NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed the Female Genital Mutilation Act, and, considering all the research I've conducted (some second-hand researched backed up by further research, some first-hand research), I'm disturbed that there does not appear to be a Male Genital Mutilation Act. I'm even more disturbed that some countries routinely practice this.

My proposal (rough draft so far) is as follows - can I have some feedback please? Thanks.

Male Genital Mutilation

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Multiland

OBSERVING that Male Genital Mutilation (hereafter MGM) is performed ritually and/or for supposed religious reasons in some cultures

RECOGNISING that numerous studies such as those of the organisation NoCirc have shown MGM to be at least as dangerous and traumatic as Female Genital Mutilation (hereafter FGM) and that the safety of male children is just as important as that of female children

ALARMED by the long-term effects of MGM, including prolonged pain, Meatitis (a condition in which the urinary meatus becomes inflamed and ulcerated), Meatal stenosis (a condition in which constriction of the meatus impedes or blocks the flow of urine, increasing the risk of infection due to the urine retained), Preputial stenosis which may require surgery, and other physical effects

CONCERNED about the long-term mental effects of MGM, including the sense of loss at having had part of one’s body forcibly removed at the behest of one’s own parents whom one relies on to protect (not harm) one’s self

DEEPLY DISTURBED that many males are subjected to MGM against their will

UNDERSTANDING that education is a necessary tool in helping a change in law to succeed

REALISING that MGM has no health or hygiene benefits or any benefits other than cosmetic appeal

REALISING that continuing to allow MGM whilst outlawing FGM is to suggest that male children are less important than female children

RECOGNISING that a person under 18 years of age can not freely consent and that an adult should not be given the right to consent to a dangerous and painful operation for a child (especially one with such adverse long-term physical and mental effects) if that operation is not necessary for health reasons

REQUIRES that:

1. All States outlaw MGM

2. Calls upon states to fund programs educating citizens about the dangers of MGM

3. Urges states to avoid using the alternative phrase “Male Circumcision”, as this sometimes leads to MGM being seen as something that is not dangerous and traumatic for the victim.

OOC: Would you mind giving a link, OOC, to some established research that supports this proposal?

OOC: No I wouldn't mind, just didn't know if I was allowed to put external links and the proposal took a while to write so I didn't want it deleted. I have to go home and sleep now (I'm on the 24-hour computers at my university as I don't have my own and it's nearly 4am) but I'm going to put links to research in the general board.

I've edited this - see my post below for why please.

This sums up my position nicely.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/notagain.JPG

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This sums up my position nicely.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/notagain.JPG

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I just saw James Xenoland the other day - can't wait to see his comment when he sees his pet project revived :D

OOC: I've just been going through the UN resolutions rules and as I can't post links to documents in the real world according to the rules, to be on the safe side I'm going to assume that also means websites as they may be considered types of documents. I'm going to post links to my research (which is NOT just websites) on the general board later when I'm on a better computer. I feel really strongly about this proposal, it's just a shame it might be more difficult to have it happen in real life - since when was the safety of male children less important than the safety of female children?

OK, I see this as a religious freedom vs. public health debate, so I could be persuaded either way depending on the seriousness of the health risks. I will read through your references when I have the time.

About your draft,
1. Remove the RL references, those are not allowed
2. I think your list of health conditions is too technical to be of general interest, and some people may interpret it as scaremongering. I suggest you refer to serious health problems, without specifying them.
3. You do not have the right, in my view, to outlaw the practice in consenting adults.

OOC: Feel free to post a link in the forum, just not inside the proposal.

I believe this is a good idea...
yes, remove the rl references and see if you can tone down the technical terms but keep the description of them..
for instance use just one term, related to the worst health problem and talk a little about how painful it is

The UN Bill of rights allows for religious freedom as does other acts.

therefore what the honourable member from Multiland is proposing goes against existing laws and national customs and is something in my opinion we shouldn't be dealing with.

the fact that FGM has been passed has little relevance here. This is a different case altogether.

I would also like to see the research that the Multiland ambassador based their draft on rather than take this at face value. We are talking about something which could become law i would be failing in my duty if this wasn't properly looked into.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero, Deputy Ambassador

The FGMA is a different issue entirely. If this resolution is passed it will be a violation of religious freedoms in which male circumcision is a religious act in Islam and Judaism. I doubt this would ever pass and if it did I would leave the UN until this reslolution woud be overturned. The UN has no right to ban male circumcision. Recent studies have shown the complete opposite of what Mutiland has said in the resolution. Studies have shown that circumcision can reduce the rate of STDs including AIDS.
Sincerely,
Deraj Nesnah, Chief Ambassador of the United Socialist States of Ameron

Even further, I believe that some people who are not bound to male circumcision by their religion do it anyway for health reasons.

OOC: What are RL references? Real-life references? There aren't any, just a brief statement of the health problems as there was in the FGM resolution.

With regards to religious freedom, FGM is practiced for so-called religious reasons in some countries, so isn't the FGM Act violating that? Technically yes, but as it's been voted FOR more than AGAINST, I think it demonstrates the view that the safety of children (and women) is more important than harming them for religious reasons.

With regards to the view that FGM is different, I would like to know HOW? FGM is practiced for religious reasons, so is MGM. FGM is harmful to children, so is MGM. FGM is often done without consent, so is MGM. The only difference that I can see, unless you are saying that male children are less important than female children, is the fact that one operation involved the vagina and one involves the penis.

I'm adding some of my research to general board now - will be submitted within the next 30 mins or a lot less) hopefully. /OC

Even further, I believe that some people who are not bound to male circumcision by their religion do it anyway for health reasons.

But that's irrelevant - if they are adults and consent, that's fine and their choice. What I'm referring to is MGM on children or on other people who have not consented.

The FGMA is a different issue entirely. If this resolution is passed it will be a violation of religious freedoms in which male circumcision is a religious act in Islam and Judaism. I doubt this would ever pass and if it did I would leave the UN until this reslolution woud be overturned. The UN has no right to ban male circumcision. Recent studies have shown the complete opposite of what Mutiland has said in the resolution. Studies have shown that circumcision can reduce the rate of STDs including AIDS.
Sincerely,
Deraj Nesnah, Chief Ambassador of the United Socialist States of Ameron

Can you show those studies? By sheer logic, I fail to see how MGM can help prevent STD's, considering the fact that regardless of circumcision, the ejaculation comes from the same place.

But that's irrelevant - if they are adults and consent, that's fine and their choice. What I'm referring to is MGM on children or on other people who have not consented.

Actually, that's what I was referring to as well. Many people circumcise their male infant children for health reasons.

No support.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Actually, that's what I was referring to as well. Many people circumcise their male infant children for health reasons.

The problem is with routine circumcisions wherein the parents do no research at all (this is especially true in the UNited States). Less than 20% of males in Europe, Australia, and Canada are being circumsized, yet there are no reports of wide spread penil infections. This leads many to question the ability of american doctors to deal with the intact penis.

In addition, most major medical bodies in America no longer recommend routine circumcision (that is, for health reasons). AMong these are the American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The World Health Organizaton, and The American Association of Family Physcians.

I will go even further and say that
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/bowel.jpe

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

A more tact approach would be to attempt to institute a kind of "waiting period" or "information period" within hospitals (however, this would not be needed in ALL countries, which is a problem.) A one day waiting period would allow for bonding with the child, more stability in the child's health, and the ability of parents to access information (perhaps a single page sheet showing the pros and cons.) In countries where routine circumcision numbers are high (again, non religious cuttings) many people have the procedure done because it is what the generations before them have done. Because a woman tends to spend 2 days (or more) in the hospital, a waiting period may benefit both parties (that is, the parents and the child). This however, may be more of a nation by nation issue rather than one for the UN.

OBSERVING that Male Genital Mutilation (hereafter MGM) is performed ritually and/or for supposed religious reasons in some cultures


Supposed religious reasons? Was this written for the express purpose of sounding condescending? The only reason I can think of to include "supposed" is to challenge religious groups to somehow "prove" that there is a religious purpose to circumcision, and make them more hostile towards the intent of this amendment.


CONCERNED about the long-term mental effects of MGM, including the sense of loss at having had part of one’s body forcibly removed at the behest of one’s own parents whom one relies on to protect (not harm) one’s self


Having been "mutilated", I can assure you there is no long term mental trauma because my parents betrayed me

The nation of Miconta sees no reason for this amendment, as male circumcision is nowhere near as potent a human rights issue as female circumcision was when that amendment was passed

I was just thinking a few days ago that maybe it was time to have another go at this debate and the quite sexist based reasoning surrounding it.


The FGMA is a different issue entirely.
No, it's really not!

Next

If this resolution is passed it will be a violation of religious freedoms in which male circumcision is a religious act in Islam and Judaism. I doubt this would ever pass and if it did I would leave the UN until this reslolution woud be overturned. The UN has no right to ban male circumcision.
Violation of who's religious freedoms? A three day old child?!

Try again

Recent studies have shown the complete opposite of what Mutiland has said in the resolution. Studies have shown that circumcision can reduce the rate of STDs including AIDS.
Sincerely,
Deraj Nesnah, Chief Ambassador of the United Socialist States of Ameron
Irrelavant. You don't go around cutting off the hands of poor children because they might be more likely to commit a crime as an adult, do you?

Oh and it was only AIDs, not other STDs. Plus I don't put much weight in it anyways.

I'm sorry but you fail round one.


P.S. Flibbleites, maybe you should stop posting pictures and start debating. This is a debate... You do know that, right? ;)

P.S. Flibbleites, maybe you should stop posting pictures and start debating. This is a debate... You do know that, right? ;)
I believe the the UN cards I played sum up my points quite nicely.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Violation of who's religious freedoms? A three day old child?!

Try again


Ahem.
And every male among you shall be circumcised.

Sounds like a violation of someone's religious freedom to me.

For goodness sake! I think that some of the national representatives here today could do with a few hours on a psychologist's couch rather than flogging a dead horse on the floor of this august Assembly. That people would actually advocate taking away parental rights to work toward their children's health while simultaneously trying to restrict national sovereignty in a unilateral and final action shows the depth of depravity from which ideas such as this proposal originate. Once again, we are thrust into another debate on whether the UN should restrict rights under the guise of improving them. What could possibly be next? War is peace? Ignorance is knowledge? Gods save us all from the twits and fluffies!

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

OOC: What are RL references? Real-life references? There aren't any, just a brief statement of the health problems as there was in the FGM resolution.

With regards to religious freedom, FGM is practiced for so-called religious reasons in some countries, so isn't the FGM Act violating that? Technically yes, but as it's been voted FOR more than AGAINST, I think it demonstrates the view that the safety of children (and women) is more important than harming them for religious reasons.

With regards to the view that FGM is different, I would like to know HOW? FGM is practiced for religious reasons, so is MGM. FGM is harmful to children, so is MGM. FGM is often done without consent, so is MGM. The only difference that I can see, unless you are saying that male children are less important than female children, is the fact that one operation involved the vagina and one involves the penis.

