are some states that have it as 21, 18, 16, 16, 18 and once upon a time it was 21, 18, 0, 16, 21)

Regardless, I still refuse to support this resolution until MGM is dropped in favor of circumcision

While the education clause is neccessary, I still don't think it should be banned for people under 18. I think the parents should be educated in the decision they make, and then allow them to make the decision.

My cousin Jason was not circumcised at a child, and at 17 years old, he had the procedural circumcision. The pain throughout the procedure, the pain after the procedure, and the infections caused as a young boy were worse then anything I ever experienced as a young circumcised child.

By banning it until the child is 18, you are still taking away the child's rights, because you are taking away the right to have a forgetable circumcision as a child.

I remember nothing about my circumcision, and my nerve receptors in my penis are fully functioning, but my cousin Jason is forced to remember the physical pain he recieved from a later circumcision. As far as sexual feeling, to him it is no greater or lesser.

By banning it under the age of 18, you are subjecting men who want the circumcision to pain 10 times greater & more memorable, and for that reason alone, I can still not support this.

This proposal is ridiculous; as other nations have already stated, it only eliminates the people's right to choose. Granted, the document stated that men 18 yrs and older may choose to have the prodcedure done if they wish, but come on, GET REAL!!! How stupid is that? No male at that age is going to want to put up with the pain. And this would be imposing on people's religious choices because circumcision is a long-standing tradition among Jewish and even Christian beliefs. The choice to circumcise or not circumcise a child should be left to the parents; as is the right to choose what religion they raise their own child under. How dare over-imposing political organizations such as the UN start taking over parents' rights such as these? This bill makes me sick. With legislatures such as this, the UN is only dragging down its member nations.
_Prime Minister of Barad-Du

personally, I highly doubt the UN would take this issue seriously, considering how many delegates would disagree, and the intimacy of the issue. the track you are on stops at child soldiers

personally, I highly doubt the UN would take this issue seriously, considering how many delegates would disagree, and the intimacy of the issue. the track you are on stops at child soldiers

Children in war (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030111&postcount=52)

No UN nation has child soldiers.

Our Holy Emperor has decreed that this legislation is a joke. Any nation in support of this bill is clearly anti religon, as it is a very common religous practice. If your nation doesn't want to allow circumcision until the person is eighteen, by all means, pass legislation that prevents it. However, in our great nation, it shall always remain an option, regardless of what other nations have to say.... If this legislation goes to an actual bill and if it looks like it's going to pass, our nation shall leave the U.N..... This wicked, anti religous bill must not be allowed to take root.

Our Holy Emperor has decreed that this legislation is a joke. Any nation in support of this bill is clearly anti religon, as it is a very common religous practice. If your nation doesn't want to allow circumcision until the person is eighteen, by all means, pass legislation that prevents it. However, in our great nation, it shall always remain an option, regardless of what other nations have to say.... If this legislation goes to an actual bill and if it looks like it's going to pass, our nation shall leave the U.N..... This wicked, anti religous bill must not be allowed to take root.

My, aren't we moving into bigoted territory.

Our Holy Emperor has decreed that this legislation is a joke. Any nation in support of this bill is clearly anti religon, as it is a very common religous practice. If your nation doesn't want to allow circumcision until the person is eighteen, by all means, pass legislation that prevents it. However, in our great nation, it shall always remain an option, regardless of what other nations have to say.... If this legislation goes to an actual bill and if it looks like it's going to pass, our nation shall leave the U.N..... This wicked, anti religous bill must not be allowed to take root.


Well hell, I'm a Catholic Italian but there is no reason to start calling everyone wicked, and damning them to Purgatory because they are for circumcision.

I would still like to suggest that you let nations decide when a child is able to make an educated choice. Not all nations feel that is 18, and not all nations feel it is the same age for all matters (drinking, sex, driving, dropping out of school and voting are some important examples - respectively, where I live, the ages are 18, 14, 14, 16, and 18 - while there are some states that have it as 21, 18, 16, 16, 18 and once upon a time it was 21, 18, 0, 16, 21)

Regardless, I still refuse to support this resolution until MGM is dropped in favor of circumcision

James_xenoland - I'd like a definiton of MGM refers to the uninformed and/or non-consensual (sp?) medical practice of removing foreskin of a male under the age of 18. After the age of 18 if the male in question gives their consent to having their foreskin removed, this medical practice is called circumcision.

-this way the FGM loophole is solved

My nation is not UN but if I was you would certainly have my vote on this. I hate circumcision.

On a personal note I was circumcised after I was born. I didnt know what it was until I was 9 years old. I remember thinking why would they do somthing like that. Since then I have thought many things against it. Recently I found out (courtisy of http://www.norm.org) that circumcision is reversable. I was very glad to find that out. I have been restoring for a few months and I am seeing results. I am finding out that it is not hard to clean at all and it doesnt really smell that bad either. Besides those of you that think it looks better think about it this way. Would you rather look like a disfigured, discolored mutilated mushroom or a skin colored tube sock?

My nation is not UN but if I was you would certainly have my vote on this. I hate circumcision.

On a personal note I was circumcised after I was born. I didnt know what it was until I was 9 years old. I remember thinking why would they do somthing like that. Since then I have thought many things against it. Recently I found out (courtisy of http://www.norm.org) that circumcision is reversable. I was very glad to find that out. I have been restoring for a few months and I am seeing results. I am finding out that it is not hard to clean at all and it doesnt really smell that bad either. Besides those of you that think it looks better think about it this way. Would you rather look like a disfigured, discolored mutilated mushroom or a skin colored tube sock?


How old are u now? I was 15 when i found out the evils of circumcision. I am 16 now and have been restoring for 5 months. Hows restoration going for u?

How old are u now? I was 15 when i found out the evils of circumcision. I am 16 now and have been restoring for 5 months. Hows restoration going for u?


I am 17 (birthday in July). I have been restoring (with equipment) since June. Before that I manually tugged it since March. In June I used clothespins for 2 hours a day (very painful) but in July I swithed to a much more comfortable rubber band method (based on the O-ring method). I wear that 9 hours a day. In a while I will try to get tape and weights to speed up the process. Now on short days I have foreskin and long days only have a little bit. The scar is slowly disapearing. My goal is to be finished by Fall of 2006.

Can you guys take that to TG please? Way TMI

Can you guys take that to TG please? Way TMI
Forgottenlands you still haven't commented on my above post - you want MGM to get changed to circumcision but you haven't commented on its legality problems....

Can you guys take that to TG please? Way TMI

Sorry about that. The only reason I even said that was because I was trying to let the other guy know he isnt the only one restoring. I explained how becuase he asked.

Thanks backlandia, its always good to meet a fellow restorer.

My nation is not UN but if I was you would certainly have my vote on this. I hate circumcision.

On a personal note I was circumcised after I was born. I didnt know what it was until I was 9 years old. I remember thinking why would they do somthing like that. Since then I have thought many things against it. Recently I found out (courtisy of http://www.norm.org) that circumcision is reversable. I was very glad to find that out. I have been restoring for a few months and I am seeing results. I am finding out that it is not hard to clean at all and it doesnt really smell that bad either. Besides those of you that think it looks better think about it this way. Would you rather look like a disfigured, discolored mutilated mushroom or a skin colored tube sock?


Shouldn't the Resolution ONLY regard on fixing the Foreskin for those who feel as you do and not prevent those who WANT them and their family to be circumcision.



New Hamilton Strongly believes this "proposal" greatly infringes on Nation's own self-determination and is incredibly anti-religious.


OOC: Backlandia, my Dog has a tube sock...it's disgusting. My next dog is so going to be a girl.


And on a final note, Get your dogma off my leg.

I will support a proposal to help restore a male who feels wrongly circumcised.

But to ban something that has been a religious practice for thousands of years...

While we let lip disks and Neck rings slide.


Is just Penis mongering


LEAVE MY PENIS ALONE!

LEAVE MY PENIS ALONE!


Wow, the leader of New Hamilton never thought he'd ever say that....

Forgottenlands you still haven't commented on my above post - you want MGM to get changed to circumcision but you haven't commented on its legality problems....

1) This resolution seems to target circumcision - which is not the only form of MGM (just the most common and...well...pretty much the only form that is normally legal). While I think all forms of MGM should be banned, I think that this resolution is not addressing MGM as a whole but circumcision. I note a court case where a boy accidentally had a bit of his penis snipped off when he was a child - I don't remember if it was a failed circumcision or a miscut while trying to remove the umbilicle cord. His parents decided that he should just have the entire thing removed and effectively have the parts equivelent to a girl. Didn't tell him he wasn't a girl until he was in his teens (don't remember the details). This sort of practice is...not covered by this resolution.

2) I still have a hard time calling circumcision - because of how recognized it is world wide and regardless of whether it is or isn't - MGM. In many ways it feels like sensationalising the issue - many feel it isn't mutilating the penis and it's like telling those that have had abortions that they are murderers. It feels like a heavily opinionated word fired at someone almost to the point of being insulting (it wasn't the intent, but it is the effect) - and you lose a HECK of a lot more votes than you gain when you do something like that

*edit*
If you change it all to circumcision and add a line saying "believing that Circumcision is a form of Male Genetilia Mutilation" - I will support it

tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

According to the dictionary circumcision is mutilation.

tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

According to the dictionary circumcision is mutilation.

I note that in technicality - mutilation is the correct term. However, the connotative level often goes to the first definition - and that is where offense from the term would be derived.

