NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly,

OBSERVING that genital mutilation (hereafter 'GM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

ALARMED by the possible long-term effects of GM, including prolonged pain, complications from surgery (including death or permanent maiming) and decreased sexual sensitivity, psychological scarring, and the certain long-term effects of GM, including denial of use of any removed, healthy parts, damage to any parts that remain and were subject to mutilation, an unnatural appearance of the genitalia.

Deeply disturbed that many persons are subjected to GM against their will, primarily at a time when they are too young to exert their will,

Recognizing that GM is irreversible,

Recognizing that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

Defining GM as all acts done to the genitals of any sex or gender that remove or damage all or part of the genitals and that do not serve an immediate and compelling medical need.

1. CONDEMNS the practice of GM;

2. URGES all member nations to fund programs educating citizens about the effects of GM;

3. ENCOURAGES all member nations to avoid using the alternative phrase 'circumcision' for either practice, as it implies it is a medical surgery rather than a ritual mutilation.

4. URGES member nations to avoid and discourage this practice, unless necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child, until the individual reaches the age of majority for the member nation.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Moderate

It is basically modeled off of UN Resolution #62. I think the ritual practice of cutting a part off of our babies regardless of their sex should be considered appalling. The fact that the UN only protects one sex from such an act is disappointing, to say the least.

Of course, Lord Jehvah opposed the resolution on principle, but that was nothing new, he opposed practically every resolution on principle; anything with the despised word freedom in it especially. However, this was an issue close to his parasitic little heart. Jehvah had used circumcision as a badge of ownership over his cattle… err… humans, for many millennia, and he didn’t plan to give it up.

“Such a resolution is a clear breach of the spirit of religious freedom,” he briefly looked as if he’d swallowed some particularly sour berry, “and such persecution cannot be supported in good conscience by anyone who supports that principle.”

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpg

Moltan Bausch
UN Ambassador for The Three Goats In A Boat of Gruenberg
Secretary of State for Penis Innuendos
First Minister for Believing His Charlies Are No Business Of The UN, Thank You Very Much

Circumcision is a sign of virility in the Federal Republic. As is having a big nose or big feet. You know what they say 'bout a guy with big feet. And I'm certain you've heard the saying, "The longer the nose ...." Sideshow Bob and Adrien Brody may have it made, but what are parents of boys without big feet or big noses to do? Make them wear groucho masks? Fit them into unnaturally large shoes? This proposal may make it an impossibility for nerds without big feet and/or noses to get laid.

The next ambassador to bring up Mr. Bausch's "Charlies" will be flogged repeatedly, stabbed, shot, strangled, suffocated and blodgeoned. And then circumcised.

The General Assembly,

Observing that male genital mutilation (hereafter 'MGM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

Observing that MGM is a practice begun by certain religions to prevent masturbation and continued when it was much more difficult to keep oneself clean,
Didn't know that myself. Will take your word for it ;):).

Alarmed by the long-term effects of MGM, including prolonged pain, complications from surgery (including death or permanent maiming) and decreased sexual sensitivity,
I have a bit of a problem with this clause. It reads like you're saying all operations have these effects and I can see that being shouted down, especially the bit about sensitivity (this is coming from whats been said in past debates on this). Perhaps you should cosider changing it to something like...

Alarmed by the long-term effects of MGM, which may include one of more of the following; prolonged pain, complications from surgery (including death or permanent maiming) and decreased sexual sensitivity

Deeply disturbed that many men are subjected to MGM against their will, primarily at a time when they are too young to exert their will,

Recognizing that MGM is irreversible,
Agreed and supported 2 billion percent.

Not too sure you need the word 'primarily' in there though. No grown man should ever be subjected to this operation against his will, so it should really only apply to those who cop it as children.

Recognizing that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,
True.

Recognizing that female genital mutilation is already condemned by UN resolution #62 and that all people deserve equal protection under the law,

1. Condemns the practice of 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 detracts from what the surgery actually does.

4. Urges States to avoid this practice, unless necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child, until the individual becomes old enough to make a willful choice.

I have one quibble with clause 3. You don't have a definition of what MGM actually is at all in the proposal. I think you'll need one, to slow down the loophole hunters (you'll never stop them) and also because clause 3 mentions what the op does. I think you'd better explain that.

Overall, I like the idea very much and this is something I could definetly support. Well done :).

Didn't know that myself. Will take your word for it ;):).

I have a bit of a problem with this clause. It reads like you're saying all operations have these effects and I can see that being shouted down, especially the bit about sensitivity (this is coming from whats been said in past debates on this). Perhaps you should cosider changing it to something like...