I'm adding some of my research to general board now - will be submitted within the next 30 mins or a lot less) hopefully. /OC
Yes, but the only thing FC does (besides for religous purposes) end a women's ability to reproduce. MC simply cuts off a flap of flesh that is useless. It actually improves a persons health, not hurt it.
OOC: I saw a thread like this in general

Yes, but the only thing FC does (besides for religous purposes) end a women's ability to reproduce.

Wrong.

Anyway, to clarify my position on this whole issue. I take religious freedom very seriously, and would only consider supporting something like this if there was *overwhelming* evidence of the health risks. So far, I have seen a lot of rethoric arguing this, but no factual information. Can someone please, OOC, post a link to a serious and unbiased study about this? Otherwise, I am totally against.

I think the issue is arising because the numbers of people circumcising are falling. Although many in the USA are unaware of it, the rate has fallen 30% in recent years in AMerica and now stands at around 50-60%, varying greatly by region. The numbers are 20% and below in Europe, Australia, and Canada. Major medical organizations are no longer recommending routine circumcision (In the USA, these organizations are The American Medical Association, The American Academy of PEdiatrics, The American Association of Family Physicians, and, although not a USA group, the World Health Organization). The equivalents of these groups throughout other countries such as Britain, France, Canada, AUstralia, Germany, Sweden, NOrway...ok, if I list them all it would take a while, have also ended their recommendations for routine circumcisions (long before the US did). These associations and groups of doctors all speak of religious understanding and do not include this group in their recommendations.

Can you show those studies? By sheer logic, I fail to see how MGM can help prevent STD's, considering the fact that regardless of circumcision, the ejaculation comes from the same place.
I can see that no matter what anyone says you are not going to be happy. Here is a link http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm

Many worry about UTIs as a reason for circumcision. The Canadian Pediatric Society (which is against routine circumcision, as I have already stated) has put out this statement:

http://www.infocirc.org/uti.htm

They also believe that circumcision can lead to a disruption of the ability to breastfeed:

http://www.infocirc.org/breastfd.htm

This may account for the overwhelmingly large numbers of women in the USA (a country where circumcision is routine and frequent) complain of being "unable" to breastfeed due to latch problems and other "relationship" issues with their child.

Just thought I'd post these because they are interesting and usually not considered in the large picture of circumcision debate.

Oh yay! We're gonna talk about our Johnsons again.
I'm quite happy with mine thank you.

What's that you say? Sex is better if you're not circumcised?
It's already the greatest thing since sliced bread, how much better does it need to be?

I'm supposed to hate my parents because they chopped off a half-inch of Mr. Pokey and now the girls aren't impressed with it?
Do I really need that missing half-inch?
Give me a break.

No support from Yelda.

Interesting how many people have misconceptions or distorted understandings on this matter because of their background. I’m not pretending I’m any more educated than anyone else, but the least people can do is look at it from the other angle

http://www.noharmm.org/geography.htm

Another link: http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm

Numerous other documents: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GEUA,GEUA:2005-47,GEUA:en&q=Male+Genital+Mutilation

I’ve quoted relevant parts from the first link which explains a bit about MGM: Male Genital Mutilations
Incision, the least harsh of the male genital mutilations, consists of either a simple cut on the foreskin to draw blood, or a complete cutting through of the foreskin in a single place so as to partly expose the glans. Incision existed primarily among peoples of the East African coast, in Island Asia and Oceania, and among a few peoples of the New World. Circumcision, a harsher mutilation where the foreskin of the penis is cut or torn away, was and is practiced across much of the Old World desert belt, and in a number of Sub-Saharan Central Asian, and Pacific Ocean groups. When performed during puberty, circumcision was largely a premarital rite of pain endurance.
Circumcision only gained the status of being a "hygienic operation" in relatively recent times, although the most recent and best medical evidence has in fact shown that routine circumcision has neither short nor long-term hygienic benefits; indeed, it has mild to severe negative psychological and physiological effects. Particularly in the bush, under less than sanitary conditions, the circumcised boy infant or child would have been at greater risk than the uncircumcised boy. The most severe male genital mutilation, a form of skinstripping, was practiced along the Red Sea coast in Arabia and Yemen, at least into the 1800s. Here, in an endurance ritual performed on a potential marriage candidate, skin was flayed from the entire penile shaft as well as from a region of the pubis. The community blessing would only be bestowed upon the young man who could refrain from expressing emotion during the event (DeMeo 1986).
Another harsh ritual, subincision, was practiced primarily among Australian aborigines and on a few Pacific Islands. It consisted of a cutting open of the urethra on the underside of the penis down to as far as near the scrotum; the subincision ritual was generally preceded by a circumcision ritual. The practice did not confer any contraceptive advantage, and no claims as such were made for it by the Australian aborigines. The geographical aspects of the Australian genital mutilations has been studied previously, and two competing theories were developed: Northwest Australia, specifically the Kimberly region, was identified as a location where genital skin stripping was performed, and some believed that circumcision and subincision spread into Australia from that region, diffusing to the east and south. On the other hand, independent development of the traits within Australia has been argued, based upon the observation that the most intense forms of subincision occurred in the desert center of the continent, being absent in a few border regions where only circumcision was practiced (DeMeo 1986).
The perceived similarity between these two mutilations (FGM and MGM) is the norm in African societies, where both these practices are common. In Western societies, on the other hand, especially those that mutilate most of their males, such as in the United States and Israel, male genital mutilation is considered to be desirable and female genital mutilation abhorrent.
It is easy to perceive the actions of others from less sophisticated cultures as immoral and one's own, similar actions as justified. After all, African religions are primitive, and African doctors are only quack doctors who cannot publish the medical justifications for mutilation in respectable medical journals. Similarly the vast demographic of these forums hails from western societies, and thus this forums views are colored and distorted by our demographics. Who here hails from Africa or has contact with such cultures?
Western doctors and others have no apparent moral or ethical dilemma when it comes to mutilating non-consenting minors. If they think that religious demands for genital mutilation are superior to human rights, why respect Judaism and Islam but not African religions and other cultures where FGM is practiced?
If they know that human rights are superior to professing one's religion on the bodies of others, why are they discriminating against victims of Jewish genital circumcision? Are their human rights and suffering less important than those of African girls?
The lower morbidity and mortality of male genital mutilation in a hospital setting compared with the traditional setting can also be achieved for female genital mutilation if performed in a hospital setting. The higher health toll of traditional female genital mutilation can thus be eliminated. They suggest that male genital mutilation be tolerated because it is widespread, but should crimes be tolerated just because there are many perpetrators?
If we go along with this logic we should aim to eliminate female genital mutilation only in Western societies, where it is rare, and not in African countries, where it is widespread. It is said that male genital mutilation does less harm, but this is true only if it is compared with excision or infibulation. If it is compared with the most common form of female genital mutilation, the Sunni circumcision, the harm is the same. Indeed, unlike male genital mutilation, which is much more publicly verifiable, female genital mutilation is often only a symbolic procedure with no physical mutilation.
In conclusion, I’d argue it is only fair and proper that if the UN sees fit to infringe upon the religion and cultural freedoms of some nations, then it should do exactly the same with other nations. Everything I have read suggests there is not really the huge difference people are so eager to think – and that people only accept it within their culture because it is a custom which is so common.
I'm supposed to hate my parents because they chopped off a half-inch of Mr. Pokey and now the girls aren't impressed with it?
Do I really need that missing half-inch?
Give me a break.A lot of people feel that way: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=236
http://www.johmann.net/essays/psychological-harm-of-circumcision.html
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html
http://mensightmagazine.com/Library/circboys.htm

There is growing evidence to suggest that the practice of Circumcision does cause psychological harm. That bod of evidence mainly deals with FGM (primarily because it's western literature), but there is a growing and substancial body of evidence which suggests there is really little difference between MGM and FGM.

against. i am circumcised, and i have no problems.

Out of curiosity, is this proposal made with serious intentions, to challenge western culture, or to have the female circumcision resolution repealed?

i think it is supposed to be serious. then again, it could just be pandering to the extremists in our society.

Which society? All of Europe, AUstralia, Canada, and numerous others have circumcision numbers well below 20%. I think your comment about extremists in "our society" is probably just another narrow minded american (Who probably doesn't even realize that circumcision numbers in the USA are now around only 50%).

Which society? All of Europe, AUstralia, Canada, and numerous others have circumcision numbers well below 20%. I think your comment about extremists in "our society" is probably just another narrow minded american (Who probably doesn't even realize that circumcision numbers in the USA are now around only 50%).
probably. i am in AU, and i didnt know those figures. my fiance and i are actually concidering this atm, because we have a child on the way. also, it has been proven that having it can lead to infections, so who knows...

I believe a proposal like this is somewhat ignorant for many reasons, but if just reading it makes people research the idea, then its not in vain. I'm glad families like yours are starting to at least consider an alternative. The best we can do for our families is make informed decisions (sorry for the comment about the american thing...I am american and I have found that many feel "everyone" is circumcisized and dont even question it after birth)

Oh yay! We're gonna talk about our Johnsons again.
I'm quite happy with mine thank you.

What's that you say? Sex is better if you're not circumcised?
It's already the greatest thing since sliced bread, how much better does it need to be?

I'm supposed to hate my parents because they chopped off a half-inch of Mr. Pokey and now the girls aren't impressed with it?
Do I really need that missing half-inch?
Give me a break.

No support from Yelda.
Wow.. Way to miss 90% of the point and base your views on the least important issue....:rolleyes:


If there's one thing I've noticed about debating this issue. It's the almost complete ignorance and lack of respect on the part of 95% of the people posting in opposition. (I.E. different then FGM, medical myths, religious rights, etc.) With the exception of maybe people using the NS argument.

against. i am circumcised, and i have no problems.I'm sure there are women out there who have been circumcised but also have no problems. That did nothing to stop the UN legislating. think it is supposed to be serious. then again, it could just be pandering to the extremists in our society.I think using that particular phrase highlights your lack of understanding on the issue. I'm not an extremist, but someone who has taken time to understand the issue. also, it has been proven that having it can lead to infections,Hmmm...maybe you have looked into it. But I find the idea of you labelling me an extremist is absurd.If there's one thing I've noticed about debating this issue. It's the almost complete ignorance and lack of respect on the part of 95% of the people posting in opposition. (I.E. different then FGM, medical myths, religious rights, etc.) With the exception of maybe people using the NS argumentI have to entirely agree - there are a lot of nations who would do better if they were not so dismissive. The only reason NatSov is a stronger argument is that it does not rely on any knowledge of the practice - it's easier.

But at the end of the day, is it really that difficult for people to run a search on google?

I’ll throw our more links and evidence on the hope that people will be encouraged to research rather than spout dogma.

https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.

http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate.
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1001795&pagename=CHN-RCS%2FCHNResource%2FFAQCHNResourceTemplate&c=CHNResource&lang=En You don’t have to circumcise your baby boy. Many doctors think you shouldn’t. In fact, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not recommend circumcision for newborns/
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
And if you don’t believe that some people resent being circumcised: http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/anarchotic/itznutzcirc.html
Note: It’s a tad extreme. Writen by a jew who opposes circumcision

Another one if you argue about religious grounds: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/JAC, Jews Against Circumcision, is a diverse group of Jews from every english-speaking country on the planet. We range in observance from Secular Jews to Orthodox. We even have some Rabbis in our group. We also consist of people from every socio-economic class and education level.