So are u ever going to submit the proposal.

tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

According to the dictionary circumcision is mutilation.

Well, also, as I stated the First time I posted this same definition, perfect or imperfect is a matter of opinion. I think it is perfect without the circumcision, you think it is perfect before the circumcision.

if this actually gets to be voted on or not and if it passes or not, my country will only go by national law on this. and as a nation we will allow educated parents to make the decision at child birth.

This does violate religious laws. the Jewish community sees in religiously neccessary to have this done at birth for example.

until the age of 18 (in the US) the parents have every right to make every decision about their child's life.

by the time someone is 18n to make the decision to be circumcised it is going to be much more painful and what happens if they now are pissed off at their parents for not doing while they were young?

So are u ever going to submit the proposal.
Don't worry, I'm working on the final version right now. I only have one or two more things that I need to work out.

Oh and I'll reply to the new posts in a little bit.

If you change it all to circumcision and add a line saying "believing that Circumcision is a form of Male Genetilia Mutilation" - I will support it
That might work, either way I'm working on this issue right now too. So don't worry. :)

Not sure people are still debating if this bill will ever pass or something.

But making it mandatory or banning this practice is against civil right IMO (<--- probably said by a 100 people)

But if you agree that parents know what's best for there children and that they wouldn't warn to harm their children, I guess we can't go either way.

A good resolution is to recognise this good practice and promote medical research and techniques to prevent any freak accidents. You have yourself mentioned the good effects in the original observation.

To call circumcision mutilation is so inflammatory, so insulting.


removing foreskin is no way comparable to removing a woman's clitoris.


The clitoris is homologous to the penis, NOT THE FORESKIN.




And since being circumcised does reduce HIV infection, banning it will be a health risk to the public.




And for what? So a couple of 16 year olds could masturbate even more? LOL...

I do admit there are some advantages to keeping teenagers in the bathroom even longer...


But at what cost?

Observing that ‘male genital mutilation’ (Circumcision) is performed around the world for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

*Decreased sexual sensitivity to promote abstinence and to stop masturbation
*Cultural tradition
*Religion
*Because the child’s father had it done to him and so on
*Looks (aesthetically pleasing)
*Increased sexual pleasure for their female partner

As well as for some long debunked medical reasons:
*Cleanliness
*Decreased chance of urinary track infections
*Cancer of the penis (Despite the fact that there have been significantly more fatalities do to MGM (Circumcision) than cancer and no proof that it lessens the chances of getting cancer.)
*To prevent STD’s

Deeply disturbed by the fact that many men are subjected to the very painful MGM against their will, soon after birth

Alarmed by the number of deaths, infections, disfigurements and injuries resulting from this unnecessary practice, not including the many long-term effects that could arise later in life.

Urging the member States to avoid using the name “circumcision” outside of medical terminology

Demands that all member States immediately outlaw the use of this barbaric practice on children or anyone under the age of 18, as a violation of Human Rights, with the exception of medical necessity.

-The representative from Tekania reveals his hand-

http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/nationalsovereighty.jpghttp://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/theapathycard.jpg

by the time someone is 18n to make the decision to be circumcised it is going to be much more painful and what happens if they now are pissed off at their parents for not doing while they were young?

Thats not true.http://www.norm.org/respect.html It hurts as much when they are a little baby also. Babies feeling no pain is a myth. Even with anesthesia, at any age it is a painful procedure with the potential for serious complications.

Basically there is too much risk of Physical harm in circumcision. There was also reported of a little boy who had half of his penis cut off due to circumcision and his parents had gender reassignment surgery performed on him and didnt tell him till he was in his teens. I dont know about u but that is an UNNACCEPTABLE consequence for anyone.

And since being circumcised does reduce HIV infection, banning it will be a health risk to the public.



It's completely negated by using protection - look it up

If you engage in unprotected sex in an area of high HIV risk, it's a matter of when you get HIV, not if.

Are you saying people should be circumcised so they don't need to use protection?

Your argument is flawed and baseless - shoo

The Rogue Nation of Arndia found this argument hilariously funny but plausible lol. :D

But making it mandatory or banning this practice is against civil right IMO (<--- probably said by a 100 people)
Please explain exactly how this is a violation of civil rights but MGM isn’t?


But if you agree that parents know what's best for there children and that they wouldn't warn to harm their children, I guess we can't go either way.
Parents do not have a right to decide if an amputation is necessary or not. Nor can they determine if their child needs a surgery.

People seem to be confusing a parent’s ability to make a decision on whether their child should under go a medical procedure or not, with some mythical right to decide what needs to be done to them.


A good resolution is to recognise this good practice and promote medical research and techniques to prevent any freak accidents. You have yourself mentioned the good effects in the original observation.
That’s just it, it’s NOT a “good practice” even if it goes 100% right. (It's Mutilation)


To call circumcision mutilation is so inflammatory, so insulting.
Mutilation

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably:
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


I find the attitude that this should be written off or that there is nothing wrong it, to be both inflammatory and insulting.


removing foreskin is no way comparable to removing a woman's clitoris.
Unfortunately no, it is exactly the same thing. If it weren’t for the more extreme forms of FGM, MGM and FGM would still have to be considered the same thing.


The clitoris is homologous to the penis, NOT THE FORESKIN.
Sorry but THE FORESKIN IS A PART OF THE PENIS and yes the clitoris is most comparable in function to.... guess what? The organ known as the foreskin!


And since being circumcised does reduce HIV infection
One horribly flawed, not even completed study is hardly proof.
And as I stated (proved) earlier, Irrelevant!


banning it will be a health risk to the public.
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. We’re talking about something that is 100% preventable without having to do anything. Even if this was true, if you don’t use protection you’ll still get AIDs.


And for what? So a couple of 16 year olds could masturbate even more? LOL...

I do admit there are some advantages to keeping teenagers in the bathroom even longer...

But at what cost?
Wow.... I’ll just take that as a really bad joke.

Indeed. :|


-The representative from Tekania reveals his hand-

http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/nationalsovereighty.jpghttp://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/theapathycard.jpg
Spam much?

I don’t really see what business you have on a forum like this if all you do is post retarded pictures.

Please explain exactly how this is a violation of civil rights but MGM isn’t?
Well people have been following some good practices over the years and this is no different. Circumcision is done mostly because of religious and health practices. Whether parents want to have their child circumcised is their choice. They are mature enough to weigh the pros and cons. And when you take away that choice, then you are taking away some civil rights.


Parents do not have a right to decide if an amputation is necessary or not. Nor can they determine if their child needs a surgery.

People seem to be confusing a parent’s ability to make a decision on whether their child should under go a medical procedure or not, with some mythical right to decide what needs to be done to them.
Firstly, a child is in no way able to decide what's right or wrong for him/her-self. It's the parents who guide the child at a young age and it's that and the environment in which you grew up that influences your values today. Hence, what may seem right for you need not be so in some one else's opinion.

As for the parents getting to decide on the medical procedures... What if your parents didn't administer you the Polio Vaccine, or MMR, Tetanus, Hepetitis, Meningococal, etc?? Did you ask your parents to do that or did they do it for your benifit. Isn't this similar to concerned parent choosing to have their child circumcised, or follow any other medical practices?

BTW, too much vaccination is also not advisable (I won't go too much in detail here) and not all kids are circumcised at birth. There are many cases where it is done at the age of 5-7 (although it's adviced soon after birth), a time when the kids understand the need for circumcision. I have talked to some of these kids myself in the past.



That’s just it, it’s NOT a “good practice” even if it goes 100% right. (It's Mutilation)
I don't care what the dictionary says... but in circumcision, the outer skin is cut and peeled off. It's like having your appendix removed; your body still functions normally. But in circumcision there are advantages in doing so, and you have yourself mentioned it in your proposal.
Now let me tell you about myself. I was circumcised in my native village by a barber with a razor blade and no anesthetics. This was the practice until a few years ago and never in my life or in the past has there ever been a case where the penis is cut off, as mention in one of the earlier posts. I doubt there is any proof about this and is probably just another Urban Legend. My brother's child was circumcised a couple of years back in a hospital using a small device. It's automated and does the work safely, hygienically and in a matter of seconds.
Hence I would still definitely stand by my final statement. If you go to a student in cosmetology/barbering and who doesn't have a cosmetology license to have your hair cut, you cannot blame her for messing up your hair big time. You should have used your senses (like the parents) and refrained from going there.
Now you know why proper methods of circumcision should be made compulsory.




FINALLY TO ALL MEMBER NATIONS READING THIS:
I erupted with laughter when I realised that The Holy Empire of James_xenoland (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/01701/page=display_nation/nation=james_xenoland), a nation with Rare Civil Rights and Outlawed Political Freedom, is actually trying to propose a resolution for Human Rights. It's in the best interest of the ruler to improve some Human Rights in their own nation, before thinking about the international scene.

I will oppose this resolution outright should it come to vote.

Spam much?

I don’t really see what business you have on a forum like this if all you do is post retarded pictures.

No.... The UN deck was designed for quick response.

As such, I used it against your proposal because:

1. I believe this is an issue of National Sovereignty... And should not be under the review of the United Nations; due to its connection with protected beliefs....It is not of international importance... The National Soveriegnty Card...

2. I really could care less, personally, or as a state, about this issue...It is not of importance to this Republic...The Apathy Card...

Oh, yes, crap.

This resolution would be considered a moral decency resolution - not Human Rights. Reason is that you are removing the right to make a decision - while Human Rights is about giving someone a right to do something.