Alarmed by the long-term effects of MGM, which may include one of more of the following; prolonged pain, complications from surgery (including death or permanent maiming) and decreased sexual sensitivity

Agreed.

Agreed and supported 2 billion percent.

Not too sure you need the word 'primarily' in there though. No grown man should ever be subjected to this operation against his will, so it should really only apply to those who cop it as children.

One can't be sure that no NS nation allows the practice to be performed against the will of someone who can exert said will, so I left room for such a thing.

True.

I have one quibble with clause 3. You don't have a definition of what MGM actually is at all in the proposal. I think you'll need one, to slow down the loophole hunters (you'll never stop them) and also because clause 3 mentions what the op does. I think you'd better explain that.

Overall, I like the idea very much and this is something I could definetly support. Well done :).

Also a fair point. I took that text from the FGM resolution which also does not explain what it specifically means. Clause 3 makes it clear that what I am actually referring to is often euphamistically referred to as circumcision.

Please also submit a version of Abortion Rights which equivocally allows all men the right to decide whether to have an abortion or not.

As well as a proposal banning HGM, or Hermaphrodite Genital(s) Mutilation.

Please also submit a version of Abortion Rights which equivocally allows all men the right to decide whether to have an abortion or not.

Men don't have a uterus, but they do have genitals. I would gladly assert that men and women equally have a right to decide what surgeries are performed on them and that prior to the age of consent that elective surgery not be performed. However, your point does not really address the topics and offers an excellent opportunity for hijacking. Thank you, but debate abortion elsewhere.

As well as a proposal banning HGM, or Hermaphrodite Genital(s) Mutilation.

Perhaps a proposal outlawing any mutilation of genitals regardless of sexual charactaristics without the consent of the individual being mutilated (no surrogates permitted), unless a person is in immediate danger and unable to consent.

Men don't have a uterus, but they do have genitals. I would gladly assert that men and women equally have a right to decide what surgeries are performed on them and that prior to the age of consent that elective surgery not be performed. However, your point does not really address the topics and offers an excellent opportunity for hijacking. Thank you, but debate abortion elsewhere.

Interesting. It's almost like you're saying...men and women have certain characteristic biological differences, which mean certain surgical procedures affect them differently. Surely not?

Interesting. It's almost like you're saying...men and women have certain characteristic biological differences, which mean certain surgical procedures affect them differently. Surely not?

Who is suggesting medical procedures don't affect them differently? If you noticed I listed different medical effects of MGM. I'm not protesting the idea that some surgeries women get, men can't and vice versa simply and entirely due to biology. But both things that I'm referencing are genetal mutilation and in both cases a sexual part of the body is removed or mutilated. In both cases they are done without the consent of the individual this irreversible procedure is performed on.

Men and women have oral sex performed differently and on different genetalia - are you suggesting that it would acceptable to make a law that outlaws oral sex for men but not for women and that such a law would not violate the very idea of equality between the sexes?

"It's almost like you're saying... that men and women have certain characteristic biological differences, that mean certain sexual procedures affect them differently. Surely not?"

Seems like that argument isn't a very good one for protecting one sex and not the other.

While I generally agree with the topic of this proposal, I cannot condone the passing of a resolution of such in the NSUN.

Governing culture is not the responsibility of the NSUN, it is a responsibility of the cultures of a particular state. By limiting culture within the NSUN, we are opening the door to more extreme legislation. I will not stand for the NSUN overstepping its boundaries in this way.

The only culture that the NSUN should be concerned with is the culture of peace and economic strength between nations. I do not forsee any nukes flying over the topic of circumsicion, nor do I see x-company selling a few less units because somebody's mom decided their pee-pee needed to have a slice taken out of it.

Seems like that argument isn't a very good one for protecting one sex and not the other.

So this isn't, actually, about that: it's simply that you've identified what you believe to be a barbaric practice, and want to eradicate it. Fine. I disagree that this is business of the UN, but so be it. The fact that one barbaric practice is done to little girls and one to little boys, and that we've condemned one but not the other, is something of a tangent. This isn't about sexism, as you've tried to paint it: it's simply about what the UN has considered worthy of its time, and what it hasn't.

Doubt it will get off the ground.

It seems well-written, but the topic isn't enough for some to endorse it.

So this isn't, actually, about that: it's simply that you've identified what you believe to be a barbaric practice, and want to eradicate it. Fine. I disagree that this is business of the UN, but so be it. The fact that one barbaric practice is done to little girls and one to little boys, and that we've condemned one but not the other, is something of a tangent. This isn't about sexism, as you've tried to paint it: it's simply about what the UN has considered worthy of its time, and what it hasn't.