We have come to realize that mutilating a male's genitalia in the name of religion is not acceptable. We are not superstitious and uneducated people anymore. No loving God would demand this. It is ridiculous to think so.

Sweden has legislated against MGM already (want to call them extremists?????): http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Jews_Protest_Swedish_Circumcision_Restriction_07JUN01.htmThe law was passed after a circumcision led to the death of a Muslim boy. Both Jews and Muslims practice circumcision for religious reasons with Jews performing the rite when the child is eight days old and Muslims when they are considerably older.
A working paper by a swede on MGM: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/hofvander1/Female genital mutilation continues by the hundreds of thousands in many African countries (and among migrants to the US and the Europe!) in spite of strong reactions from the UN and the international community, not least from Women's organizations that is not compatible with the Child Convention.

Male genital mutilation which is performed on 100 times more victims has attracted much less attention and interest although this operation should also be listed as incompatible with the Child Convention. It is time for this medically unnecessary operation to be brought out into the light and scrutinized.

We as doctors have a clear responsibility to take a lead to start combating this medieval and brutal rite some of which may have had a religious origin but which is now much more to give an ethnic marker and a social happening. If anything it should be postponed to the late teens when the child may decide for himself. Or be transformed to a non-surgical symbolic rite.

It should be pointed out also that the tradition continues much due to strong economic incentives. It gives a good pay to be a circumciser either you be a doctor in the US or a barber in Africa! In the US some 400 dollars for a few minutes work!

Sometimes you feel ashamed of belonging to the profession!
Canadian group considers MGM infraction on human rights: http://www.canadiancrc.com/circumcision/circumcision.htmThe Canadian Children's Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.

Our position is that all children should be protected from all forms of genital mutilation (circumcision of all types) including but not limited to, circumcision that doesn't affect sexual function or that may be viewed by others as sexual enhancement surgery. Male circumcision does affect sexual function.

Canada and many other countries have responded positively to the U.N. initiatives to stop female genital mutilation (FGM), so female genital mutilation in Canada is all but non existent and is by law aggravated assault, an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

It is unfortunate that these women's groups only sought the protection of female children and not that of male children. The lack of concern and effort to protect male children has been viewed by some as a control and misandry issue of the western radical women's groups.

There is much evidence in the various articles and documents on this website and elsewhere that suggests that the radical western feminists' groups have unfairly blamed the female circumcision (genital mutilation) issue as being some form of male dominance or control issue over women in countries that previously practiced female genital mutilation. The evidence is substantially to the contrary.

A tragedy is occurring in Canada right now. Canada's health services have recognized that they shouldn't be paying for circumcision. It has no value as a health measure. Yet parents, out of ignorance, are insisting that it be done.

More?

http://www.canadiancrc.com/circumcision/circumcision_medical_opinions.htm
2003 British Medical Association
“The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. . . . Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child's interests. . . . The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child.”

OOC: there is a difference between male and female circumcision. The latter is unquestionably a bad thing. The former... well, the jury's out (and not even close to a verdict), and this isn't a strong enough basis in my eyes for legislating on the issue.

As for the 'American bias' of opponents, I'm British and had no idea until now that circumcision was even widespread in the US. I think very few non-Jews are circumcised in the UK, though in fairness I have no idea what position other minority faiths adopt with regards to this.

OOC: there is a difference between male and female circumcision. The latter is unquestionably a bad thing. The former... well, the jury's out (and not even close to a verdict), and this isn't a strong enough basis in my eyes for legislating on the issue.The only reason we know the first is a definate bad thing is the huge body of evidence presented on it. That's mainly because of a number of western groups. I doubt African groups see it the same.

MGM is not as widely documented, mainly because the number of western groups who concern themselves with it are fewer. I doubt African groups see it as different to FGM - and possibly see the two as the same issue. I know I do having researched it further.

The main reason - I suspect - that nothing has been done so far to legislate against MGM is the political power of a certain group who would oppose it.

As for the 'American bias' of opponents, I'm British and had no idea until now that circumcision was even widespread in the US. I think very few non-Jews are circumcised in the UK, though in fairness I have no idea what position other minority faiths adopt with regards to this.My brother is circumcised for medical reasons - he had complications and circumcision was the best option to resolve.

I understand some Islamic groups practice circumcision.

I do think there is scope for a resolution which prohibits or restricts MGM.

There is human rights - The Child Protection Act says "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)"
It's vague, but possibly appropiate - I know RL nations and organisations have taken that stance with regards to the (all RL) U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the U.N. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

There are other reasons which I shall go into when I have the time.

Edit: I don't think there is enough to outlaw the practice of circumcision outright - there are sometimes viable medical conditions which mean it is a viable option. However, some of the other practices of MGM should be outlawed as they provide no medical viability. I'd also like a resolution which encouraged member states to promote the known facts about MGM - that circumcision is NOT a healthier option (which is the general consensus amongst medical practitioners as I have published), that preserves a practitioners rights to refuse to perform the process, and to outlaw unlicenced circumcision by unqualified people.

Edit 2: The religous argument means diddly squat in my opinion - We passed FGM which blatantly goes against African religion.

Edit 3: Unless your nation forces people to have "the chop", I don't see how this infringes on nat sov. Indeed, I'd argue it promotes personal soverignty to an extent, ensures medical standards are upheld, and educates the public.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
Region of England (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_region/region=england)
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

RECOGNISING that a person under 18 years of age can not freely consent and that an adult should not be given the right to consent to a dangerous and painful operation for a child (especially one with such adverse long-term physical and mental effects) if that operation is not necessary for health reasons

REQUIRES that:

1. All States outlaw MGM


Why restrict it specifically? This is easily applied to any form of bodily mutilation, tattoos and body piercings included. If we're going to restrict some, why not all?

Edit 2: The religous argument means diddly squat in my opinion - We passed FGM which blatantly goes against African religion.

This isn't convincing enough. I could see this as an argument to repeal female circumcision, but not to restrict male circumcision.

Forgive my ignorance, isn't female circumcision far more dangerous to a woman's health than male circumcision is to a man's?

Edit 3: Unless your nation forces people to have "the chop", I don't see how this infringes on nat sov. Indeed, I'd argue it promotes personal soverignty to an extent, ensures medical standards are upheld, and educates the public.

It infringes on national sovereignty in that Krioval would like to allow people to do as they please to the largest extent possible. Banning something restricts both national and popular sovereignty in cases like these. Besides, if medical research demonstrates that circumcision is more harmful than beneficial, Krioval would likely act to restrict it all by itself. No need for the heavy hand of the UN to interfere.

Finally, some children in Krioval are given small tattoos at their "coming of age" ceremony, at all of thirteen years of age. Steps are taken to minimize pain and error, and the tradition is important to our culture. Perhaps there are nations who find that coming to heel at the behest of a world government is worth obliterating any unique expressions of culture and faith, but Krioval is not one of them. Until it is demonstrated that the acts depicted here are of sufficient danger to children to merit international intervention, we will not support this. Besides, more (male) children are at risk from eating too much junk food in Krioval than they are from being circumcised.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

It infringes on national sovereignty in that Krioval would like to allow people to do as they please to the largest extent possible. Banning something restricts both national and popular sovereignty in cases like these. Besides, if medical research demonstrates that circumcision is more harmful than beneficial, Krioval would likely act to restrict it all by itself. No need for the heavy hand of the UN to interfere.

Finally, some children in Krioval are given small tattoos at their "coming of age" ceremony, at all of thirteen years of age. Steps are taken to minimize pain and error, and the tradition is important to our culture. Perhaps there are nations who find that coming to heel at the behest of a world government is worth obliterating any unique expressions of culture and faith, but Krioval is not one of them. Until it is demonstrated that the acts depicted here are of sufficient danger to children to merit international intervention, we will not support this. Besides, more (male) children are at risk from eating too much junk food in Krioval than they are from being circumcised.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval
So I take it that the lesser forms of FGM is legal in Krioval?

There are a couple of reasons I think this is crazy.

1. Uncircumcised penis' are harder to clean.
Some men don't bother to pull back the skin to clean well. (they stink! I've done my own research and know this to be a fact.).

2. Penis cancer has only occured in uncircumcised men.
There has NEVER been a case of penis cancer in a penis that was circumcised. So for health reasons it makes since to protect the child from a future of possible penis cancer. You may argue that a man can choose to be circumcised after reaching the age of 18. Yeah right... how many 18 year olds are going to go to a doctor and say "chop it off doc". I think most of them would NOT, and some of them would end up loosing their penis to cancer because of a stupid law.

So basicly the choice is this: a little clip as a baby or gamble that it won't rot and fall off later. How many gamblers are among us? Maybe post a poll on that?

1. Uncircumcised penis' are harder to clean.
Some men don't bother to pull back the skin to clean well. (they stink! I've done my own research and know this to be a fact.).
i have also heard it can cause infection if soap isnt rinsed out properly. not to mention, whilst in the nappy, urine and fecies can get trapped in there too, also leading to infection.... kinda seems to me 6 to one, half a dozen the other, but something can go wrong no matter what.

A few things to address here - most are pretty valid points.

This isn't convincing enough. I could see this as an argument to repeal female circumcision, but not to restrict male circumcision.I'd almost agree if the author was not in my region, and if FGM passed by the largest margin of all time. I don't see it being repealled.

Forgive my ignorance, isn't female circumcision far more dangerous to a woman's health than male circumcision is to a man's?The figures would indicate that - however, the figures fail to highlight that MGM is generally performed under better conditions and with better health facilities. FGM in RL is performed either in poorer nations, or illegally - thus with poorer conditions.

If you compare female circumcision to non-circumcision there is a benfit in remain uncut. The Male equvilent is not so clear, but whilst in the past there was a belief that circumcision was a safer option, in the last 5 or 6 years there has been a distinct change in those beliefs - medical professionals are now unconvinced about the benefits, and many think non-circumcision is safer.

Uncircumcised penis' are harder to clean.
Some men don't bother to pull back the skin to clean well. (they stink! I've done my own research and know this to be a fact.).Myth, and irrelvent. If men don't clean there that's a personal issue.

Penis cancer has only occured in uncircumcised men.Untrue (http://www.circumstitions.com/AMA.html). Extract from source:Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000). Among uncircumcised men the incidence is estimated to be 2.2/100,000. Six case series published between 1932 and 1986 found that all penile cancers occurred in uncircumcised individuals. Results of one case control study provide an exception to this general rule, although circumcision status was determined by self-report. Nevertheless, this study also found that the absence of neonatal circumcision increased the risk for penile cancer by a factor of 3.2 Other identified risk factors for penile cancer are phimosis (occurring exclusively in uncircumcised males), genital warts, infection with human papilloma virus, large number of sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.[All of which relate to socio-economic correlates of intactness: poor people are more likely to be intact, and to experience carcenogenic factors such as smoking.] Nevertheless, because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, [b]the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified.