FINALLY TO ALL MEMBER NATIONS READING THIS:
I erupted with laughter when I realised that The Holy Empire of James_xenoland (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/01701/page=display_nation/nation=james_xenoland), a nation with Rare Civil Rights and Outlawed Political Freedom, is actually trying to propose a resolution for Human Rights. It's in the best interest of the ruler to improve some Human Rights in their own nation, before thinking about the international scene.

I will oppose this resolution outright should it come to vote.

Heh, and his motto is "Mess with us and we'll kill you!".

Heh, and his motto is "Mess with us and we'll kill you!".

I rather like it, personally.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I rather like it, personally.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I don't think the motto is written badly either, it's just that it gives a message of an Authoritarian and not some one who values Human Rights!!

I don't think the motto is written badly either, it's just that it gives a message of an Authoritarian and not some one who values Human Rights!!

And what if he doesn't in most cases? The proposer's sincerity of concern for human rights is of little importance to me. The text of the proposal is my concern, and that text has caused me to oppose it.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

And what if he doesn't in most cases? The proposer's sincerity of concern for human rights is of little importance to me. The text of the proposal is my concern, and that text has caused me to oppose it.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Isn't the nature of the proposer and the proposal interelated some what. IN MANY CASES IF NOT ALL, If a person is enthusiastic and knowledgable about a topic, only then can he comment properly about it.

Anyway, let's just end this here and stay on the topic of this proposal.

Attack the proposal, not the author. Check out my puppet of Angel Fire - would you welcome a proposal from that nation?

I concede arguments due to the author - only because if I know the author well enough, I know areas that the author and I inherently differ. However, that does not make the author's opinion any less valid. Look at the proposal - what does it say, what does it do? These are the things that will change your nation. The author isn't going to be arbitrarily adding or removing points just because he's got his own position. His personal opinions have no bearing on your politics! His proposal, however, does.

I think the Proposal is inflammatory towards people of devotion.


Even when it comes to Human Rights issues, this one ranks lower than Free mass transit for the poor.

I rather like it, personally.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
You know, I do too. It's short and to the point. Conveys its message well.

Isn't the nature of the proposer and the proposal interelated some what. IN MANY CASES IF NOT ALL, If a person is enthusiastic and knowledgable about a topic, only then can he comment properly about it.

The nations political/economic/civil rights ratings have no bearing on the players qualifications to write and submit a proposal.

Anyway, let's just end this here and stay on the topic of this proposal.

I agree. [/hijack]

Human rights should apply to everyone. This proposal is aimed at one practice used by several religions and cultures. This is not only discrimination against them, but ignores many other religious and cultural ideals that are forced on children, including other body alterations that can be even more painful or dangerous.

The Free Land of CTerryland wholeheartedly opposes this resolution. It is a massive restriction on religious freedom, and discriminatory against several religious groups. While the Free Land of CTerryland is not a Jewish state it urges the creator of this resolution to discuss this resolution with Jewish leaders in particular. The Free Land of CTerryland MAY be willing to see the sense in such a resolution if it was allowed for religious reasons, and adults were allowed to become circumsised if they wished, but currently the Free Land of CTerryland feels this is the most ridiculous proposal in modern politics since someone protested that the President should be naked at all times in our Parliament Square.

The Free Land of CTerryland wholeheartedly opposes this resolution. It is a massive restriction on religious freedom, and discriminatory against several religious groups. While the Free Land of CTerryland is not a Jewish state it urges the creator of this resolution to discuss this resolution with Jewish leaders in particular. The Free Land of CTerryland MAY be willing to see the sense in such a resolution if it was allowed for religious reasons, and adults were allowed to become circumsised if they wished, but currently the Free Land of CTerryland feels this is the most ridiculous proposal in modern politics since someone protested that the President should be naked at all times in our Parliament Square.

Adults are not dealt with. This is more about forcing circumcision upon children - without their consent (or even before they are able to give consent)

Adults are not dealt with. This is more about forcing circumcision upon children - without their consent (or even before they are able to give consent)
Sorry I did read the proposal but I must of missed that :)

While the Free Land of CTerryland is not a Jewish state it urges the creator of this resolution to discuss this resolution with Jewish leaders in particular

Why? MGM is practiced by Jews, yes, but it is not required that you become Circed at birth to be a Jew. This would, for a truly faithful person, only delay the inevitable, and, for someone who doesn't want to be Jewish, prevent them from feeling anguish at the fact that they were mutilated in the name of a religion that they didn't choose.

Why? MGM is practiced by Jews, yes, but it is not required that you become Circed at birth to be a Jew. This would, for a truly faithful person, only delay the inevitable, and, for someone who doesn't want to be Jewish, prevent them from feeling anguish at the fact that they were mutilated in the name of a religion that they didn't choose.Whether or not its necessary or not is actually, by consensus, a necessity to become a Jew. The only time it's not considered compulsory is if a doctor finds the children has haemophilia or another condition that could pose a danger to the child.

What about a parents choice to bring up a child in the religion of their choice? Are we going to tell parents not to take their children to church next because they are forcing Christianity upon them?

In any case circumcision at birth can hardly be considered as mutilation when:

1. There are no nerves in the foreskin at birth, therefore there is no pain.

2. It can be grown back later on.

But from what has been said, growing back is painful and takes a long time, surely asking people to wait until later on to allow the person to be circed to decide for themselves is better than forcing something they don't want on them.

(OOC)Just to dispell a few myths, here is a link that could be interesting to all of us, whether for or against. Especially the myths section at the bottom. I have copy/pasted some of the more common myths that have come up in this thread...

Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/)

MYTH: Circumcision doesn't hurt, my son slept through it.

FACT: Cutting off any part of a body hurts! Some babies respond to the trauma by going into a semicomatose state. They only appear to be sleeping. The physiologic and behavioral changes associated with the pain of circumcision have been well documented by Anand and Hickey (46).

MYTH: It's better to circumcise babies because they won't remember the experience.

FACT: Quite the contrary. Overwhelming evidence indicates that experiences during the preverbal period affect the human being throughout life.

An infant does retain significant memory traces of traumatic events. When a child is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, it conceptualizes mother as both participatory and responsible regardless of mother's intent. When in fact mother is truly complicit, as in giving permission for unanesthetized surgery, i.e., circumcision, the perception of the infant of her culpability and willingness to have him harmed is indelibly emplaced. The consequences for impaired bonding are significant.--Rima Laibow, MD (47).

Clearly, circumcision of an infant does interfere with maternal- infant bonding, is perceived by the baby as betrayal by the mother, prohibits successful completion of the first developmental task of establishing trust, encodes the brain with the experience of violence inflicted on a part of the body that should be experiencing pleasure (48), and occurs during the preverbal period when memory is locked into the emotions. Leboyer expresses his concern about the life-long consequences of circumcision:

Once we remember that all that takes place during the first days of life on the emotional level, shapes the pattern of all future reactions, we cannot but wonder why such a torture has been inflicted on the child. How could a being who has been aggressed in this way, while totally helpless, develop into a relaxed, loving, trusting person?--Frederick Leboyer, MD (49).

Retrieval of this subconscious information requires commitment and dedication to a therapeutic process destined to uncover early traumatic experience. In personal reports, men who have done this work describe their circumcision as both terrifying and excruciatingly painful.

MYTH: Better to do it now because it would hurt more later.

FACT: This first erroneously assumes that a postnewborn circumcision will be necessary. Wallerstein reports:

The question of an uncircumcised child requiring later circumcision is used as a scare tactic--only in the United States. The question is not foreskin problems, but the attitude of the American medical profession in pushing what most physicians throughout the world consider unnecessary surgery. Worldwide, foreskin problems are treated medically, rarely surgically. (50)

Even if a circumcision were required later in life, the male would be able to understand the health problem, give an informed consent, and have the benefits of anesthesia and pain medication.

Researchers Anand and Hickey report that "...neonates were found to be more sensitive to pain than older infants"

MYTH: Christians should be circumcised like Jesus.

FACT: Circumcision became a controversy in the early Church because the first Christians were Jews. These Christians debated whether or not the Christian gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Peter proclaimed that Christians were saved only through the grace of Jesus Christ (52). Paul later reaffirmed the concept: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love" (53).

MYTH: Jews don't question circumcision.

FACT: A reexamination of circumcision (brit milah) is occurring within the Jewish community itself (54, 55).

Like it or not, the American medical community has begun an intense reevaluation that eventually will reduce the frequency of nonreligious circumcision. The Jewish community cannot remain aloof from this development. For Orthodox Jews, who accept brit milah solely as a religious (not a health) practice, the medical discussion is irrelevant. But for all other Jews, who take some comfort in the health attributes, a profound soul-searching may be anticipated. The answer will not be found in the epithet "anti-Semite" (56).

Jewish writings of the last decade illustrate this process: "A Mother Questions Brit Milah" (57), "Letter to Our Son's Grandparents: Why We Decided Against Circumcision" (58), "A Baby-Naming Ceremony, Rochester Society for Humanistic Judaism" (59), and "Jesse's Circumcision" (60). Health care providers who are aware of resources will be able to provide information to Jewish parents who are grappling with this difficult issue. The Alternative Brit Support Group is one such resource.

MYTH: Parents have the right to decide whether or not to circumcise their son(s).