Ah, but it is sexism. Why is the mutilation of one's genitals only appalling if they happen to be female genitals? The fact that FGM is legislated on sets precedence for acting against such mutilation. That's why I included in the proposal, to suggest both acts should not be treated equally requires one to declare that one sex's genitals are not as important as the other's.

Doubt it will get off the ground.

It seems well-written, but the topic isn't enough for some to endorse it.

I fear you're correct on that last. I find it shameful that we don't recognize certain practices as barbaric simply because they are practiced in 'civilized' countries on a regular basis. There is no qualitative difference in the practices yet one is considered by most to be ghastly and the other to be a choice best left to the parents.

Ah, but it is sexism. Why is the mutilation of one's genitals only appalling if they happen to be female genitals? The fact that FGM is legislated on sets precedence for acting against such mutilation. That's why I included in the proposal, to suggest both acts should not be treated equally requires one to declare that one sex's genitals are not as important as the other's.

That's only if one is pre-set on interpreting the badness of FGM as being because it's FGM. This is something not stated in that resolution or any other work of interntional law, and it is not the interpretation the Court assumed. We read it as this: this practice is bad. Let's stop it. Perhaps, yes, we inferred that MGM was less bad. Why? Not because of the sexes involved, but simply because the procedure was safer, less painful, or less likely to produce long-term disfigurement. Neither is practiced extensively in Gruenberg; maybe we are wrong. But, for now, we retain the line that it is in fact the Jocabian delegate who is being sexist, for automatically assuming the motivation of Resolution #62 was gender-based, rather than ends-based.

The two concepts both depend on the balance between religious freedoms and public health considerations. So I would advise the supporters of this proposal to focus the argument on seriousness of the health risks, rather than on sweeping comparisons between the two. At least, that would be the only way to gain my support.

In other words, please tone down the debate. Nobody here is arguing in a sexist way, in my view. Last time this topic came up, it turned into a selfrighteous spitting contest.

That's only if one is pre-set on interpreting the badness of FGM as being because it's FGM. This is something not stated in that resolution or any other work of interntional law, and it is not the interpretation the Court assumed. We read it as this: this practice is bad. Let's stop it. Perhaps, yes, we inferred that MGM was less bad. Why? Not because of the sexes involved, but simply because the procedure was safer, less painful, or less likely to produce long-term disfigurement. Neither is practiced extensively in Gruenberg; maybe we are wrong. But, for now, we retain the line that it is in fact the Jocabian delegate who is being sexist, for automatically assuming the motivation of Resolution #62 was gender-based, rather than ends-based.

No, the point is the GM in FGM is equally appalling regardless of the letter that preceeds it. It does not address anything regarding the practice of MGM and specifically references only women. Certainly you're not claiming that my proposal addressing anything other than MGM? My point in including #62 as I've stated several times is to point out that we've already condemned GM and this merely expands the scope of that condemnation to address both sexes. It's would be amusing that you consider it sexist to do so if you weren't serious.

Even look at the way you look at the procedures. Do you realize that the procedure itself disfigures the male genitalia in MGM and female genitalia in FGM, it's not a likelihood, it's a direct outcome of the procedure in EVERY case. It's amusing that you can in one breath suggest that the disfigurement of men is not a direct result of MGM ("less likely to produce long-term disfigurement") when both practices would be considered failed if they did not disfigure the genitals, and then claim that your views on the matter have nothing to do with the sex of the participants.

I never suggested that the motivation of the Resolution #62 is gender-based, though I'd love to see you quote me saying such a thing. Fond of the strawman?

I agree with the resolution. I likely voted for the resolution. The point is that the resolution is incomplete in that it only protects one sex. By not including the males, it indirectly infers that MGM is acceptable or less bad (you admitted as much). It may not have the purpose of damaging equality but it does, in effect, do so by treating men as less deserving of the protection of their genitals than women. If the UN feels the protection of one gender's genitals are under it's purview but not the other then what else can it be BUT sexism, whether intentional or unintentional. 'Sexist in effect' isn't much better than 'sexist in purpose'.

The two concepts both depend on the balance between religious freedoms and public health considerations. So I would advise the supporters of this proposal to focus the argument on seriousness of the health risks, rather than on sweeping comparisons between the two. At least, that would be the only way to gain my support.

In other words, please tone down the debate. Nobody here is arguing in a sexist way, in my view. Last time this topic came up, it turned into a selfrighteous spitting contest.