So basicly the choice is this: a little clip as a baby or gamble that it won't rot and fall off later. How many gamblers are among us? Maybe post a poll on that?Given that all these PROFESSIONAL groups say otherwise (http://www.canadiancrc.com/circumcision/circumcision_medical_opinions.htm) makes me think you ought to read previous posts before opening your mouth.

i have also heard it can cause infection if soap isnt rinsed out properly. not to mention, whilst in the nappy, urine and fecies can get trapped in there too, also leading to infection.... kinda seems to me 6 to one, half a dozen the other, but something can go wrong no matter what.That's mostly myth as well. I'm not saying there is no risk - but the current trend appears to be a movement towards considering non-circumscion a healthier option. But I agree there is not much in it at present - but that's mainly because research into this matter has only recently started

i am against this. i have seen no real clear-cut argument for or against circumcision. the sole purpose for female genital mutilation is to almost effectivly castrate and imprison women, ie the removal of the labia and other tissue to desensitize women whilst having sex, so they wouldnt be promiscuous and be almost a slave to her husband. on the other hand, male circumcision does not have this underlying meaning, and is either religious or chosen by the parents. due to the limited study of this, a lot is left to speculation, on both sides of the argument. therefor, i believe it should be left to individual nations if they want to allow male circumcision or not.

male circumcision does not have this underlying meaning, and is either religious or chosen by the parents

You are joking right? You've never heard circumcision to show submission to God? Or to be clean and pure? Or to look like his Daddy. They're pretty big underlying meanings.

And did you even read what Hirota put about the different types of male and female circumcision?

I understand some Islamic groups practice circumcision.
Yeah, the Muslim ones.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,

you are joking right? You've never heard circumcision to show submission to God? Or to be clean and pure? Or to look like his Daddy. They're pretty big underlying meanings.

And did you even read what Hirota put about the different types of male and female circumcision?


Yeah, the Muslim ones.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,[/QUOTE]
i grew up in australia and have never heard any of those underlying meanings, sorry. the only reasons i have heard are for health reasons, and that it is relgious practice for jews.

and sorry, i dont quite get the meaning of your last section. do you mean we should ban it because muslims practice it?

and sorry, i dont quite get the meaning of your last section. do you mean we should ban it because muslims practice it?
Right before my brain falls into a black hole I just want to say that I do not want to ban it because Muslims do it, I was just correcting what Hirota said about the Muslim practise of circumcision.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

i am against this. i have seen no real clear-cut argument for or against circumcision.From a medical position? There is no clear cut arguement AT THE MOMENT.

the sole purpose for female genital mutilation is to almost effectivly castrate and imprison women, ie the removal of the labia and other tissue to desensitize women whilst having sex, so they wouldnt be promiscuous and be almost a slave to her husband. on the other hand, male circumcision does not have this underlying meaning,I disagree. The origins of MGM are tantamount to slavery. Whilst other justifciations may have since appeared, MGM's origins are commonly published in the past. Freud and other psychoanalysts have discussed male genital mutilations as inducing a form of "castration anxiety" in the child by which the taboo against incest and parricide is pathologically strengthened (DeMeo 1986). Montagu (1946) and Bettelheim ( 1962) have discussed their connections to the male fear of vaginal blood, where menstruation is imitated (subincision), or where the male must be ritually absolved of contact with poisonous childbirth blood (infant circumcision), or hymenal blood (pubertal circumcision). Reich identified genital mutilations as but one, albeit a major one, of a series of brutal and cruel acts directed toward infants and children which possess hidden motives designed to cause a painful, permanent contraction of the child's physical and emotional self. Reich saw the real purpose of circumcision, and other assaults upon the child's sexuality, to be the reduction of the child's emotional fluidity and energy level, and their ability to experience maximal pleasurable genital excitation later in life, a major step in, as he put it, transmuting Homo sapiens into armored Homo normalis. Reich argued that parents and doctors blindly advocated or performed the genital mutilations, and other painful shamanistic medical procedures, in proportion to their own emotional armoring and pleasure-anxiety, in order to make children more like themselves: obedient, docile, and reduced in sexual vigor and emotional vitality (Reich 1967, 1973). In summary, Male genital mutilations are found present in a cultural complex where children, females, and weaker social ethnic groups are subordinated to elder, dominant males in rigid social hierarchies of one form or another.

(most of that was taken from here (http://www.noharmm.org/geography.htm))

and is either religiousWhich is another issue I have - my knowledge of Judaism is limited, so I'm going to have to research further, but I've found sites which dispute this. More on this later.or chosen by the parents. due to the limited study of this, a lot is left to speculation, on both sides of the argument. therefor, i believe it should be left to individual nations if they want to allow male circumcision or not. I disagree. There are medical implications which are unknown and cannot be argued (although by accepting that medical evidence is unclear you've removed one of the foundations justifying circumcision - the burden of proof rests with the advocates of to justify rather than the opponents to unjustify). However, I can also question the other justifications often used. I intend to demonstrate in the next few posts when I have the time. (This discussion is taking up a lot of my spare time, and I don't want my work to suffer.)

Just a bit on Burden of proof and evolution:

Burden of proof
It is not the opponents of male circumcision who need to make a case against the procedure, but its supporters who must prove its necessity: they need to explain why a natural part of the human body, and one common to all primates, is so dangerous that it must be amputated before a baby can talk, crawl or do anything much except scream. But since the operation has become entrenched in the medical culture of English-speaking countries over the past 120 years, it has come to be seen as reasonable, customary or even normal. As the sorcerer's apprentice found to his alarm and cost, starting a practice ("seemed like a good idea at the time …") is often much easier than stopping it. All you need is to get a majority of males over two generations circumcised, and the circumcised penis will come to be seen as both normal and normative. The main reason for circumcision of children is a population of circumcised adults.

Advocates of male circumcision particularly have to

demonstrate (1) that the benefits of the operation significantly outweigh (a) the risks of the procedure; (b) the injury inflicted; (c) the disadvantages of being deprived of the normal anatomy of the penis; and (2) that the operation must be done before the child is able to give legal consent;
explain how a part of the body which has evolved over millions of years could be pathogenic (disease-producing) and must be removed to ensure a normal level of health.

Evolution

Advocates of male circumcision have never been able to explain why all primates (monkeys, chimps etc) have foreskins, or how humans became the most successful mammal on the planet while carrying this supposedly pathogenic burden. For 99 per cent of the million or so years during which modern humans have prospered, males have lived and died with their foreskins intact, and in that time our species managed to colonise just about every corner of the earth. Perhaps the foreskin was a factor in that triumph. There is good evidence that the human foreskin became longer, more luxuriant and more richly networked with sensory nerves than those of our near relatives, suggesting that it must have conferred a selective advantage: the more foreskin you had, the more offspring you left behind, and the more your extra-foreskin genes spread through the population. This could not have happened if the foreskin had been as troublesome as its enemies claim: what has naturally evolved must be presumed to be beneficial or harmless unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

OOC: in today's society, how much of that stuff is actually relivant? most of those notions actually came from the time the notions were concieved. for me, i am 24, and was circumcised, and i feel as though i have no problems. as it is, as someone pointed out, it is only 20% of males that are acutally circumcised in quite a few of western countries. that is 5% less than the number of males in briton that believe women are responsable for rape. the first part taken into concideration...

IC: i question the relevance of most of the stuff you have stated. a lot of this stuff seems like it is rooted in RL. how much of this is actually relevent to the nature of nationstates? who knows, an group of uncircumcised males in Yelda could get an infection that proves it all wrong. there could be a group in another nation that needs the foreskin to be trimmed for safety reasons, because it grows too long and gets caught easily. who knows? it is one thing to come up with all these RL references, but when it comes to applying them to NS, it can be difficult.

OOC again: really, a lot of this discussion should be in the general forum, because this has gone away from NS and has crossed into a RL discussion.

as someone pointed out, it is only 20% of males that are acutally circumcised in quite a few of western countries. that is 5% less than the number of males in briton that believe women are responsable for rape. the first part taken into concideration...I have absolutely no idea why you are trying to throw that particular stat into the debate - it's totally unrelated. (And by the way, the survey population you are citing contained males and females, so you have no way of proving a link between the two using that particular stat).

Second, the number is closer to 60% in the US (although it has apparently lowered recently after a peak in the 1970's following advice by the medical community that it is not beneficial)

IC: i question the relevance of most of the stuff you have stated. a lot of this stuff seems like it is rooted in RL. how much of this is actually relevent to the nature of nationstates? who knows, an group of uncircumcised males in Yelda could get an infection that proves it all wrong.Which proves how incredibly unreliable RP is to justify anything. I could have group of Hirotan scientists prove circumcision gives you AIDS - it's meaningless fun, but can it justify or prove anything? Nope. Does it really give validity to an arguement? nope. there could be a group in another nation that needs the foreskin to be trimmed for safety reasons, because it grows too long and gets caught easily. who knows? it is one thing to come up with all these RL references, but when it comes to applying them to NS, it can be difficult. Partially why I accepted that medical conditions circumstances need to be considered. Although from my viewpoint, if their forekin is really that dangerous, then they could be an evolutionary (or roleplaying) mistake.

It's why I don't do RP, because at the end of the day, RP is pretty meaningless in this kind of debate, and I'll treat it as such.

I have absolutely no idea why you are trying to throw that particular stat into the debate - it's totally unrelated. He's demonstrating that there are more men in Britian who think women are responsible when they get raped (a reprehensible and undefensible viewpoint) than there are men who are circumcised.

In other words, it's rare, and thus less of an issue.

First of all I'll try and clarify the stats - About one-fifth of men worldwide have been circumcised, At present, around 80 per cent of US males have been circumcised, mostly for non-religious reasons. The frequency of newborn circumcision has fallen in the USA from 90 per cent in the 1950s to around 60 per cent today.

In Korea, more than 90 per cent of men have been circumcised, usually in their teens and twenties.

In the UK in 1948, around 20 per cent of boys were circumcised shortly after birth, more commonly among middle class families and those living in the south of England. Then, 50 per cent of grammar school boys, 84 per cent of public school boys and 60 per cent of graduates were circumcised. By 1975, only 6 per cent of boys born in the UK were circumcised.

(source (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm))

Let's compare to a more appropiate measure shall we? Today in RL, the number of girls and women who have been undergone female genital mutilation is estimated at between 100 and 140 million. It is estimated that each year, a further 2 million girls are at risk of undergoing FGM. (source (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html))

Given that the worlds population is 6,450,000,000 (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)) We could say that ~4% of women suffer from FGM (presuming that 50% of the worlds population is female - I think it's closer to 51%).

Soo, if perceptions of rape are more of an issue than MGM, why are we concerning ourselves with FGM when for every female, there are 5 males who endure varying degrees of MGM?

If the NSUN is concerning itself with how rare an issue is, then we should have done something about MGM already.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying FGM is less of an issue than MGM - I am saying MGM should not be ignored. And further, I have commented on that survey elsewhere (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?showtopic=1325)

Considering the extreme physical trauma caused by FGM (often ranging to inability for proper, nonsexual, function) I think it's a little disengenuous to compare the two. Male circumcision is little more than a cosmetic procedure -- unnecessary, sure, but still cosmetic. A loss of functionality is caused by error or poor hygene on the part of the person doing the procedure, not by the very nature of the procedure itself.