FACT: The consumer of a neonatal circumcision is the infant who is circumcised, not the parent(s) who requested and/or paid for the circumcision. Body ownership rights are now being introduced as an issue in circumcision lawsuits that claim that every human being has an inherent, inalienable right to his own intact body (61, 62). These cases assert that the only person who can consent to a circumcision is a person making this personal decision for himself. And, with American men now expressing anger over what they believe was a violent violation of their bodies, we can no longer ignore the voices of the victims:

I think I could have accepted a deformity that was an accident of nature, but I can't accept that someone did that to me.

I have never been able to accept the fact that when I was a baby someone cut part of my penis off. The sheer monstrousness of it haunts every waking moment of my life. Sometimes I think I'm beginning to adjust to it, but then I see an unmutilated man in a shower or magazine and I become overwhelmed by uncontrollable feelings and disbelief that I was made the victim for life of something so sick.

My feelings about the doctor who circumcised me are too violent to describe.

I was just a baby...I couldn't stop them (63).

In the original proposal the author has himself mentioned the advantages of circumcision and still I don't understand why he is contradicting himself with this resolution.

This link, originally posted by another nation...
http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html
...gives an almost comprehensive information on circumcision. It also has the PROs and CONs. And guess what's under CONs...
Complications of newborn circumcision are uncommon, occurring in between 0.2% to 3% of cases. Of these, the most frequent are minor bleeding and local infection, both of which can be easily treated by your child's doctor.
Hence for that insignificant level of risk, the UN should not be bothered about this resolution and should tend to more important matters like world peace, good environment, etc...


I had said earlier that your parents would do what's best for you. My parents never had me administered most vaccines that today's children are forced upon. I didn't ask them to do what they did. And I am still healthy and alive!!
Research has found that too many vaccinations confuse the anti-bodies in your system, making you prone to new diseases in the future.
So under similar case of human rights as you call it, can we stop all parents from vaccinating their child at birth just the way you want circumcision to stop?!!? Even if that mean not vaccinating for a disease like Polio.


That's why I had earlier suggested about enforcing proper methods and practice by good doctors with my bad hair example.

I will vote against this proposal outright should it come for voting!!

In the original proposal the author has himself mentioned the advantages of circumcision and still I don't understand why he is contradicting himself with this resolution.

This link, originally posted by another nation...
http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html
...gives an almost comprehensive information on circumcision. It also has the PROs and CONs. And guess what's under CONs...

Hence for that insignificant level of risk, the UN should not be bothered about this resolution and should tend to more important matters like world peace, good environment, etc...


I had said earlier that your parents would do what's best for you. My parents never had me administered most vaccines that today's children are forced upon. I didn't ask them to do what they did. And I am still healthy and alive!!
Research has found that too many vaccinations confuse the anti-bodies in your system, making you prone to new diseases in the future.
So under similar case of human rights as you call it, can we stop all parents from vaccinating their child at birth just the way you want circumcision to stop?!!? Even if that mean not vaccinating for a disease like Polio.


That's why I had earlier suggested about enforcing proper methods and practice by good doctors with my bad hair example.

I will vote against this proposal outright should it come for voting!!

Have you read why people are supporting this resolution? It's not because of the number of complications, it's because parent's are making choices for the children that the children may not agree with.

Have you read why people are supporting this resolution? It's not because of the number of complications, it's because parent's are making choices for the children that the children may not agree with.


And children are notoriously wise when it comes to judgement.


This, simply stated, is a way to prevent (or at least make it as painful and humiliating as possible) people to practice a religion.




Saying this is "children's rights" is not only an attempt to obfuscate the true meaning of the proposal...

It's very Hitleresque.



"Hey let's stop a religion by outlawing it".




You people should be proud. Rarely do I see something so inflammatory, supported by so many.


Well not since the 1930's.

I tend to agree with New Hamilton. The proposal itself may not intend to be anti-semitic but that is the end result. What about a parents right to decide how to bring up their child? Are we really comfortable with this level of state control? Not just at a state level but at an international level? I think this proposal is a vile affront to equality everywhere.

Hey, when you people are done going after the Jews, can we go after the Gypsies next...

Hey, when you people are done going after the Jews, can we go after the Gypsies next...
Don't forget the communists!

Are we truly debating on whether to ban circumcision lmao????

Circumcision is a requirement in several religious and ethnic social groupings. As this proposal would infringe upon those traditions, our Principality stands opposed.

Are we truly debating on whether to ban circumcision lmao????

Circumcision is a requirement in several religious and ethnic social groupings. As this proposal would infringe upon those traditions, our Principality stands opposed.

This is true. Wouldn't this impose upon the religious beliefs of those who feel circumcision is apart of the faith?

This is true. Wouldn't this impose upon the religious beliefs of those who feel circumcision is apart of the faith?

Exactly. This proposal strips the rights of those faiths to freely exercise their beliefs.

The focus of this debate is the right of a child to grow to adulthood without having an un-necessary, permenant surgery inflicted on him without his consent. What a grown male does with his donger is his own business, but no child should have to have to undergo this because of his parents religious beliefs or anything else thats not medically necessary.

Well...not really permanent. However, I note this following point:

-Circumcision, takes a little snip and a local annesthetic (sp?). You're done in a few hours, maybe a few days of pain killers at the worst
-To reverse the procedure takes along the order of MONTHS, perhaps YEARS.

I note that we make it clear that the issue is a child not being able to consent to the operation. We further note that many children do not choose the religion of their parents, and we note that these children, should they choose the religion of their parents, can get circumcision when they are considered capable of making such a decision (the operation isn't being outlawed entirely).

I disagree with you there Forgottenlands. It is permenant. The original foreskin is gone. It doesn't regrow. From what I've read, getting it back again involves long periods of stretching what little skin is left to make a new foreskin. So getting real technical, what the man manages to acheive isn't getting his foreskin back, but creating a new one. The original is gone forever.

We dont' feel that this should be banned, nor required, we certainly don't want the UN telling us what we can do with our cocks this applies to our penis and our animals ~states high chieften Theron, while stroking his rooster in a press release outside the penis weight lifting championship tournament taking place in cock pride arena~

Have you read why people are supporting this resolution? It's not because of the number of complications, it's because parent's are making choices for the children that the children may not agree with.

.
.
.

(And what other people said below)

You probably know why things said by mentally retarded people are not legally binding in most cases. They don't have the capacity nor the ability to make a correct judgement.

It's painful to take tetanus shots. Hence if a kid says no will the parent actually refrain from doing it. There are many things in the world that kids don't want to do and are forced upon. Taking injections, going to school, going to the dentist, etc... If the parents were not allowed to force these upon children (or try to make them understand the need), those kids wouldn't be debating on Human Rights issue in NS.

Many people, including the author and others in favour of this resolution have themselves accepted the advantages of circumcision. So, if you deny the parents the right to do some thing important and useful to their kids, then it is a denial of Civil Rights by the government.
If kids are not asked about being circumcised it's an insignificant matter IMO, because of what I said. But it could probably be classified under civil rights, but to a very insignificant level.

NOW whose civil rights has fallen more in the above case, the parent or the child? Which is better, The right to protect loved ones, or the right to choose not to be protected??
And finally in the eye of the government, shouldn't they be in favour of the people whose rights fall more??

Um.. am i the only one confused by the last post - and before you make it bold and italicised again Jusma Kullailie - maybe you should reword it and spellcheck it too - then I might have a clue what you're on about.

Ok here's the thing

I think circumcision is mutilation - it involves getting a part of your body cut off. I believe this to be an irreversible loss, as though there are methods of restoration they never get back the whole foreskin.

Removing the foreskin is risky, and even in the most clinical hospitals there is still the issue of pain for the child.

Secondly there is the loss of over 60% of your erogenous receptors compared to an intact male.

However if a child could grow up to at least an age that nations deem appropriate for them to make their own informed decision, and then decide to get it done, then I have no problem with the act, because the person has made an informed decision, and as we say in Ireland "be it on their heads" - i.e. if they don't like it they're to blame.

However I have a huge problem with people choosing to administer this medically unnecessary procedure without any positive benefits on children who aren't able to give their informed consent. Where are the positive benefits I gave to circumcision? - I don't think there are any - the only two that I can possibly come up with is a tiny percentage more uncircumcised kids get urinary tract infections (aggh no - firstly it's easily preventable by simple hygiene, secondly a quick dose of antibiotics does the trick if you get it) and the second possible case (from one very dodgy study) says that circed men are less likely to get infected with HIV in south africa (an area with a high HIV infection rate) - if they both have unprotected sex! Again something that is completely preventable by behaviour - are you suggesting that children should have their right to decide whether or not they get an MGM removed, so that they (children) can have unprotected sex with a mildly lower rate of HIV risk???? Comparing this to a tetanus or an MMR shot is grossly ignorant - these shots prevent you from actual threats to a child's life - what does circumcision do?

As for all the religious people seriously read at least a few pages back before posting - the topics already done to death - this isn't depriving the parents of their right to practice their religion on themselves. On other people - not allowed - unless you want the Christians to start stoning adulterers again?

(OOC)Just to dispell a few myths, here is a link that could be interesting to all of us, whether for or against. Especially the myths section at the bottom. I have copy/pasted some of the more common myths that have come up in this thread...

Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/)

MYTH: Circumcision doesn't hurt, my son slept through it.

FACT: Cutting off any part of a body hurts! Some babies respond to the trauma by going into a semicomatose state. They only appear to be sleeping. The physiologic and behavioral changes associated with the pain of circumcision have been well documented by Anand and Hickey (46).

MYTH: It's better to circumcise babies because they won't remember the experience.

FACT: Quite the contrary. Overwhelming evidence indicates that experiences during the preverbal period affect the human being throughout life.