For most, it's not a religious practice anymore. People are generally uneducated as to the effects of the practice and unaware that it no longer carries medical benefits that outweigh the risk. This doesn't outlaw the practice, it merely condemns the practice and recommends educating people as to the effects of the procedure as a means to ending the procedure.

"Recognizing that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,"

I'm not presenting this proposal because I don't like resolution #62. I'm presenting it because I like resolution #62's position on genital mutilation and I believe it should be held to be a barbaric practice regardless of the sex of the genitals. I merely wish to extend it's protection to both sexes.

No. This is against religion.

No. This is against religion.

Female circumcision is a religious practice in some cultures. Does that mean that we were wrong to condemn it? What about ritual sacrifice of babies? Is that against religion to condemn? I'm sorry but electing to perform ritual mutilation of babies and small children regardless of the reasoning is wrong.

No. This is against religion.

To be honest, I personally consider inflicting any part of a religion on a child is little more than brain washing and/or abuse and should be condemmed as well. Religious choice is something else only an adult should decide, but thats just my own feelings on the subject.

For most, it's not a religious practice anymore. People are generally uneducated as to the effects of the practice and unaware that it no longer carries medical benefits that outweigh the risk. This doesn't outlaw the practice, it merely condemns the practice and recommends educating people as to the effects of the procedure as a means to ending the procedure.

I am still unconfortable with condemning what some consider a religious practice, without major evidence of health risks. And comparisons with FGM can imply comparisons with ear piercing or plastic surgery. After all, they are also mutilations...

Mind you, I am not necessarily saying I will vote against, simply pointing out what I see as weaknesses in the argument.

Female circumcision is a religious practice in some cultures. Does that mean that we were wrong to condemn it? What about ritual sacrifice of babies? Is that against religion to condemn? I'm sorry but electing to perform ritual mutilation of babies and small children regardless of the reasoning is wrong.
This is wrong. A nation should be able to make its own rules when it comes to religion in real life. A major religion requires male circumcision.

Female circumcision is a religious practice in some cultures.
What cultures?

If the NSUN bans male circumcision, how will Our Shirt Ninja be able to prove to their commanders that the foreskins they present actually came from Our nation's slain enemies?

To be honest, I personally consider inflicting any part of a religion on a child is little more than brain washing and/or abuse and should be condemmed as well. Religious choice is something else only an adult should decide, but thats just my own feelings on the subject.
Disagree, many religions have activities, ceremonies, and events for youth.

Two things:
One, there are religions that require circumcision while the target is still a baby. Incidentally, I'd support this if you put in a clause that makes it illegal for non-religious reasons or by an untrained person. I should mention here that it is MUCH more painful(or painful-looking at least) to be circumcised as an adult, because if you do it when you're a baby, you won't remember it. If you get circumcised at any age older then about three, then you'll remember it like you'd remember a baseball to the crotch. Even with anethetic. It still looks like it hurts, even if it doesn't actually hurt.
Two. I consider MGM to be cutting it below the foreskin. I'm all for banning that entirely, but you have to realise that you didn't define it at all here.

I am still unconfortable with condemning what some consider a religious practice, without major evidence of health risks. And comparisons with FGM can imply comparisons with ear piercing or plastic surgery. After all, they are also mutilations...

Mind you, I am not necessarily saying I will vote against, simply pointing out what I see as weaknesses in the argument.

Ear-piercing is reversible, but let's look at plastic surgery. Would you oppose getting a nosejob on newborn baby just so it will look more like it's daddy, particularly if that nosejob made them unable to smell like they would have without the nosejob?

It's amazing to me that one would need a reason to cut a part off a child. One should need compelling evidence making the amputation of a body part beneficial before it is accepted by anyone. Also, it should be noted that people actually list the prevention of certain diseases as a benefit. Those diseases are prevented because they only happen to the part that has been amputated, however, I wouldn't recommend cutting the breasts off a teenager to prevent breast cancer.

They also list phimosis as a risk of being intact, but phimosis is more common in countries where circumcision is common, because the lack of knowledge of the penis causes parents to mistreat a baby's penis. One of the causes of phimosis is scarring caused by pulling back the foreskin before it is ready (which doesn't happen until considerably later in your childhood). This tears the foreskin away from the head of the penis, (also one of the things they do during the circumcision). Interesting enough, they mistreat the penis (cut off the foreskin) in order to prevent a disease CAUSED by mistreating the penis. How about we stop mistreating the penis and everyone wins?