If you want to ban it, be my guest, but don't minimize FGM by trying to pretend the two are somehow equivilent.

If a resolution like this were written and wanted to include a comparison to the female, removal of the clitoral hood is the right comparison. You can get info on this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clitoral_hood

or by googling Clitoral Hood or clitoral prepuce (the correct medical term).

FGM and female circumcision cover a wide range of mutilation. In order for the comparison to work, you would really have to narrow it down.

Considering the extreme physical trauma caused by FGM (often ranging to inability for proper, nonsexual, function) I think it's a little disengenuous to compare the two. Male circumcision is little more than a cosmetic procedure -- unnecessary, sure, but still cosmetic. A loss of functionality is caused by error or poor hygene on the part of the person doing the procedure, not by the very nature of the procedure itself.Oh, I totally agree the negatives of FGM far overshadow any benefits, whilst MGM is unclear. Like I said in my previous post "Just to clarify, I'm not saying FGM is less of an issue than MGM - I am saying MGM should not be ignored." I'm guessing you missed that as it was edited on afterwards :)

If you want to ban it, be my guest, but don't minimize FGM by trying to pretend the two are somehow equivilent.1. I never said the two are the same. Lots of other people have:
http://www.infocirc.org/intactpr.htm
http://www.stopinfantcircumcision.org/deaths.htm
http://www.nocircmo.org/myths.html
http://www.restoremaine.freeservers.com/compare.htm
http://www.menweb.org/svocirc.htm
http://urbanrebel.com/M004.htm
And there are several more. I appreciate the act of MGM can be considered perhaps more trivial than FGM, but that in no way precludes the need for legislation (which I know you recognised, but others have not)

and is either religiousWhich is another issue I have - my knowledge of Judaism is limited, so I'm going to have to research further, but I've found sites which dispute this. More on this later.As promised....In terms of Judaism, Circumcision conflicts with some other Jewish laws. For example, the Torah forbids the torture or causing of pain to any living creature, especially physically assaulting or harming another person (Exodus 21:18-27). Jewish law specifically forbids body modification, including the cutting or marking of the human body (Lev. 19:28). Jews are also required to help those who are helpless, such as infants, and are exempt from performing religious duties that would cause harm.

In terms of Islam, the traditional justification for circumcision is found in some of the sayings of Mohammed. There is no mention of circumcision in the Koran, and in fact some verses seem to oppose it because it conflicts with the Islamic belief that God's creations are perfect. According to the Koran, God "perfected everything He created" (32:7), and alterations of nature are defacements inspired by the devil (4:119). Imam Mahmud Shaltut has stated that he does not see any reason for male or female circumcision, either in the Koran or in the Sunnah of Mohammed.

According to Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahueh, a lawyer of Palestinian origin who has written extensively about circumcision and Islamic law, "Religion has been a means of justifying both male and female circumcision. It is time to expose the irrationality behind this thinking and reveal the harmful influence of some religious circles which are in favour of it or refuse to denounce it."

He notes that "both [male and female circumcisions] are mutilations of healthy sexual organs of non-consenting children." There is no alternative but to condemn the attitude of international and non-governmental organizations which dissociate one type of circumcision from the other, giving legitimacy to male circumcision in the process."

Dr. Aldeeb's article, "To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah" (http://www.noharmm.org/muted.htm), is an in-depth discussion of the Islamic religious and legal arguments surrounding circumcision.

To the representative from Hirota:
You've said that there's no clear medical decision on the topic of male circumcision, at the moment. Which means, in the near or distant future, there just might be a clear medical decision which goes one way or the other. Don't you think you ought to hold off on such a proposal until this decision has been made?

You've also said quite a bit on the subject of "burden of proof," but I can tell by your first or second sentence than you've got it all wrong. Here's where I see you're misapprehendin' the situation: Now, it may be so that the proponents of male circumcision are the ones to look for when searching for proof when it comes to an individual snip, but that's not what we're discussing. If you've forgotten, which it appears you might've, we're discussing whether or not we should be prohibiting all nations from snipping their boys at nine-days-old. In that way, it's an entirely different argument, and the burden is on the shoulders of the proponents of the ban, not the opponents.

As promised....In terms of Judaism, Circumcision conflicts with some other Jewish laws. For example, the Torah forbids the torture or causing of pain to any living creature, especially physically assaulting or harming another person (Exodus 21:18-27). Jewish law specifically forbids body modification, including the cutting or marking of the human body (Lev. 19:28). Jews are also required to help those who are helpless, such as infants, and are exempt from performing religious duties that would cause harm.

In terms of Islam, the traditional justification for circumcision is found in some of the sayings of Mohammed. There is no mention of circumcision in the Koran, and in fact some verses seem to oppose it because it conflicts with the Islamic belief that God's creations are perfect. According to the Koran, God "perfected everything He created" (32:7), and alterations of nature are defacements inspired by the devil (4:119). Imam Mahmud Shaltut has stated that he does not see any reason for male or female circumcision, either in the Koran or in the Sunnah of Mohammed.

According to Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahueh, a lawyer of Palestinian origin who has written extensively about circumcision and Islamic law, "Religion has been a means of justifying both male and female circumcision. It is time to expose the irrationality behind this thinking and reveal the harmful influence of some religious circles which are in favour of it or refuse to denounce it."

He notes that "both [male and female circumcisions] are mutilations of healthy sexual organs of non-consenting children." There is no alternative but to condemn the attitude of international and non-governmental organizations which dissociate one type of circumcision from the other, giving legitimacy to male circumcision in the process."

Dr. Aldeeb's article, "To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah" (http://www.noharmm.org/muted.htm), is an in-depth discussion of the Islamic religious and legal arguments surrounding circumcision.
Regardless of what else they say, Judaism and Islam command circumcision, correct? And while such contradictions might be a joy to look at, they still don't excuse the violation of religious freedoms that this ban would impose, especially on a subject as hazy as the one we're looking at.

Considering the extreme physical trauma caused by FGM (often ranging to inability for proper, nonsexual, function) I think it's a little disengenuous to compare the two. Male circumcision is little more than a cosmetic procedure -- unnecessary, sure, but still cosmetic. A loss of functionality is caused by error or poor hygene on the part of the person doing the procedure, not by the very nature of the procedure itself.

If you want to ban it, be my guest, but don't minimize FGM by trying to pretend the two are somehow equivilent.
i agree with MGH here. personally, i am not for, nor against circumcision, but for choice. at the moment, because of no solid evidence medically for or against it, people should just be given the information and allowed to choose themselves. as MGH said, it is pretty much a cosmetic procedure. you have thrown up information from RL references, i have given 2 NS scenarios and could probably think of more if i could be bothered, but to me, it is down to choice of the individuals, not the UN. as stated, the only thing this comes close to in reguards to FGM is hood romoval, yet you make it out to be as big a deal, reguardless of your saying your not.

i am against this. i have seen no real clear-cut argument for or against circumcision. the sole purpose for female genital mutilation is to almost effectivly castrate and imprison women,
Wrong.. It's another common misconception that FGM is only used for those reasons. In reality, much like MGM, FGM is a cultural rite of passage, performed by other women, not men.


ie the removal of the labia and other tissue to desensitize women whilst having sex, so they wouldnt be promiscuous and be almost a slave to her husband.
News Flash!

Not only have you just described what genital mutilation does to people of either sex, but you've also just listed the one and ONLY reason for male circumcision to begin with! Congratulations.


(1)on the other hand, male circumcision does not have this underlying meaning, (2)and is either religious or chosen by the parents. (3)due to the limited study of this, a lot is left to speculation, on both sides of the argument. therefor, i believe it should be left to individual nations if they want to allow male circumcision or not.

1. Not true. (^ read)
2. So? If parents choose to abuse their children, is that ok?
3. Wait, so we should just let them abuse (one sex) children until idiots stop "coming up with" new reasons to abuse? :rolleyes:



Considering the extreme physical trauma caused by FGM (often ranging to inability for proper, nonsexual, function) I think it's a little disengenuous to compare the two.
Disingenuous! So it's now "disingenuous" to not be sexist?!


Male circumcision is little more than a cosmetic procedure -- unnecessary, sure, but still cosmetic.Wow..just...wow....! :| x 100,000,000

Way to call male and female genital mutilation, "little more than a cosmetic procedure"


A loss of functionality is caused by error or poor hygene on the part of the person doing the procedure, not by the very nature of the procedure itself.
Wrong!

In addition to the "ridged bands" mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis [1]. The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.

This is a highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans [see photo]. It is similar to the frenula found under the tongue, the upper lip and the clitoral hood (female foreskin). For many intact men, the penile frenulum is a male "G-spot" that is highly pleasurable when repeatedly stretched and relaxed during sexual activity [13]. Depending on the surgical method used, the frenulum is partially to completely destroyed by circumcision.


If you want to ban it, be my guest, but don't minimize FGM by trying to pretend the two are somehow equivilent.
Somewhere a feminazi is smiling...:sniper:



If a resolution like this were written and wanted to include a comparison to the female, removal of the clitoral hood is the right comparison. You can get info on this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clitoral_hood

or by googling Clitoral Hood or clitoral prepuce (the correct medical term).

FGM and female circumcision cover a wide range of mutilation. In order for the comparison to work, you would really have to narrow it down.
A partial clitoridectomy would be a more factual comparison.

Quick fact: (FGM is a bigger problem then MGM)

One girl has to go through genital mutilation every 16 seconds. (2,000,000 annually)

One boy goes through a genital mutilation every 2.4 seconds. (13,000,000 annually)

Fact two:

The 2%-10% complication rate cited by others applies only to "medicalized" circumcisions.
Since the majority of male circumcisions in the world are not done in a medical setting, but in unsanitary conditions (the number one cause of death and complication in FGM) with rudimentary and/or unsterilized cutting tools (used razor blades, glass shards, swords, machetes, etc.), there is a strong likelihood that the complication rate far exceeds 10%.

I'm sorry but MGM is a big problem in the world today. It kills more boys then any PC media morons cares to admit or report.

Regardless of what else they say, Judaism and Islam command circumcision, correct? Incorrect. Both cultures continued tribal practices - they are not religous in origin.

Not only have you just described what genital mutilation does to people of either sex, but you've also just listed the one and ONLY reason for male circumcision to begin with! Congratulations.
How is it you consider a loss of sensation to be the primary motivation for male circumcision?

Should be force countries to pass legislation to prevent minors from getting tattoos? Piercings?

i agree with MGH here. personally, i am not for, nor against circumcision, but for choice. at the moment, because of no solid evidence medically for or against it, people should just be given the information and allowed to choose themselves. as MGH said, it is pretty much a cosmetic procedure. you have thrown up information from RL references, i have given 2 NS scenarios and could probably think of more if i could be bothered, but to me, it is down to choice of the individuals, not the UN. as stated, the only thing this comes close to in reguards to FGM is hood romoval, yet you make it out to be as big a deal, reguardless of your saying your not.

from a medical position perhaps - but not from a human rights issue.