An infant does retain significant memory traces of traumatic events. When a child is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, it conceptualizes mother as both participatory and responsible regardless of mother's intent. When in fact mother is truly complicit, as in giving permission for unanesthetized surgery, i.e., circumcision, the perception of the infant of her culpability and willingness to have him harmed is indelibly emplaced. The consequences for impaired bonding are significant.--Rima Laibow, MD (47).

Clearly, circumcision of an infant does interfere with maternal- infant bonding, is perceived by the baby as betrayal by the mother, prohibits successful completion of the first developmental task of establishing trust, encodes the brain with the experience of violence inflicted on a part of the body that should be experiencing pleasure (48), and occurs during the preverbal period when memory is locked into the emotions. Leboyer expresses his concern about the life-long consequences of circumcision:

Once we remember that all that takes place during the first days of life on the emotional level, shapes the pattern of all future reactions, we cannot but wonder why such a torture has been inflicted on the child. How could a being who has been aggressed in this way, while totally helpless, develop into a relaxed, loving, trusting person?--Frederick Leboyer, MD (49).

Retrieval of this subconscious information requires commitment and dedication to a therapeutic process destined to uncover early traumatic experience. In personal reports, men who have done this work describe their circumcision as both terrifying and excruciatingly painful.

MYTH: Better to do it now because it would hurt more later.

FACT: This first erroneously assumes that a postnewborn circumcision will be necessary. Wallerstein reports:

The question of an uncircumcised child requiring later circumcision is used as a scare tactic--only in the United States. The question is not foreskin problems, but the attitude of the American medical profession in pushing what most physicians throughout the world consider unnecessary surgery. Worldwide, foreskin problems are treated medically, rarely surgically. (50)

Even if a circumcision were required later in life, the male would be able to understand the health problem, give an informed consent, and have the benefits of anesthesia and pain medication.

Researchers Anand and Hickey report that "...neonates were found to be more sensitive to pain than older infants"

MYTH: Christians should be circumcised like Jesus.

FACT: Circumcision became a controversy in the early Church because the first Christians were Jews. These Christians debated whether or not the Christian gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Peter proclaimed that Christians were saved only through the grace of Jesus Christ (52). Paul later reaffirmed the concept: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love" (53).

MYTH: Jews don't question circumcision.

FACT: A reexamination of circumcision (brit milah) is occurring within the Jewish community itself (54, 55).

Like it or not, the American medical community has begun an intense reevaluation that eventually will reduce the frequency of nonreligious circumcision. The Jewish community cannot remain aloof from this development. For Orthodox Jews, who accept brit milah solely as a religious (not a health) practice, the medical discussion is irrelevant. But for all other Jews, who take some comfort in the health attributes, a profound soul-searching may be anticipated. The answer will not be found in the epithet "anti-Semite" (56).

Jewish writings of the last decade illustrate this process: "A Mother Questions Brit Milah" (57), "Letter to Our Son's Grandparents: Why We Decided Against Circumcision" (58), "A Baby-Naming Ceremony, Rochester Society for Humanistic Judaism" (59), and "Jesse's Circumcision" (60). Health care providers who are aware of resources will be able to provide information to Jewish parents who are grappling with this difficult issue. The Alternative Brit Support Group is one such resource.

MYTH: Parents have the right to decide whether or not to circumcise their son(s).

FACT: The consumer of a neonatal circumcision is the infant who is circumcised, not the parent(s) who requested and/or paid for the circumcision. Body ownership rights are now being introduced as an issue in circumcision lawsuits that claim that every human being has an inherent, inalienable right to his own intact body (61, 62). These cases assert that the only person who can consent to a circumcision is a person making this personal decision for himself. And, with American men now expressing anger over what they believe was a violent violation of their bodies, we can no longer ignore the voices of the victims:

I think I could have accepted a deformity that was an accident of nature, but I can't accept that someone did that to me.

I have never been able to accept the fact that when I was a baby someone cut part of my penis off. The sheer monstrousness of it haunts every waking moment of my life. Sometimes I think I'm beginning to adjust to it, but then I see an unmutilated man in a shower or magazine and I become overwhelmed by uncontrollable feelings and disbelief that I was made the victim for life of something so sick.

My feelings about the doctor who circumcised me are too violent to describe.

I was just a baby...I couldn't stop them (63).

Get restored I am doing it. I felt pretty much the same way (with the exception of the magizines (no offense or anything but I wouldnt look at anything with a naked guy in it intact or mutilated that is just gross)). Anyway restoration is going well for me and you should do it.

Ermm, I don't need to. I'm female :D.

I am against routine circumcision of males or females for non medical reasons because of human rights. The human right of the individual to bodily integrity until they are old enough to give informed consent to the operation themselves. No parent, religion or any other entity should have the right to give permission or require doctors to cut bits and pieces of children unless its medically essential.

Well people have been following some good practices over the years and this is no different. Circumcision is done mostly because of religious and health practices. Whether parents want to have their child circumcised is their choice. They are mature enough to weigh the pros and cons. And when you take away that choice, then you are taking away some civil rights.
That is irrelevant. They only have a right to consent to a surgical procedure when medically necessary. But they do not have the right to start ordering amputations of healthy bodily organs for no reason.

The idea that this resolution does anything but give children back the most basic of human rights is ridiculous.


Firstly, a child is in no way able to decide what's right or wrong for him/her-self. It's the parents who guide the child at a young age and it's that and the environment in which you grew up that influences your values today. Hence, what may seem right for you need not be so in some one else's opinion.
Thanks for helping me make another point about why this should be banned. Just because the parents believe that something’s right, doesn’t mean that their child will when he or she becomes an adult. So why then should they be able to have an abusive, completely unnecessary and irreversible procedure done to the child for no reason?


As for the parents getting to decide on the medical procedures... What if your parents didn't administer you the Polio Vaccine, or MMR, Tetanus, Hepetitis, Meningococal, etc?? Did you ask your parents to do that or did they do it for your benifit. Isn't this similar to concerned parent choosing to have their child circumcised, or follow any other medical practices?
This is not even close to being similar to a vaccination, or any other medical procedure for that matter.
And what I meant was that parents have the right to consent or not to a medical procedure. But they do not have a right to say if it’s needed or not. (I.e. Only a doctor can diagnose you with something or determine if something needs to be done.)


BTW, too much vaccination is also not advisable (I won't go too much in detail here) and not all kids are circumcised at birth. There are many cases where it is done at the age of 5-7 (although it's adviced soon after birth), a time when the kids understand the need for circumcision. I have talked to some of these kids myself in the past.
“Understand the need for circumcision?!”
That statement in it self is contradictory. Because unless of medical necessity, there is no need or valid reason for MGM.


I don't care what the dictionary says... but in circumcision, the outer skin is cut and peeled off. It's like having your appendix removed; your body still functions normally. But in circumcision there are advantages in doing so, and you have yourself mentioned it in your proposal.
It’s nothing like having your appendix removed, believe me I had to get my appendix out about 5 months ago. For one thing they don’t take out your appendix for NO reason and even when they do it’s not until you have a serious problem with it.

Secondly it’s not just a little bit of skin but 15 square inches of a bodily organ full of blood vessels and a large percentage of the penis’s specialized super sensitive nerves. No it doesn’t work just as well.


Now let me tell you about myself. I was circumcised in my native village by a barber with a razor blade and no anesthetics. This was the practice until a few years ago and never in my life or in the past has there ever been a case where the penis is cut off, as mention in one of the earlier posts. I doubt there is any proof about this and is probably just another Urban Legend.
I think you’re talking about the cases where the top (glan) of the penis has been cut of accidentally or as a result of infection from the unnecessary amputation and mutilation of the penis.

And yes it has happened and does happen.


My brother's child was circumcised a couple of years back in a hospital using a small device. It's automated and does the work safely, hygienically and in a matter of seconds.
Hence I would still definitely stand by my final statement. If you go to a student in cosmetology/barbering and who doesn't have a cosmetology license to have your hair cut, you cannot blame her for messing up your hair big time. You should have used your senses (like the parents) and refrained from going there.
Now you know why proper methods of circumcision should be made compulsory.
Irrelevant.


FINALLY TO ALL MEMBER NATIONS READING THIS:
I erupted with laughter when I realised that The Holy Empire of James_xenoland (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/01701/page=display_nation/nation=james_xenoland), a nation with Rare Civil Rights and Outlawed Political Freedom, is actually trying to propose a resolution for Human Rights. It's in the best interest of the ruler to improve some Human Rights in their own nation, before thinking about the international scene.

I will oppose this resolution outright should it come to vote.
Hahahahahahahahaha x 100


I think the Proposal is inflammatory towards people of devotion.
Funny because that’s how I’m starting to feel about the religious argument against this.


Even when it comes to Human Rights issues, this one ranks lower than Free mass transit for the poor.
lol It’s funny because after reading your past and later posts in this thread, I could care less about your opinion.


Human rights should apply to everyone. This proposal is aimed at one practice used by several religions and cultures. This is not only discrimination against them, but ignores many other religious and cultural ideals that are forced on children, including other body alterations that can be even more painful or dangerous.
You can’t win a war in one battle. (Most of the time that is.)

I think I speak for most guys when I say that it doesn’t get much worse then someone f***ing around with your penis. lol


The Free Land of CTerryland wholeheartedly opposes this resolution. It is a massive restriction on religious freedom, and discriminatory against several religious groups. While the Free Land of CTerryland is not a Jewish state it urges the creator of this resolution to discuss this resolution with Jewish leaders in particular.
Read earlier posts please. ^

This in NO WAY restricts anyone from practicing his or her religion. You personally are the only person that your religious rights extend to.... NOT your children. You could make them go to church and anything else you want as long as it doesn’t violate their rights or abuse them. Which MGM does both of.