Now, of course, circumcision is a surgery and all surgeries carry risks. This particular surgery, like the removal of the breasts, carries definite effects, not just risk. Examples are disfigurement and being denied that basic function of a body part.


OOC:

Now as far as some of the benefits versus cost of circumcision...

http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP-bro.html

Two things:
One, there are religions that require circumcision while the target is still a baby. Incidentally, I'd support this if you put in a clause that makes it illegal for non-religious reasons or by an untrained person. I should mention here that it is MUCH more painful(or painful-looking at least) to be circumcised as an adult, because if you do it when you're a baby, you won't remember it. If you get circumcised at any age older then about three, then you'll remember it like you'd remember a baseball to the crotch. Even with anethetic. It still looks like it hurts, even if it doesn't actually hurt.
Two. I consider MGM to be cutting it below the foreskin. I'm all for banning that entirely, but you have to realise that you didn't define it at all here.

Mutilation is mutilation. And my son may not remember getting hit in the crotch by a baseball, but I'm still going to condemn the practice.

What cultures?

OOC:

Mostly African notions, but here's a site to look at.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a7

Those arguments look familiar? Cultures that regularly practice FGM defend the practice as vehemently and similarly to cultures defending MGM.

On behalf of Wyldtree I stand firmly against this resolution. Circumcision is a widely accepted medical procedure that has demonstrated no unreasonable risks. It is the legal guardian's decision, as the welfare of a child should be. I am inclined to defer to parental judgement and the medical community of my nation.

On behalf of Wyldtree I stand firmly against this resolution. Circumcision is a widely accepted medical procedure that has demonstrated no unreasonable risks. It is the legal guardian's decision, as the welfare of their child should be. I am inclined to defer to parental judgement and the medical community of my nation.

Oh, look... the same argument made by nations defending FGM. Nothing shocking about the fact that people practicing mutilation do not acknowledge it's effects as un-'reasonable'.

Do you hold that parents should be permitted to decide whether or not to cut off their child's pinky? It does prevent pinky cancer (a very rare disease, but then so is a UTI and penile cancer).

Oh, look... the same argument made by nations defending FGM. Nothing shocking about the fact that people practicing mutilation do not acknowledge it's effects as un-'reasonable'.

Do you hold that parents should be permitted to decide whether or not to cut off their child's pinky? It does prevent pinky cancer (a very rare disease, but then so is a UTI and penile cancer).

Your comparisons are unreasonable. The foreskin is not comparable in use to the pinky. I am no doctor but it doesn't take one to see the absurdity of your arguement. Wyldtree has no wish to end an accepted medical procedure and persecute religions who use this benign practice.

Your comparisons are unreasonable. The foreskin is not comparable in use to the pinky. I am no doctor but it doesn't take one to see the absurdity of your arguement. Wyldtree has no wish to end an accepted medical procedure and persecute religions who use this benign practice.

Not comparable? People learn to operate without a foreskin because they have to. They would do the same without a pinky. Most likely if it became regularly practiced, most equipment would cease to account for the pinky and it would become completely useless and often in the way. Regardless, you're going to have to offer more than 'it's a regular procedure' to justify cutting a part of your child's body, performing an unnecessary cosmetic surgery with no 'reasonable' medical benefits.

Not comparable? People learn to operate without a foreskin because they have to. They would do the same without a pinky. Most likely if it became regularly practiced, most equipment would cease to account for the pinky and it would become completely useless and often in the way. Regardless, you're going to have to offer more than 'it's a regular procedure' to justify cutting a part of your child's body, performing an unnecessary cosmetic surgery with no 'reasonable' medical benefits.
I don't think I have to make much of an arguement at all here. This procedure is endorsed by people certainly more medically qualified than you and I don't forsee this as having any chance of passing. I have said my piece.

I don't think I have to make much of an arguement at all here. This procedure is endorsed by people certainly more medically qualified than you and I don't forsee this as having any chance of passing. I have said my piece.

OOC:

Would you care to name one medical group of pediatricians that 'endorses' circumcision? Name one.

Jocabia:
Would you oppose parents removing the child's appendix for no reason at all? Or how about the tailbone? Or maybe I could think of something that still has SOME use like the foreskin. I've got it! How about having a tooth pulled?(I realize that this could not be performed on a little baby, but not for reasons that apply to this argument. So pretend.)I realize that most people wouldn't want to have their teeth pulled for no reason at all, but how about some small medical reason, like male circumcision? That's usually legal, if rare. Why should male circumcision be banned if having teeth pulled isn't?

OOC:

Would you care to name one medical group of pediatricians that 'endorses' circumcision? Name one.