Incorrect. Both cultures continued tribal practices - they are not religous in origin.
Regardless of their origin, millenia ago, they are religious practices, and before you infringe on their rights, you've got to have a damn good reason. Now, I'm not so big on legislation being run by the church, but I'm even less a fan of the church being run by legislation.

There's no medical proof that says male circumcision is as harmful as female circumcision, so there's no reason to ban it.

This proposition is premature.

Regardless of their origin, millenia ago, they are religious practices, and before you infringe on their rights, you've got to have a damn good reason. Now, I'm not so big on legislation being run by the church, but I'm even less a fan of the church being run by legislation.
Go get FGM unbanned and then come back and we'll talk about not pushing this issue.


There's no medical proof that says male circumcision is as harmful as female circumcision, so there's no reason to ban it.

This proposition is premature.
Yes it is! Read my last posts please.

OOC:

I often find that the use of the term "feminazi" indicates an inability to address one's opponents' viewpoints, and demonstrates a lack of positive force on one's own side.

On a lighter note, I wonder if this resolution will have any effect on the debatewanking that seems prevalent on this board lately. I mean, loss of sensation and all...

Go get FGM unbanned and then come back and we'll talk about not pushing this issue.



Yes it is! Read my last posts please.

Alright, fella, one question: which is proven to be more dangerous to the individual's health? Female or male? If it becomes a serious health or human rights issue, then it might be worth the sacrifice of some religious freedom. If it ain't, then, well, it aint'.

I read your last posts. You're not making much sense. You're throwing out numbers, hoping we won't read 'em because they make absolutely no point. How many boys die per year as a result of circumcision? And how many boys each year have a circumcision? Compare those with the statistics for female circumcision. It's not a matter of political correctness, it's a matter of sense.

Your last two posts were completely useless to this discussion. One compared statistics in frequency, and the other just made a fool of yourself, pointing out non-issues and misrepresenting the statements of others.

OOC:

I often find that the use of the term "feminazi" indicates an inability to address one's opponents' viewpoints, and demonstrates a lack of positive force on one's own side.

On a lighter note, I wonder if this resolution will have any effect on the debatewanking that seems prevalent on this board lately. I mean, loss of sensation and all...
A feminazi is nothing more then a man hating want to be feminist. Plus I didn't call anybody one, all I did was point out the fact that he/she was basically using feminazi propaganda and nothing more.

A feminazi is nothing more then a man hating want to be feminist. Plus I didn't call anybody one, all I did was point out the fact that he/she was basically using feminazi propaganda and nothing more.
You're not helping your case.

If you're going to debate me, at least read what I have to say.

Disingenuous! So it's now "disingenuous" to not be sexist?!It's disingenuous to compare two completely different things and call them the same. Cutting off a finger and throwing someone in an industrial shredder both mutilate, but to call them the same is grotesque.

Way to call male and female genital mutilation, "little more than a cosmetic procedure"Disengage fingers, engage brain. I never called FGM a cosmetic procedure. I called male circumcision a cosmetic procedure.

Wrong!
[...]
Somewhere a feminazi is smiling...:sniper: This is what passes for debate these days?

Alright, fella, one question: which is proven to be more dangerous to the individual's health? Female or male? If it becomes a serious health or human rights issue, then it might be worth the sacrifice of some religious freedom. If it ain't, then, well, it aint'.
Neither is "more" dangerous then the other.

Unsanitary conditions, not being done by a doctor and lack of any kind of medical follow up is what makes GM dangerous. Not the procedure itself.


I read your last posts. You're not making much sense. You're throwing out numbers, hoping we won't read 'em because they make absolutely no point. How many boys die per year as a result of circumcision? And how many boys each year have a circumcision? Compare those with the statistics for female circumcision. It's not a matter of political correctness, it's a matter of sense.
What the hell are you talking about?!
If I didn't want people to read them then I wouldn't have posted them in bold! :|

Again!

FACT:

One girl has to go through genital mutilation every 16 seconds. (2,000,000 annually)

One boy goes through a genital mutilation every 2.4 seconds. (13,000,000 annually)

FACT two:

The 2%-10% complication rate cited by others applies only to "medicalized" circumcisions.
Since the majority of male circumcisions in the world are not done in a medical setting, but in unsanitary conditions (the number one cause of death and complication in FGM) with rudimentary and/or unsterilized cutting tools (used razor blades, glass shards, swords, machetes, etc.), there is a strong likelihood that the complication rate far exceeds 10%.

The point is that the same things that make FGM so dangerous are no different for MGM. And it's done on males more then 6 times for every one time it's done on females.

As a human rights issue, there can be no difference between the two.

It's the other issues that make FGM so bad. (In the more severe forms of it.)


Your last two posts were completely useless to this discussion. One compared statistics in frequency, and the other just made a fool of yourself, pointing out non-issues and misrepresenting the statements of others.
So facts have nothing to do with this debate now? :rolleyes:

I was just making a point in my second post. (just didn't do a good job of it though.) ;)

Neither is "more" dangerous then the other.

Unsanitary conditions, not being done by a doctor and lack of any kind of medical follow up is what makes GM dangerous. Not the procedure itself.



What the hell are you talking about?!
If I didn't want people to read them then I wouldn't have posted them in bold! :|

Again!

FACT:

One girl has to go through genital mutilation every 16 seconds. (2,000,000 annually)

One boy goes through a genital mutilation every 2.4 seconds. (13,000,000 annually)

FACT two:

The 2%-10% complication rate cited by others applies only to "medicalized" circumcisions.
Since the majority of male circumcisions in the world are not done in a medical setting, but in unsanitary conditions (the number one cause of death and complication in FGM) with rudimentary and/or unsterilized cutting tools (used razor blades, glass shards, swords, machetes, etc.), there is a strong likelihood that the complication rate far exceeds 10%.

The point is that the same things that make FGM so dangerous are no different for MGM. And it's done on males more then 6 times for every one time it's done on females.

As a human rights issue, there can be no difference between the two.

It's the other issues that make FGM so bad. (In the more severe forms of it.)



So facts have nothing to do with this debate now? :rolleyes:

I was just making a point in my second post. (just didn't do a good job of it though.) ;)
If we banned things based purely on the frequency of complications, there would be no automobiles. People would not be allowed to enter their homes, because that's where most injuries occur.

How many deaths or serious medical conditions occur as a result of male circumcision? Out of the 13,000,000 annual circumcisions? What are the similar statistics for female circumcision?

Men and women aren't created equally, there are biological differences. There are going to be differences in statistics. You can't say that "this has complications, so its counterpart must have equal complications!" Female circumcision is liable to have a whole lot more in the way of complications, considering things aren't as protruding on a woman.

Again, if we're going to ban male circumcision based on its alteration of the body without a clear, positive medical tradeoff, why not ban tattoos or body piercings?

If you're going to debate me, at least read what I have to say.

It's disingenuous to compare two completely different things and call them the same. Cutting off a finger and throwing someone in an industrial shredder both mutilate, but to call them the same is grotesque.
:headbang:

Of all the stupid things.... wow..just....wow..!
I'm sorry I can't reply to this again right now.

Proof/reason why it is?


Disengage fingers, engage brain. I never called FGM a cosmetic procedure. I called male circumcision a cosmetic procedure.
...........

Sorry but if it was only a "cosmetic procedure" then there would be no doubt to the fact that it was an abusive practice.

If thing A and B are the same thing and you call thing A something, then it's like you also called thing B it as well.


This is what passes for debate these days?
This coming from the mod of a forum that lets users use "pictures" to argue their points. :rolleyes:

Maybe if I didn't have to go through the same stupid arguments over and over again. Or deal with people who don't have the first clue about this topic every five seconds. I'd be in a better debating mood... I'm sorry.


God, I need sleep..

If we banned things based purely on the frequency of complications, there would be no automobiles. People would not be allowed to enter their homes, because that's where most injuries occur.

How many deaths or serious medical conditions occur as a result of male circumcision? Out of the 13,000,000 annual circumcisions? What are the similar statistics for female circumcision?

Men and women aren't created equally, there are biological differences. There are going to be differences in statistics. You can't say that "this has complications, so its counterpart must have equal complications!" Female circumcision is liable to have a whole lot more in the way of complications, considering things aren't as protruding on a woman.

Again, if we're going to ban male circumcision based on its alteration of the body without a clear, positive medical tradeoff, why not ban tattoos or body piercings?
WHAT are you talking about? Where did you come up with "that?!" We know there are life-threatening complications in males, from circumcision and we know it isn't a low risk.

So please come up with something better then "Men and women aren't created equally."

Of all the stupid things.... wow..just....wow..!
I'm sorry I can't reply to this again right now.

Proof/reason why it is?Burden's on you, cappy.

Sorry but if it was only a "cosmetic procedure" then there would be no doubt to the fact that it was an abusive practice.What kind of nonsense is this? All cosmetic surgery could be termed as "mutilating" the body, and yet it isn't termed as abusive.

If thing A and B are the same thing and you call thing A something, then it's like you also called thing B it as well.Quit hiding behind semantics. Male circumcision is NOT the same thing as FGM. Just because you slap the word "mutilation" on both doesn't make them the same any more than you using the name "James" makes you a Biblical prophet.

This coming from the mod of a forum that lets users use "pictures" to argue their points.I'm not debating them, I'm debating you. If you want to continue these antics, do so elsewhere. I rarely enter into debates on this forum, but when I do, I expect people to be actually able to debate. If you're going to rely on semantic gymnastics and dismissive statements, then take it elsewhere.

Maybe if I didn't have to go through the same stupid arguments over and over again. Or deal with people who don't have the first clue about this topic every five seconds.Maybe if your tactics involved more than calling people stupid...

God, I need sleep..So go sleep. Don't shit in my forums just because it's past your bedtime.

This coming from the mod of a forum that lets users use "pictures" to argue their points.
I feel compelled to reply to this as I'm sure that it was at least partially aimed at me. If you follow the UN forum you'll notice that I rarely use the UN cards, hell about the only time I use smilies is when I'm making a joke, and if you have a problem with my way of debating this topic that I believe the UN shouldn't even be dealing with then...:upyours:

Oh, and if you want me to change my debate style all I can say is this...
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/tatu.jpe

Can we at least try and play nicely?

WHAT are you talking about? Where did you come up with "that?!" We know there are life-threatening complications in males, from circumcision and we know it isn't a low risk.

So please come up with something better then "Men and women aren't created equally."
There are biological differences between men and women, correct? Can we agree on this? If we can't, then I'd very much like you to go back to middle or high school, retake your sex ed, and then return. There is likely to be a higher complication rate because of the inherent differences in biology (in this case, the difference between external and more-or-less internal genitalia).

We know there are life-threatening complications? How do we know this? Please, point it out. The only statistics you've shown are a comparison in frequency and a complication rate. You're trying to base your argument on the case that since female circumcision is banned, male circumcision should be, too. That's a fine argument, so long as the facts back it. What is the complication rate in female circumcision? If you're going to provide statistics, we need something to compare it to, right?