The Free Land of CTerryland MAY be willing to see the sense in such a resolution if it was allowed for religious reasons, and adults were allowed to become circumsised if they wished, but currently the Free Land of CTerryland feels this is the most ridiculous proposal in modern politics since someone protested that the President should be naked at all times in our Parliament Square.
WHY would we want to ban this for every reason except the most pointless and baseless of reasons?
Adults could do anything they wish as long as they’re properly informed under this resolution.


Whether or not its necessary or not is actually, by consensus, a necessity to become a Jew. The only time it's not considered compulsory is if a doctor finds the children has haemophilia or another condition that could pose a danger to the child.
When the child reaches maturity then he could decide what he wants done to HIS body. There is no reason why it needs to be done while they’re still just children. Nobody would be able to convert to that religion if that was the case.


What about a parents choice to bring up a child in the religion of their choice? Are we going to tell parents not to take their children to church next because they are forcing Christianity upon them?
This isn’t about religion, what it’s about is children being abused, mutilated and deprived of their most basic human rights for no reason.


In any case circumcision at birth can hardly be considered as mutilation when:

1. There are no nerves in the foreskin at birth, therefore there is no pain.

2. It can be grown back later on.
What are you talking about?! It matches just about every definition of the word and legal term “Mutilation.”

Re 1. Wrong, we now know that it hurts just as bad and could quiet possibly be even more painful for babies. It’s full of super sensitive nerves after all.
“Some babies respond to the trauma (of MGM) by going into a semi comatose state.”
“An infant does retain significant memory traces of traumatic events”

Re 2. No, the remaining skin can be stretched down to look like a foreskin but you’ll never get those nerves and other things lost back.

http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm)


In the original proposal the author has himself mentioned the advantages of circumcision and still I don't understand why he is contradicting himself with this resolution.
I stated the reasons that people use to do it and then systematically proved their irrelevance.


This link, originally posted by another nation...
http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html
...gives an almost comprehensive information on circumcision. It also has the PROs and CONs. And guess what's under CONs...

Hence for that insignificant level of risk, the UN should not be bothered about this resolution and should tend to more important matters like world peace, good environment, etc...
That site is full of old/bad info and half/non truths. Not to mention bias, just look at some of the comments on there.

The actual number is around 3-10%.


I had said earlier that your parents would do what's best for you. My parents never had me administered most vaccines that today's children are forced upon. I didn't ask them to do what they did. And I am still healthy and alive!!
Research has found that too many vaccinations confuse the anti-bodies in your system, making you prone to new diseases in the future.
So under similar case of human rights as you call it, can we stop all parents from vaccinating their child at birth just the way you want circumcision to stop?!!? Even if that mean not vaccinating for a disease like Polio.
What the hell does this have to do with vaccinations?!


And children are notoriously wise when it comes to judgement.
All the more reason to wait until they are adults before even thinking about performing a medically unnecessary surgery on them.


This, simply stated, is a way to prevent (or at least make it as painful and humiliating as possible) people to practice a religion.
It’s no more painful (maybe even less) for an adult then it would be for a child.

If you find a practice of your religion to be “humiliating” then maybe you should start re-evaluating your beliefs.


Saying this is "children's rights" is not only an attempt to obfuscate the true meaning of the proposal...
What the hell are you talking about?


It's very Hitleresque.
Wow.... just.. wow...... :|


Well at least I know that I’m winning if that’s the only type of stuff he has left...


"Hey let's stop a religion by outlawing it".
How is this resolution “outlawing” any religion? x 10


You people should be proud. Rarely do I see something so inflammatory, supported by so many.
What’s so inflammatory about this exactly?


I tend to agree with New Hamilton. The proposal itself may not intend to be anti-semitic but that is the end result. What about a parents right to decide how to bring up their child? Are we really comfortable with this level of state control? Not just at a state level but at an international level? I think this proposal is a vile affront to equality everywhere.
Equality! If you want to talk about equality then let’s talk about the fact that girls/females are already protected from this kind of monsterish abuse and yet a lot of people still refuse/are enraged to even think about the idea of extending the same protections to boys/males.

Which brings up another resolution mandating this ban.


The Sexes Rights Law

“Does Formally Recognize and Declare : That the rights of all sexes in society are equal, excepting only in the conditions below and that this equality must be preserved in the interests of the social and community rights of all citizens of Nation States United Nation member states.”

and


ARTICLE 2 of The Child Protection Act.

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

2. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present resolution to each minor within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the minor's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.


Are we truly debating on whether to ban circumcision lmao????
What’s so funny about that? We have a bill for FGM.


Circumcision is a requirement in several religious and ethnic social groupings. As this proposal would infringe upon those traditions, our Principality stands opposed.
It doesn’t infringe on any rights in the least. *Read the thread*


This is true. Wouldn't this impose upon the religious beliefs of those who feel circumcision is apart of the faith?Exactly. This proposal strips the rights of those faiths to freely exercise their beliefs.
No because your religious rights end at you. You don’t have the right to make others believe in or practice you religion.


You probably know why things said by mentally retarded people are not legally binding in most cases. They don't have the capacity nor the ability to make a correct judgement.

It's painful to take tetanus shots. Hence if a kid says no will the parent actually refrain from doing it. There are many things in the world that kids don't want to do and are forced upon. Taking injections, going to school, going to the dentist, etc... If the parents were not allowed to force these upon children (or try to make them understand the need), those kids wouldn't be debating on Human Rights issue in NS.

Many people, including the author and others in favour of this resolution have themselves accepted the advantages of circumcision. So, if you deny the parents the right to do some thing important and useful to their kids, then it is a denial of Civil Rights by the government.
If kids are not asked about being circumcised it's an insignificant matter IMO, because of what I said. But it could probably be classified under civil rights, but to a very insignificant level.

NOW whose civil rights has fallen more in the above case, the parent or the child? Which is better, The right to protect loved ones, or the right to choose not to be protected??
And finally in the eye of the government, shouldn't they be in favour of the people whose rights fall more??
I’ve accepted no such perceived advantages. I merely stated the reasons why people justify it.

Nobody’s being “protected” because of MGM, only abused...

9 and a bit screens - third longest non-sticky post I've seen (the other two....being mine)

9 and a bit screens - third longest non-sticky post I've seen (the other two....being mine)
That still doesn't mean that the proposal is right or wrong! :p

Anyway, my reply to some of the reply above...

That is irrelevant. They only have a right to consent to a surgical procedure when medically necessary. But they do not have the right to start ordering amputations of healthy bodily organs for no reason.

The idea that this resolution does anything but give children back the most basic of human rights is ridiculous.
Why do you have to use a word like amputation? Amputation is used to mostly refer to removal of limbs. It' also used for organs and other parts of the body. But that's all in a case where the amputated body part becomes useless. As a circumcised individual I can guarantee that mine is still good for use.

Main Entry: cir•cum•ci•sion
Pronunciation: "s&r-k&m-'sizh-&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of circumcising: a : the cutting off of the foreskin of males that is practiced as a religious rite by Jews and Muslims and as a sanitary measure in modern surgery b : FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

2 : the condition of being circumcised




Thanks for helping me make another point about why this should be banned. Just because the parents believe that something’s right, doesn’t mean that their child will when he or she becomes an adult. So why then should they be able to have an abusive, completely unnecessary and irreversible procedure done to the child for no reason?
Yeah, just go ahead and use the least relevant point in the Para. And the parents didn’t believe something because it just struck them. It's been proven that a circumcised penis is better and more hygienic by many doctors.




This is not even close to being similar to a vaccination, or any other medical procedure for that matter.
And what I meant was that parents have the right to consent or not to a medical procedure. But they do not have a right to say if it’s needed or not. (I.e. Only a doctor can diagnose you with something or determine if something needs to be done.)
Yes, I know that circumcision and vaccination are different!! But both are medical procedures and they are administered to the child whether or not he wants it. I don't care what you meant, but are medical procedures forced upon children or not?
Do you want me to give you a list of other medical procedures which are forced upon children without their consent?
As a parent and the creator of your child, will you risk your child’s health just because his consent (at a time when he cannot rationally do so) is not there??!
WHY DON'T YOU REPLY TO THIS POINT?




“Understand the need for circumcision?!”
That statement in it self is contradictory. Because unless of medical necessity, there is no need or valid reason for MGM.
Haven't you heard of that famous saying Prevention is better than cure?


It’s nothing like having your appendix removed, believe me I had to get my appendix out about 5 months ago. For one thing they don’t take out your appendix for NO reason and even when they do it’s not until you have a serious problem with it.

Secondly it’s not just a little bit of skin but 15 square inches of a bodily organ full of blood vessels and a large percentage of the penis’s specialized super sensitive nerves. No it doesn’t work just as well.

I don't care why they take it out. All I said was that your body functions pretty much the same way as it did earlier without an insignificant part of your body.

Secondly, you need to do more homework. The nerve is not present when a child and technically the removed skin is cylindrical shaped. Hence the number looks big when you use the AREA measurement. AND 15 Sq. INCHES??? Are you sure a porn star wasn't circumcised or something. Lengthwise the removal is not more than 1-2 centimetres (for a kid).