OOC/RL - This procedure is used by default and there is hardly a grand outcry to stop it RL.

IC Related - I'm saying my nation's doctors endorse it.

Not comparable? People learn to operate without a foreskin because they have to. They would do the same without a pinky. Most likely if it became regularly practiced, most equipment would cease to account for the pinky and it would become completely useless and often in the way. Regardless, you're going to have to offer more than 'it's a regular procedure' to justify cutting a part of your child's body, performing an unnecessary cosmetic surgery with no 'reasonable' medical benefits.
And you've picked a remarkably bad argument here(or remarkably good, depending on how you look at it), as humans ought to evolve no pinky eventually. It's not used much anymore. And a note, why do you oppose this for religious reasons also? I'd gladly go along with this if a clause was added to make religious reasons exempt. (Note:Government-recognized religions, as in religions big enough to appear as one of the non-other boxes on a census. Just so you don't fight me with that stuff about female circumcision.)

OOC/RL - This procedure is used by default and there is hardly a grand outcry to stop it RL.

IC Related - I'm saying my nation's doctors endorse it.

OOC: Actually the procedure is not the 'default' in real life. Many countries of the world have nearly no circumcised people. In America, it is common practice to ask the parents and all major medical organizations no long consider it a medically-beneficial procedure. There is just now starting to be an outcry about the common practice of performing a cosmetic surgery on babies that actually leaves them missing a part of their body.

IC: What studies and information did they base their 'endorsement' on? Regular practice?

I mean, one would expect your nation's doctors to show that your country is regularly maiming children for absolutely no medical reason, would one? Yep, nations never doctor evidence to make there nation look less barbaric. Pardon my sarcasm, but I have to notice the convenience of your response.

OOC: Actually the procedure is not the 'default' in real life. Many countries of the world have nearly no circumcised people. In America, it is common practice to ask the parents and all major medical organizations no long consider it a medically-beneficial procedure. There is just now starting to be an outcry about the common practice of performing a cosmetic surgery on babies that actually leaves them missing a part of their body.

IC: What studies and information did they base their 'endorsement' on? Regular practice?

OOC: I have neither the time nor inclination to create imaginary studies. I must sleep. Work at 6 AM. Ugh. I googled this and found many medical sources noting the benefits of circumcision. You may do the same or not. I'm glad I am circumsized.

And you've picked a remarkably bad argument here(or remarkably good, depending on how you look at it), as humans ought to evolve no pinky eventually. It's not used much anymore. And a note, why do you oppose this for religious reasons also? I'd gladly go along with this if a clause was added to make religious reasons exempt. (Note:Government-recognized religions, as in religions big enough to appear as one of the non-other boxes on a census. Just so you don't fight me with that stuff about female circumcision.)
It doesn't outlaw the procedure so there is no need for an exemption. However, like MGM, FGM was often argued to be a religious practice. Miraculously, this was not a required clause in FGM. And the pinky is a great example because one could remove the pinky with little more medical or practical complication than circumcision, but if someone tried to do so to their child they would likely have their children removed from the home in most countries.

However, like MGM, FGM was often argued to be a religious practice.
OOC: MGM is practiced by one of the worlds major religions.

OOC: MGM is practiced by one of the worlds major religions.

OOC: Appeal to popularity. I don't care if 90% of the world thinks it is an edict from God, I'm not going do anything but condemn cutting parts off babies for cosmetic reasons. It's religious doesn't defend actions that violate the rights of another human being.

And by the way, it's not required by the religion any more than a head scarf is required for Muslims.

OOC: MGM is practiced by one of the worlds major religions.

It's not a religious thing - it's a cultural thing. There are many elements of the Jewish community which are questioning the need for the practice.
http://jewishcircumcision.org/

Moreover, the nation where it is most common in RL - America tends to practice it for perceived medical benefits - in reality those benefits do not exist, and the majority of young men subjected to the treatment are not Jewish.

Jocabia, I have to congratulate you on the proposal, I feel this is generally well written

By not including the males, it indirectly infers that MGM is acceptable or less bad (you admitted as much).
I believe there is good reason for this inference. FGM has conclusively been proven to be an unnecessary, harmful act and, consequently, merits international condemnation. I submit to you that the same cannot yet be said of MG'M'.

I - and likely most Ecopoeians - would prefer it if circumcisions were not performed until the individual has reached majority. However, my opposition to the non-consensual practice is not firm enough to justify this level of cultural insensitivity.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

For most, it's not a religious practice anymore. People are generally uneducated as to the effects of the practice and unaware that it no longer carries medical benefits that outweigh the risk.