So please, come up with something better than simply sending back my own statements.

There are various sites you can look to for the complication rates which place them anywhere from 2 to 10%. Here is one example that has their sources linked:

http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceworld.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ (Pictures here can be graphic)

These statistics do not include the complications from anasthetics in some cases. I have read that anywhere from 200-400 babies die from the either anasthetics during the circumcision or during the procedure to fix a botched circumcision or from "blood loss":

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

None of these include the problems that arise for nursing mothers after circumcision and the loss of bonding. The Canadian Pedatrics have an article on this which I have posted earlier in this thread.

There are various sites you can look to for the complication rates which place them anywhere from 2 to 10%. Here is one example that has their sources linked:

http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceworld.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ (Pictures here can be graphic)

These statistics do not include the complications from anasthetics in some cases. I have read that anywhere from 200-400 babies die from the either anasthetics during the circumcision or during the procedure to fix a botched circumcision or from "blood loss":

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

None of these include the problems that arise for nursing mothers after circumcision and the loss of bonding. The Canadian Pedatrics have an article on this which I have posted earlier in this thread.
How does this compare to female circumcision?

Sigh... ok, google "female circumcision complications" and here you go: (Do i need to compare the numbers for you or can you handle that?

http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/dirie1/

Sigh... ok, google "female circumcision complications" and here you go: (Do i need to compare the numbers for you or can you handle that?

http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/dirie1/
That's all I wanted. The reason I asked was because the argument was that because female circumcision was banned, we should thusly ban male circumcision.

So now we look at a 40% complication rate vs. a 2-10% complication rate. Can we all get together and decide that comparing the two isn't a worthwhile effort?

Burden's on you, cappy.
Ok for the final time. I've been trying my best to do so, but WHAT THE HELL should I be trying to prove?! Every single person who argues that FGM is supposedly, totally different. Can't or just doesn't explain how or why they think it is so "completely" different... Let alone try to even back up their assertions. I just keep hearing no no no, it's different.


What kind of nonsense is this? All cosmetic surgery could be termed as "mutilating" the body, and yet it isn't termed as abusive.
............................... *cries*

It isn't the same as a simple piercing or something like that. This is one of the main points to the argument we're trying to make!

<rant> I'm so sick of having to hear and then go through the same arguments over and over again. If you don't like the answer given the last time it was asked, then debate it, but please do not keep saying the same things over and over again!

PEOPLE PLEASE READ AT LEAST SOME OF THE DEBATE BEFORE YOU POST! </rant>


Quit hiding behind semantics. Male circumcision is NOT the same thing as FGM. Just because you slap the word "mutilation" on both doesn't make them the same any more than you using the name "James" makes you a Biblical prophet.
We've given the reasons why it should be seen as nothing less then mutilation, you people are the ones that can't seem to get past the fact the we dare to call it a form of genital mutilation. (I.E. OZMG!!!1!!1 YOU"R TRIVIALIZING THE FGM!!1!!!)


I'm not debating them, I'm debating you. If you want to continue these antics, do so elsewhere. I rarely enter into debates on this forum, but when I do, I expect people to be actually able to debate. If you're going to rely on semantic gymnastics and dismissive statements, then take it elsewhere.
That's what I've tried to do, but it's kind of hard when people ignore your reply and post the same thing over again or never reply to you.


Maybe if your tactics involved more than calling people stupid...
I haven't called anyone stupid.

"Maybe if I didn't have to go through the same stupid arguments over and over again."


These statistics do not include the complications from anasthetics in some cases. I have read that anywhere from 200-400 babies die from the either anasthetics during the circumcision or during the procedure to fix a botched circumcision or from "blood loss":
And that's only "medicalized" circumcision done in sterilized conditions, by a trained doctor. (Conditions under which only a small percentage of circumcision worldwide are actually done.)

That's all I wanted. The reason I asked was because the argument was that because female circumcision was banned, we should thusly ban male circumcision.

So now we look at a 40% complication rate vs. a 2-10% complication rate. Can we all get together and decide that comparing the two isn't a worthwhile effort?
*sigh*


1. Did you read it, or just look at the numbers...?
Sixty-nine percent of the respondents were circumcised at home and 52% of them were circumcised by an untrained person, mostly a traditional birth attendant
The conservative 2%-10% estimate is only for medicalized circumcision done under sanitary conditions, in a sterilized space, by a trained doctor.


2. You can't use the results of a survey of 290 women in one place, as a statistical look at something as a whole, worldwide. (though I don't doubt those numbers)
The medical complications of the practice of circumcision were studied in 290 Somali women between the ages of 18-54.

Why are we even arguning over this? What does FGM complication numbers have to do with banning MGM?!

because your argument is that FGM and male circumcision are practically the same, and have similar complication rates.

It is difficult to get complication numbers on women because of the very nature of the act; complications are covered up and written up (if they are recorded at all) as something else. When the UN took up FGM as an issue, they stated this over and over.

But I have to agree, the only real thing a comparison does is to make another case as to why the UN should look at male circumcision (that is, because they have taken the time to examine female circumcision as well as mutilation).

I believe male circumcision needs to be examined because it is a systematic, unnecessary medical procedure on a healthy child which has real consequences for both the child (mentally, physically) and the mother (in the area of breastfeeding). Baby boys do die from it, and, in countries like the USA, many are not aware that circumcision is not necessary or recommended by the AAP, AMA, WHO, etc.

Is it an issue for the UN? I am not so sure. The numbers ARE falling, which makes me feel that home grown organizations and declarations from national medical organizations are working. I am sure that many who find it to be a nonissue on boards like these will change their mind when confronted by it; hopefully by that time insurance will no longer be paying for it and doctors will be required to give real, unbiased information on the pros and cons. Both of these, however, are for national government to regulate.

i am going to jump in the deep end here, and just say this:

male circumcision only removes the piece of skin know as the foreskin. there are plenty of other areas around the genital region that are still sensative during stimulation. for the mental trauma, i cant really comment, because as someone who is circumcised, i have not come across this and wonder how much is actually caused through actually having it happen, and how much is caused through suggestioning.*

female genital mutilation (i wont address female circumcision, because that is only part, and has, in some cases, benifits) removes a good deal of the sensory organs of a female. the clitoris, hood, and labia are usually the parts removed. this is not only a mental trauma, but pretty much a physical one too.

now you see, comparing them is like apples and oranges

James_xenoland, yes it isnt like piercing, but then again, you mis-interpreted 'cosmetic'. i would actually liken circumcision to things like liposuction and other cosmetic medical proceedures.

i still believe this should be left up to nations to decide whether or not to ban it, and if they dont, to provide the relevant information to individuals so they can choose. this, to me, doesnt seem to be an UN issue, although a suggestion is the author submit it for the NS issues, because it would make a good one.


*side-thought: i actually wonder how many actually didnt think about the psychological trauma untill it was mentioned to them, and they sat and thought about it? for me, i saw that statment, thought about it, then thought 'nah, the circumcision has happened, so what' and moved on. i know to me suggestions are like water off a ducks back, but it does affect others in a different manner.

male circumcision only removes the piece of skin know as the foreskin.
http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm (http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm)

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

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


there are plenty of other areas around the genital region that are still sensative during stimulation.
There are a lot of women out there that say the same thing about FGM. And anyway, that doesn't matter because we're talking about children and nobody should have the right to do something like that to a person for no good reason and without their ok.


for the mental trauma, i cant really comment, because as someone who is circumcised, i have not come across this and wonder how much is actually caused through actually having it happen, and how much is caused through suggestioning.*
http://www.noharmm.org/awakenings.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/banished.htm


female genital mutilation (i wont address female circumcision, because that is only part, and has, in some cases, benifits) removes a good deal of the sensory organs of a female. the clitoris, hood, and labia are usually the parts removed. this is not only a mental trauma, but pretty much a physical one too.
But female circumcision (clitoris and hood) are seen as FGM, not something different...


now you see, comparing them is like apples and oranges
No, more like comparing different size apples.

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

http://www.noharmm.org/toubia.htm


James_xenoland, yes it isnt like piercing, but then again, you mis-interpreted 'cosmetic'. i would actually liken circumcision to things like liposuction and other cosmetic medical proceedures.
No because liposuction isn't about cutting off parts of the body. Plus those are all things that you DO NOT do to children without very good reason anyway.


*side-thought: i actually wonder how many actually didnt think about the psychological trauma untill it was mentioned to them, and they sat and thought about it? for me, i saw that statment, thought about it, then thought 'nah, the circumcision has happened, so what' and moved on. i know to me suggestions are like water off a ducks back, but it does affect others in a different manner.
Lets go ask some females who have come out against FGM after having it done to them some time in their life.. We could see what they think about your views.
--------

http://www.noharmm.org/assault.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/toubiaHHR.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/

http://www.noharmm.org/svoboda.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/muted.htm

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

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

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



There are a lot of women out there that say the same thing about FGM. And anyway, that doesn't matter because we're talking about children and nobody should have the right to do something like that to a person for no good reason and without their ok.



http://www.noharmm.org/awakenings.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/banished.htm



But female circumcision (clitoris and hood) are seen as FGM, not something different...



No, more like comparing different size apples.

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

http://www.noharmm.org/toubia.htm



No because liposuction isn't about cutting off parts of the body. Plus those are all things that you DO NOT do to children without very good reason anyway.



Lets go ask some females who have come out against FGM after having it done to them some time in their life.. We could see what they think about your views.
--------

http://www.noharmm.org/assault.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/toubiaHHR.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/

http://www.noharmm.org/svoboda.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/muted.htm

besides the fact that we are dealing with NS here, not RL, i still have to question some of those sites and their philiosophies. to me they seem a bit extremist and exagerated, especially that section comparing male circumcision to FGM. there is only one link there that isnt from the NoHarmm.org. i am of a questioning mind, especially when the information is biased.

there is only one way i would compare FGM to male circumcision, and that is if the whole penis is cut off, because that is the equivilent of a clitorectomy, which is the main components of FGM

In DLE they had radioactive foreskins that had to be removed.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

there is only one way i would compare FGM to male circumcision, and that is if the whole penis is cut off, because that is the equivilent of a clitorectomy, which is the main components of FGM
Well, no, actually. Removal of the entire penis would be equivalent to:
1) Removal of the uterus
2) cutting and relocation of the urinary tract
3) and a clitorectomy.

And I'm probably missing a few others as well.

Well, no, actually. Removal of the entire penis would be equivalent to:
1) Removal of the uterus
2) cutting and relocation of the urinary tract
3) and a clitorectomy.

And I'm probably missing a few others as well.
ah yeah... maybe just the removal of the glans then....

Ok for the final time. I've been trying my best to do so, but WHAT THE HELL should I be trying to prove?!That two dramatically different procedures, performed for dramatically different reasons are somehow the same thing.

Every single person who argues that FGM is supposedly, totally different. Can't or just doesn't explain how or why they think it is so "completely" different... Let alone try to even back up their assertions.I already have. Perhaps if you would give your shift key a break and actually read before vomiting more hyperbole, you'd see that.