I think you’re talking about the cases where the top (glan) of the penis has been cut of accidentally or as a result of infection from the unnecessary amputation and mutilation of the penis.

And yes it has happened and does happen.

PROOF PLEASE!!!




Irrelevant.
Relevant, cause you should, no matter what you do, go to an experienced and/or knowledgeable person, while doing something important. I can't go to a general physician to have a cardio surgery and then crib about it if something goes wrong.





Hahahahahahahahaha x 100
THAT'S HA X 900 times or Haha X 450!! Man, I am beginning to change my opinion about you as a grumpy ruler. It really is a lot when you can accept it and laugh when the joke's on you!!





I stated the reasons that people use to do it and then systematically proved their irrelevance.
Hmm... thank you for writing this. I read your proposal with even more concentration and got more things to write about. SEE MY REPLY after the replies to your reply. BUT, certainly you have in no way used the Reasons stated to (un)systematically prove their irrelevance. In fact you have not attempted to portray their irrelevance. You have merely written about the pain (cry baby) and some other points that I'll tackle later.





That site is full of old/bad info and half/non truths. Not to mention bias, just look at some of the comments on there.

The actual number is around 3-10%.
WHAT!! Don't tell me one of the most visited sites, existent since 10 years is actually spouting out nonsense and wrong information.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.kidshealth.org

What's your proof about the 3-10%?







What the hell does this have to do with vaccinations?!
Why are you looking only at vaccines. Why don't you see the idea behind the examples. Were you asked if you want to be vaccinated, for most of the vaccines you were, or any other kid, were administered??




I’ve accepted no such perceived advantages. I merely stated the reasons why people justify it.

Nobody’s being “protected” because of MGM, only abused...
Why do you merely state something? If you want some thing to change around here propose that with a reason. Don't just say something pointlessly because you want to. There are words to describe those kinds of people.

And how does MGM abuse anyone. It pains initially if you are circumcised without anaesthetics, but the future events are worth it.

You seem to like urban legends, here's one (possibly true): Women prefer a circumcised penis.


My thoughts on your proposal…

Draft Proposal: Male Genital Mutilation Vr. 0.9
Remove this. By the time it goes for vote, it’s not a draft anymore.

Observing that ‘male genital mutilation’ (Circumcision) is performed around the world for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

*Decreased sexual sensitivity to promote abstinence and to stop masturbation
*Cultural tradition
*Religion
*Because the child’s father had it done to him and so on
*Looks (aesthetically pleasing)
*Increased sexual pleasure for their female partner

As well as for some long debunked medical reasons:
*Cleanliness
*Decreased chance of urinary track infections
*Cancer of the penis (Despite the fact that there have been significantly more fatalities do to MGM (Circumcision) than cancer and no proof that it lessens the chances of getting cancer.)
*To prevent STD’s
Many people would stop reading and vote AGAINST after this IMO. What you have stated is certainly not debunked and is proven. But this forms the basis of most of your ideals and assumptions.





Recognizing that MGM is practiced for certain cultural and religious reasons. But further noting that restricting the use of MGM in no way interferes with a parent’s right to practice their religion. (A right which only applies on an individual level and not to others under the guardianship of an adult.)
Contradiction.
Why would people do something for religious reasons if it is not required in their religious practice? Some religions require males to be circumcised and hence it is practiced for religious reasons.
SO you could probably restrict circumcision for non-religious reasons if you are hell bent on writing a resolution. Why does the UN have to bother with such issues anyway. Think of the environment, world peace, trade and commerce, etc…






Deeply disturbed by the fact that many young boys are subjected to MGM against their will, soon after birth and without any kind of anesthetic for a procedure that causes severe, persistent pain.
So are many other medical practices that are painful or unwanted in a child’s opinion, forced upon them. So do we ban all this and sacrifice good health.
Maybe you could call for good practices of circumcision.






Alarmed by the number of cases of deaths, infections, lacerations, skin loss, skin bridges, chordee, meatitis, stenosis, urinary retention, glans necrosis, penile loss, hemorrhage, sepsis, gangrene, meningitis, disfigurements and other injuries resulting from this unnecessary practice, not including the many long-term effects that could arise later in life.
DEATH!!! If death is a risk in circumcision, the UN doesn’t need to intervene. Parents themselves would refrain from it. What is the proof anyway for all that you have mentioned above? And you may need to check some spellings above.





Dismayed by the fact that MGM destroys as much as two thirds of the nerve receptors and almost all of the specialized super sensitive touch receptors of the penis. Permanently robbing men of a substantial amount of erogenous sensitivity.
Although, I don’t entirely believe everything mentioned above, I think the reasons why circumcision is done covers this part. The statement is exaggeration at its finest. But take it from any circumcised male, there is still enough sensitivity for good pleasure.





Urging member States to avoid using the name “circumcision” outside of medical terminology.
Circumcision is ‘the act of circumcising’ and is not exactly a medical terminology (Probably circumcise is). It’s been practiced for centuries, probably since medicine was not an English word.





Demands that all member States immediately outlaw the use of this barbaric practice on anyone under the age of 18, as a violation of Human Rights, with the exception of medical necessity.
How can you call a practice that is advantageous for health a barbaric practice even when it is also being done hygienically by experienced doctors?
And why the specific age limit. What if a 13 year old is competent enough to make rational decisions and wants to be circumcised?






Further requiring that all states begin an education program for parents and adult males about the emotional, physical and sexual side effects, as well as any other problems which may arise after the procedure or in later years of life.
Waste of money to make it mandatory to teach people whatever they know already. They are circumcised themselves and don’t need anyone else to tell them how it feels!!!






Suggests that all states require their medical community to learn about any of the negatives or positives associated with this procedure so that they will be better able to accurately inform the public and their patients.
You are banning circumcision. Why would anyone come as a patient even though it is banned? Again, waste of money.


And one more thing, what if parents have their child circumcised in a Non UN Member nation, they are not in breach of the proposal.





So you see, there really isn’t much in this proposal and is a waste of the UN’s time.

I now stand by my earlier decision, even stronger to vote against this proposal!!

Seems its time for more myth busting. The link to the site I am copy/pasting from is in one of my previous posts....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH: A circumcised penis is cleaner.

FACT: Personal hygiene is a major justification for circumcision, yet the experience of 85% of the world's men who are intact indicates that the intact penis is easily cared for. Cleansing the intact penis is similar to cleansing intact labia and is simply a matter of common sense. During infancy, when the foreskin and glans are attached to one another, external washing with only warm water is all that is required. Once the foreskin and glans separate, retraction of the foreskin and washing with warm water are all that are necessary.

After the age of reason, one hopes that a boy who has already learned to tie his shoes can be cajoled into washing behind his ears and directed to clean his penis. It is painless, takes only a few seconds, and when it takes any longer is probably associated with a smile.--Leonard J. Marino, MD (31)

The AAP itself refuted this myth by saying, "...good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of routine circumcision without the attendant surgical risk" (32).

MYTH: Circumcision is minor surgery.

FACT: "Minor surgery is one that is performed on someone else," says Stanford University Medical School Professor, Dr. Eugene Robin. Circumcision, like all surgery, has inherent risks, which include hemorrhage, infection, mutilation, and death. And, although neonatal circumcision is the most commonly performed routine surgical procedure in America today, we have no accurate statistics on the resultant complications or deaths. In 1985, two Atlanta boys lost their penises and, adding insult to injury, doctors subjected one boy to a sex reassignment. He will live the remainder of his life as a female (33). That same year, two other boys were victims of staphylococcal infections, the port of entry was the circumcision wound. One boy died seven days after his birth from "scalded skin syndrome," the other is a blind, spastic quadriplegic (34). Circumcision is not a minor procedure and there are many unrecognized victims. Dr. Robin recommends, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" (35).

MYTH: Circumcision prevents penile cancer.

FACT: Penile cancer, which has been documented in both circumcised and intact men, is a rare disease of elderly men and one of the least common malignancies. It represents 0.5% of all cancers in men and occurs at "...a rate of less than one case per 100,000 per year in the United States" (36). Dr. James Snyder, past President of the Virginia Urological Society, notes that the low incidence of penile cancer in the United States is not due to circumcision because "...the population of American men born before 1940, now in the group at risk for this cancer, is a group of predominantly UNCIRCUMCISED men" (36). Research indicates that good hygiene prevents penile cancer and, according to Dr. Sydney Gellis, "It is an incontestable fact...there are more deaths from circumcision each year than from cancer of the penis" (37).

MYTH: Women with circumcised partners have a lower incidence of cervical cancer.

FACT: Inaccurate studies of the 1950s are to blame for the erroneous idea that cervical cancer occurs in women because their sexual partners are intact (12-14). According to Wallerstein, "Jewish women have a relatively low rate of cervical cancer, but Moslem women, whose husbands are circumcised in infancy, have a much higher rate. Parsis of India, who do not circumcise, have a lower cervical cancer rate than their Moslem neighbors, who do circumcise" (13). According to the most recent AAP report, "...evidence linking uncircumcised men to cervical carcinoma is inconclusive. The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners" (38).

MYTH: Circumcision will decrease the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

FACT: There is an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, in the United States, where the majority of sexually active men are circumcised. It is not the foreskin that causes these diseases, and circumcision will not prevent them. "It is relatively more important to alter exposure to infectious agents than male susceptibility to them," wrote D. W. Cameron, MD, FRCP (personal correspondence to NOCIRC, January 7, 1991). Cameron's AIDS research (17) was erroneously and alarmingly reported by newspapers across the country with headlines that read, "Circumcision decreases risk of AIDS." Obviously, it is contact with specific organisms that causes specific diseases, and it is education about safe sex, not amputation of healthy body parts of newborns, that is sane preventative medicine for sexually transmitted diseases.