OOC: RL reference, not necessarily the case in those NS nations where male children are routinely circumcised on religious grounds.


***********************************

The government of St Edmund will vote AGAINST this proposal, if it gets as far as the General Assembly, on the grounds that [a] its failure to define "Male Genital Mutilation" at all actually leaves it so open to deliberate misinterpretation that it's effectively valueless, because any governments that want to leave [the usual version of] male circumsision legal within their nations can claim that that isn't a "mutilation" & consequently isn't covered by the ban; [b] it could be interpereted as requiring governments to ban male-to-female sex-change operations, which are legal [although rare] in St Edmund; and [c] the supposed ill-effects of male circumcision (which it's clear from the discussion here is what you're mainly trying to ban) are far less proven than those of female genital mutilation; and [d] that although the circumcision of male children is not practised by the main cultural groups within our nation we consider this proposal to be culturally insensitive, and unduly intrusive on national sovereignity.

OOC: RL reference, not necessarily the case in those NS nations where male children are routinely circumcised on religious grounds.You could say that for absolutely anything. I could roleplay my scientists showing conculsive proof that circumcision causes average life expectancy to drop by 25% - it's just as viable as some other nation roleplaying religious reasons. It's why roleplay is bunk, IMO.The government of St Edmund will vote AGAINST this proposal, if it gets as far as the General Assembly, on the grounds that [a] its failure to define "Male Genital Mutilation" at all actually leaves it so open to deliberate misinterpretation that it's effectively valueless, because any governments that want to leave [the usual version of] male circumsision legal within their nations can claim that that isn't a "mutilation" & consequently isn't covered by the ban;That's true [b] it could be interpereted as requiring governments to ban male-to-female sex-change operations, which are legal [although rare] in St Edmund; That's untrue
4. Urges States to avoid this practice, unless necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child, until the individual becomes old enough to make a willful choice.and [c] the supposed ill-effects of male circumcision (which it's clear from the discussion here is what you're mainly trying to ban) are far less proven than those of female genital mutilation;Partially true, although there is also a human rights issue to consider - the medical benefits previously considered in the past should be considered alongside the medical dangers. If I'm honest there is little to say one outweighs the other - which technically makes the process redundant. If there is no benefit for performing the procedure, why perform it?and [d] that although the circumcision of male children is not practised by the main cultural groups within our nation we consider this proposal to be culturally insensitive, and unduly intrusive on national sovereignity.We have had LOTS of resolutions which are culturally insensitive in the past.

It's why roleplay is bunk, IMO.

OOC: But a lot of other players disagre with you about this...

We have had LOTS of resolutions which are culturally insensitive in the past.

And I'm fairly sure that the government of St Edmund has voted AGAINST all of those that came to vote since our entry into the UN.

I'll note that there are degrees of cultural sensitivity - in some circumstances, no amount of respect for cultural differences should stand in the way of, for example, a human rights issue. You haven't persuaded me that this is one of those circumstances.

Urges States to avoid this practice, unless necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child, until the individual becomes old enough to make a willful choice.
The word 'wilful' (OOC: is 'willful' an Americanism?) in almost all cases implies a malevolent intention on the part of the actor in question. I advise you to amend this clause accordingly.

MV

OOC: Hirota has a point with respect to certain elements of RP, St Edmund. In the case you highlighted, I think it's only reasonable to assume that RL trends are prevalent in NS. Otherwise just about everything we do is pointless...

Partially true, although there is also a human rights issue to consider - the medical benefits previously considered in the past should be considered alongside the medical dangers. If I'm honest there is little to say one outweighs the other - which technically makes the process redundant. If there is no benefit for performing the procedure, why perform it?
Because there's a cultural reason. Female circumcision has far more negatives than it does positives, which warrants a culturally insensitive resolution.

If the goods are just as many as the bads, and the practice is redundant, as you say, why impede upon someone else's culture?

first of all, i agree with Grunberg's card in the fourth post

at first, i was glad that there was no comparison to FGM in the resolution.... until the argument started up about page two. lets get this clear: there is no comparison between FGM and male circumcision. for their to be a comparison, you would need to remove the foreskin (equivalent of the hood), the glans (equivalent of the clitoris) and the removal of the scrotum (equivalent of the labia).... i cant think of an eqivalent of sewing up of the vagina though. also, i am against this part:

3. Urges States to avoid using the alternative phrase 'male circumcision', as this detracts from what the surgery actually does.

like in the FGM resolution, this is misleading. in this case, it states exactly what it does: removal of the foreskin. to us, there is no solid evidence to support or condem male circumcision, so at this point, it should be left to the individual, and the state should provide information. we commend point 4 (similar to what we suggested) but condem the rest, especially this part:

1. Condemns the practice of MGM;
because there is no force behind it, this is toothless. it is no good to condem this, and not take action to stop it.