It isn't the same as a simple piercing or something like that. This is one of the main points to the argument we're trying to make!Since when was piercing cosmetic surgery, hmm? Do you even understand the terms being used?

I'm so sick of having to hear and then go through the same arguments over and over again. If you don't like the answer given the last time it was asked, then debate it, but please do not keep saying the same things over and over again!Says the person who just keeps repeating himself over and over again...

PEOPLE PLEASE READ AT LEAST SOME OF THE DEBATE BEFORE YOU POST!Right back at'cha. When you're done hyperventalating, perhaps you could look up 'irony'.

We've given the reasons why it should be seen as nothing less then mutilation, you people are the ones that can't seem to get past the fact the we dare to call it a form of genital mutilation.You have? What, by posting links to a highly biased web site? Wow. Hey, I bet I could use moveon.org to "prove" that Bush is the reincarnation of Hitler. Bet I could also use National Review's site to "prove" that Hillary Clinton is the reincarnation of Mata Hari. Doesn't make it true.

(I.E. OZMG!!!1!!1 YOU"R TRIVIALIZING THE FGM!!1!!!)Wow.

And that's only "medicalized" circumcision done in sterilized conditions, by a trained doctor. (Conditions under which only a small percentage of circumcision worldwide are actually done.)This is where you cite a reputable source to back up your claim. Don't worry; I'll wait.

The Socialist Republic believes in equal protection and rights for all. The fact that this is betrayed by many United Nations resolutions, including Female Genital Manipulation, was a primary factor in the resignation of Xanthal from the UN. To allow male circumcision but ban female circumcision is discriminatory, the consequences of each procedure notwithstanding. Arguments of emotional and religious nature have no place in the execution of Xanthalian law.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Triumvir of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

That two dramatically different procedures,
But what is so "dramatically different" about the same type of abuse? You call one genital mutilation, but get mad at even the idea of someone calling the other a form of mutilation as well?

What makes one an abuse but the other not abuse?! The only thing you're saying is that it's different!

If after all this, you still can't look past the sex of the victim then I feel really sorry for you.. sad


performed for dramatically different reasons are somehow the same thing.
Quoting PC propaganda again I see... :|

What dramatically different reasons? If you studied the history of genital mutilation at all you would know just how fallacious your statement really is.

Please, if someone already has a link about the history of both, could you post it? If not I'll find the links later.


Since when was piercing cosmetic surgery, hmm? Do you even understand the terms being used?
Sorry I just read through it to quick... That's an argument that people use a lot.


Says the person who just keeps repeating himself over and over again...
Right back at'cha. When you're done hyperventalating, perhaps you could look up 'irony'.
I'm not sure which makes that more hilarious, the fact that it's coming from someone arguning on the side against this or the fact that it's coming from you...


You have? What, by posting links to a highly biased web site? Wow. Hey, I bet I could use moveon.org to "prove" that Bush is the reincarnation of Hitler. Bet I could also use National Review's site to "prove" that Hillary Clinton is the reincarnation of Mata Hari. Doesn't make it true.
This is where you cite a reputable source to back up your claim. Don't worry; I'll wait.
Could you please give me a reason and or proof as to why we shouldn't trust anything from that site?

And either way, it proves a whole hell of a lot more then what you've given.. (I.E. Nothing)

Why are we even arguning over this? What does FGM complication numbers have to do with banning MGM?!
Considering it was specifically mentioned in the proposition, I'd say it has quite a lot to do with it.

RECOGNISING that numerous studies such as those of the organisation NoCirc have shown MGM to be at least as dangerous and traumatic as Female Genital Mutilation
That's what's up for debate. If this is false, then the entire proposition is in question.

But what is so "dramatically different" about the same type of abuse? You call one genital mutilation, but get mad at even the idea of someone calling the other a form of mutilation as well?[/quote
simple, i can explain it now. male cicumcision is the removal of the foreskin. FGM is the removal of the hood (female equivalent of foreskin), the clitorus (female equivalent of the glans) and the labia (in some circles, the female equivalent of the scrotum). couple that with the fact that in some instances, the vagina itself is sewn shut, and you see a vastly different thing than the removal of a piece of the skin.

[quote]Could you please give me a reason and or proof as to why we shouldn't trust anything from that site?
a) that it is very extremely biased
b) it is the only one you have given us
c) that site does not relate to the nature of NS

as i have stated before, and will again, i am not a supporter of circumcision, but i am also not against it. i am for informed choice. the very nature of this resolution strips away the ability to choose from my people. since there is nothing concrete, and a lot of speculation, on both sides, i believe it shouldnt be adopted, rather allow people to get information, from both sides, and choose for them selves. as BNW pointed out, in DLE they had radioactive foreskins that had to be removed, and there are many other situations that could arrise in various NS countries.

OOC: i know this is a weird question, but how many of those campaining for this are actually circumcised? i am, and i have no problem with it, either in my sex life, or in anything else. the way many talk about it, it takes away their sex drive, or their ability to have sex or something, yet i dont have those problems. perhaps it is a good thing if it desensitises you a bit, because it gives your partner more of a chance to climax.

I have to agree: www.noharmm.org does seem rather.....outspoken shall we say, and it's good practice to rely on a broader range of sources.

Anyway, can some people please please please read this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450344) and play nicely (that includes someone who should really practice what they preach...however annoying someone else is ;))

WHEREIN: The people of Clam Corners hereby declare the following official acceptable polite synonyms for "Penis" within the borders of their nation: Wang, Tonker, Wing-dang-doodle, Johnson, Package (including the testes and scrotum), Unit, 'One-Eyed Trouser Mouse', Meat, Nuts (the testes and scrotum specifically) and 'Wedding Tackle'.

OBSERVED: That the ladies of Clam Corners never complained, those ladies knowing who they are.

STIPULATED: That most 'males' (Being those with a chromosomal balance including at least one "Y".) wince involuntarily upon seeing any other 'male' struck as to cause injury in the groinal area, specifically the 'Nuts' and/or Wang area; and that, if given the choice, most (unspecified majority, hyperbole) men over a consenting age would prefer to hit anyone looming over their package, wielding a knife, a debilitating blow with a potentially fatal blunt instrument (Louisville Slugger), it is entirely reasonable to retroactively posit so-called 'adult' male reactions onto their younger counterparts.

POINTED OUT: That since, as far as we can tell, those groups that regularly perform procedures regarded as 'FGM' don't normally do it in a hospital, and that again, as far as I can tell, most procedures regarded as 'MGM' DO in fact take place in hospitals, I'd say that the fellas lucked out.

RESOLVED: Among the hallowed halls of the Hyperbolic Chambers, deep beneath the Republic of Clam Corners, By Representatives of its duly Appointed and Critically Acclaimed Elders:

Lopping off the front section of some poor jerk's wing-dang-doodle is only OK if an invisible man in the sky told you to. Lopping off the tip of some kid's tonker because you don't trust him to wash his unit is really uncool.

So let it be written:

Sol Edit Bead Unf!

Taking Himself Much Too Seriously,

The Man Now Dawg,

Clem Connors
Sarcastator of the Republic.

WHEREIN: The people of Clam Corners hereby declare the following official acceptable polite synonyms for "Penis" within the borders of their nation: Wang, Tonker, Wing-dang-doodle, Johnson, Package (including the testes and scrotum), Unit, 'One-Eyed Trouser Mouse', Meat, Nuts (the testes and scrotum specifically) and 'Wedding Tackle'.

OBSERVED: That the ladies of Clam Corners never complained, those ladies knowing who they are.

STIPULATED: That most 'males' (Being those with a chromosomal balance including at least one "Y".) wince involuntarily upon seeing any other 'male' struck as to cause injury in the groinal area, specifically the 'Nuts' and/or Wang area; and that, if given the choice, most (unspecified majority, hyperbole) men over a consenting age would prefer to hit anyone looming over their package, wielding a knife, a debilitating blow with a potentially fatal blunt instrument (Louisville Slugger), it is entirely reasonable to retroactively posit so-called 'adult' male reactions onto their younger counterparts.

POINTED OUT: That since, as far as we can tell, those groups that regularly perform procedures regarded as 'FGM' don't normally do it in a hospital, and that again, as far as I can tell, most procedures regarded as 'MGM' DO in fact take place in hospitals, I'd say that the fellas lucked out.

RESOLVED: Among the hallowed halls of the Hyperbolic Chambers, deep beneath the Republic of Clam Corners, By Representatives of its duly Appointed and Critically Acclaimed Elders:

Lopping off the front section of some poor jerk's wing-dang-doodle is only OK if an invisible man in the sky told you to. Lopping off the tip of some kid's tonker because you don't trust him to wash his unit is really uncool.

So let it be written:

Sol Edit Bead Unf!

Taking Himself Much Too Seriously,

The Man Now Dawg,

Clem Connors
Sarcastator of the Republic.

This has to be one of the funniest posts I've read on this forum. 10 out of 10 :D.

I don't want my approval of this post to extend to the subject however. I do agree with a ban on male circumcision, but on the basis of consent and only in the case of minors. Adults can do whatever they want to their jolly rogers.

This has to be one of the funniest posts I've read on this forum. 10 out of 10 :D.

I don't want my approval of this post to extend to the subject however. I do agree with a ban on male circumcision, but on the basis of consent and only in the case of minors. Adults can do whatever they want to their jolly rogers.
that sounds like a better idea, and also add if it is a legitimate reason, ie the foreskin enclosing the glans, they are radioactive (like in DLE... hey, this is nationstates, there could be legit reasons for actually removing it for the health of the male)

Waterana: May the fruits of thy labors be plentiful and flamboyant.


The people of Clam Corners mean in no way to observe that the local age of consent should not be consulted.

My people merely wish to point out that the age of consent is precisely that: the age at which one's body becomes both legally and technically one's own. If, at the age of consent, one wishes to have pigment laden needles jammed at supersonic speeds into one's flesh or to have a fairly significant part of their physical anatomy severed, why, then of course it is his or her personal choice.


As a personal aside, I would like to mention the time I saw an authentic (read: RL Javan) circumcision chair. Despite the leather straps and crushing social shame of failure for chickening out, it looked worn. The local (RL Javan) sales person seemed pretty gleeful about the entire prospect as well.* "When the boy becomes twelve, he must hook his feet beneath this bar, and his arms beneath this one. then the villagers give him a preparation to drink, and the priest cuts him to mark him a man."

I replied that among my people it's done when the boy is an infant.

His reply: "Then how do you know when he becomes a man?"

My response: "When it starts to work."

My people also dislike people who get off on personal woes in other peoples' "private areas"**



*CF. Internal resolution "86wtf8=D".

**Also, the chair looked really uncomfortable, tonker-reduction notwithstanding.

that sounds like a better idea, and also add if it is a legitimate reason, ie the foreskin enclosing the glans, they are radioactive (like in DLE... hey, this is nationstates, there could be legit reasons for actually removing it for the health of the male)

Yes of course I should have mentioned that genuine medical reasons are ok, but other than that, this is something that should be left for the adult to decide.