MYTH: Circumcision prevents urinary tract infection.

FACT: The AAP reported that studies reflecting an increase in UTIs among intact boys are "retrospective," may have "methodologic flaws," and "may have been influenced by selection bias" (38). The more recent research of statistician and pediatrician, Dr. Martin Altschul, refutes the earlier UTI studies (39). New York pediatrician, Dr. Leonard J. Marino, agrees with Altschul:

Since one fourth of my male infant patients are not circumcised, and if the frequency of UTI in the uncircumcised is as high as it is said to be, I should be seeing many UTIs in male infants. If I'm missing the diagnosis, they somehow are getting better without treatment. My experience reinforces the practice of discouraging routine circumcision, a cause of more morbidity than benefit (40).

MYTH: Circumcision prevents phimosis.

FACT: Phimosis (when the opening of the foreskin is so small that the foreskin cannot be retracted over the head of the penis) is normal in infancy (18, 19) and is not an appropriate diagnosis before the age of 18 (19). Furthermore, some men live their entire lives without being able to retract their foreskin, and "...it appears to conclude that the (preputial) space is kept moist and also clean in those with preputial stenosis by the secretions of the prostate, supplemented by the seminal secretion and the mucin content of the secretion of the urethral glands" (41). The normal accumulation of sloughed epithelial cells (smegma) are lysed by these secretions. ("Smegma is probably the most maligned body substance. It is a normal, natural body product no more harmful than ear wax. It is definitely not a carcinogen...Adult smegma serves as a protective, lubricating function for the glans, just as adult smegma in women protects the clitoris" (42). Some men with phimosis, who prefer to have a retractile foreskin, employ nonsurgical measures, i.e., gentle stretching, to achieve the desired goal as described below:

My parents let my foreskin loosen at its own slow rate. I was about 12 before my urethral meatus was visible and 16 before I saw the corona of my glans. Even with this slow loosening of the foreskin, I never experienced irritation or inflammation. Before becoming sexually active, I spent a few minutes each day over a period of several months gradually stretching the foreskin by hand until it would easily retract.--(Personal correspondence to NOCIRC, March 28, 1991).

When scar tissue has formed at the preputial opening secondary to premature retraction or ammoniacal burns, there are surgical techniques (Y-V-plasties and Z-plasty) (43, 44), which can be employed to make the foreskin retractable without amputating it. And if phimosis has been caused by a rare pathologic condition such as balanitis serotica obliterans, only the afflicted area need be removed.

Using the surgical treatment of circumcision to prevent phimosis is a little like preventing headaches by decapitation. It works but it is hardly a prudent form of treatment.--Eugene Robin, MD (35).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

85% of the worlds males are not circumcised. This should tell anyone that most of the worlds men are not riddled with disease and are quite capable of cleaning themselves.

I would like to refute this mistaken belief that women find an intact male repulsive. Some shallow women may, but most of us don't care. As I said in a previous post, its not what her mans jolly roger looks like thats important, its how he uses it :D.

Wow is Jusma Kullailie's post meant to be an exercise in irony or what?

Here we have the poster attacking the thread starter's supposed lack of proof


PROOF PLEASE!!!



What's your proof about the 3-10%?


Now in general it is good practice to read back through a thread for the posts where the thread starter has given proof, again and again ad nauseum. I know it's both annoying for a person who's been involved in a thread to continually have to post their info again and again and I understand looking for info is annoying especially in long threads like this, and that's why I'm gonna leave it at this pointer and not do the work for the objector, except to say: JK- read the thread.


Now the funny thing is the post then goes on to give a number of unsubstantiated claims (highlighted in bold for your convenience ;))


It's been proven that a circumcised penis is better and more hygienic by many doctors.

As a parent and the creator of your child, will you risk your child’s health just because his consent (at a time when he cannot rationally do so) is not there??!
WHY DON'T YOU REPLY TO THIS POINT?

Haven't you heard of that famous saying Prevention is better than cure?

And how does MGM abuse anyone. It pains initially if you are circumcised without anaesthetics, but the future events are worth it.

You seem to like urban legends, here's one (possibly true): Women prefer a circumcised penis.

So are many other medical practices that are painful or unwanted in a child’s opinion, forced upon them. So do we ban all this and sacrifice good health.
Maybe you could call for good practices of circumcision.


Anyone else thing Alanis Morrisette and that annoying song right now? (although the rest of the album rocked, but I digress)

All unsubstantiated claims , ergo I ask you where are these health sacrifices that you seem to think not worth risking a child's life for, or that you think the prevention is better than the cure? Where are these doctors? Where are these women? (and why should that matter - again we're talking about the individual's rights to their intact body)

Where is the proof?

...oh I don't know, sometimes the funny side of the hypocrisy shows up and I laugh but other times I just get frustrated, but I'll give them a chance and read through the rest of the post....



Many people would stop reading and vote AGAINST after this IMO. What you have stated is certainly not debunked and is proven. But this forms the basis of most of your ideals and assumptions.

seriously - read the thread


THAT'S HA X 900 times or Haha X 450!! Man, I am beginning to change my opinion about you as a grumpy ruler. It really is a lot when you can accept it and laugh when the joke's on you!!

You have merely written about the pain (cry baby) and some other points that I'll tackle later.


ah resorting to name-calling
I guess I should stop taking your thread seriously then, but I'll give you yet another chance.




Contradiction.
Why would people do something for religious reasons if it is not required in their religious practice? Some religions require males to be circumcised and hence it is practiced for religious reasons.

What? - This does not refute what has been said??? The parents have the right to practice their religion on themselves, not others. This sentence does not address this.


SO you could probably restrict circumcision for non-religious reasons if you are hell bent on writing a resolution. Why does the UN have to bother with such issues anyway. Think of the environment, world peace, trade and commerce, etc…


did you even read this reply - it's a clear violation of human rights and the UN has done so before - let me spell it out for you - F. G. M.

What’s so funny about that? We have a bill for FGM.
see? That was in his reply. Can we make this point any more clear??



Secondly, you need to do more homework. The nerve is not present when a child and technically the removed skin is cylindrical shaped.


And thus preventing the super-sensitive erogenous receptors from ever growing there - thanks mum and dad!

Although, I don’t entirely believe everything mentioned above, I think the reasons why circumcision is done covers this part. The statement is exaggeration at its finest. But take it from any circumcised male, there is still enough sensitivity for good pleasure.


I'm gonna spoiler this for Forgottenlands - tis below:
Here's one example Ask the next circed male you meet if they enjoy oral sex? (most I know start going through their shopping list while it happens) They don't have the sensitivity of a foreskin to appreciate it, and their glans is too desensitised by keratinisation. Circumcision robs men of pleasure - maybe if they've had it since childbirth they don't know what they've missed, but circed men who's experienced both sides of the coin will tell you that it's like seeing in colour and then seeing in black and white. Circed men who've chosen to restore at least get the keratinisation to go away (over a period of years though)



Circumcision is ‘the act of circumcising’ and is not exactly a medical terminology (Probably circumcise is). It’s been practiced for centuries, probably since medicine was not an English word.

Wow this objection makes less sense than my mom at happy hour - can we say quibbling?


How can you call a practice that is advantageous for health a barbaric practice even when it is also being done hygienically by experienced doctors?
And why the specific age limit. What if a 13 year old is competent enough to make rational decisions and wants to be circumcised?


Hmm I'll go back again and check but I'm pretty sure it is up for the nation to decide what the recommended age for a person giving their informed consent is.




You are banning circumcision. Why would anyone come as a patient even though it is banned? Again, waste of money.


And one more thing, what if parents have their child circumcised in a Non UN Member nation, they are not in breach of the proposal.


So you see, there really isn’t much in this proposal and is a waste of the UN’s time.

I now stand by my earlier decision, even stronger to vote against this proposal!!


Firstly this proposal does NOT ban circumcision - I mean seriously - you've been posting here a few days yet - how did that not get through?

- em what I'm pretty sure James_xenoland meant here was that males that the nation identifies as capable of making their own decisions are able to be informed on both sides of the issue before they make their decision This is because it is not banned to them, just children under that age. However informed consent is surely better than ignorant consent? Hardly a waste of money.

To the representative from Jusma Kullailie:

Your most recent post was frustrating. There was a heavy level of illogical arguments, and unreasonable treatment of the person you're responding to (it is not okay to respond to "hahahahaX100" with some rebuttle that ends up with a namecalling fest). I would like to suggest you step back from the argument for a bit and think for a bit - at the very least, CALM DOWN and start listening to what people are saying. A lot of sources have been noted on various pages throughout the debate. Please consider looking through them.

You lose more support by being unreasonable even if you have a good argument.

Because quite a lot of stupid proposals seem to hit the floor these days, I'll try and warn beforehand:

this is a silly and useless proposal.

My advice to the author is to stop putting effort in this and rewrite it to a daily issue instead. With an option to just let people sort this out themselves. In Groot Gouda, we have a great respect for cultural diversity. As long as there is no medical reason to stop it, circumcision is allowed. This decision is left to doctors, who know what they're doing, and politicians stay out of this discussion as they should.

But there's no medical reason for it, and thus you are enforcing an irreversible physical change on someone who can't give their consent

That in my eye is not silly or useless, so to be frank if you have nothing constructive or at least worthwhile to say - shoo!