I believe there is good reason for this inference. FGM has conclusively been proven to be an unnecessary, harmful act and, consequently, merits international condemnation. I submit to you that the same cannot yet be said of MG'M'.

I - and likely most Ecopoeians - would prefer it if circumcisions were not performed until the individual has reached majority. However, my opposition to the non-consensual practice is not firm enough to justify this level of cultural insensitivity.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

It has been conclusively been shown to be unnecessary. The only reason it isn't conclusively to be harmful is because it's so widely accepted that people refuse to see the medical side-effects as harmful enough to condemn the practice, and for people to see the damage inherent to the practice as maiming the penis like they do FGM. Again, would anyone have a problem with condemning a widespread practice of rhinoplasty on children or any other cosmetic surgery. It's is conclusively proven that this surgery is cosmetic. That anyone would protect a practice that removes a part of the sexual organs for cosmetic reasons before the age when someone can actually use that part is simply disgusting.

It's truly unfortunate that people continue to suggest the ritual practice of mutilating the sexual organs of males should be a decision of the parents. So many refuse to see removing a part of the organ as mutilation. So much so that people treat it like it's removing an abnormality. Many groups refer to the tip of the penis when referencing the head, when the tip of the penis is, in fact, the foreskin (notice FORE). It's simply widespread cultural brainwashing that prevents people from seeing the practice for what it is. Obviously, if we discovered a culture that placed fake breasts on babies or some other cosmetic and dangerous surgery, we would unite in condemning it. It's amazing that even though this practice has been widely shown to have no medical benefit we don't treat it like any other practice that removes or adds a body part simply for cosmetic purposes.

I disagree.

Any response to my 'wilful' comments?

I disagree.

Any response to my 'wilful' comments?

You mean that it should be delayed till age of majority? I believe that people can have any surgery they wish when they are adults. All your other comments I addressed.

OOC: you disagree? Do you disagree that it has been found to be medically unnecessary? Can you name one pediatrician's group that finds it be medically necessary? It has been found to be medically unnecessary by both the AMA and the AAP, America being the country where it most commonly practiced. Or do you disagree that cutting a part off of a baby for cosmetic reasons should be condemned and is inherently harmful?

You mean that it should be delayed till age of majority? I believe that people can have any surgery they wish when they are adults. All your other comments I addressed.

OOC: you disagree? Do you disagree that it has been found to be medically unnecessary? Can you name one pediatrician's group that finds it be medically necessary? It has been found to be medically unnecessary by both the AMA and the AAP, America being the country where it most commonly practiced. Or do you disagree that cutting a part off of a baby for cosmetic reasons should be condemned and is inherently harmful?
OOC: My OOC views are inconsequential.

IC:

Here's the relevant comment in case you missed it:

Urges States to avoid this practice, unless necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child, until the individual becomes old enough to make a willful choice.
The word 'wilful' (OOC: is 'willful' an Americanism?) in almost all cases implies a malevolent intention on the part of the actor in question. I advise you to amend this clause accordingly.

You mean that it should be delayed till age of majority? I believe that people can have any surgery they wish when they are adults. All your other comments I addressed.

OOC: you disagree? Do you disagree that it has been found to be medically unnecessary? Can you name one pediatrician's group that finds it be medically necessary? It has been found to be medically unnecessary by both the AMA and the AAP, America being the country where it most commonly practiced. Or do you disagree that cutting a part off of a baby for cosmetic reasons should be condemned and is inherently harmful?
OOC: Unnecessary does not equate to harmful.

first of all, i agree with Grunberg's card in the fourth post

at first, i was glad that there was no comparison to FGM in the resolution.... until the argument started up about page two. lets get this clear: there is no comparison between FGM and male circumcision. for their to be a comparison, you would need to remove the foreskin (equivalent of the hood), the glans (equivalent of the clitoris) and the removal of the scrotum (equivalent of the labia).... i cant think of an eqivalent of sewing up of the vagina though. also, i am against this part:

First of all, all types of FGM are condemned including the act of merely removing the clitoral hood. The differend between the clitoral hood and the foreskin is the clitoral hood has much less nerves. The glans and clitoris are not equivalent as any woman will tell you. The glans in combination with the foreskin are approximately equivalent to the clitoris in combination with the clitoral hood.

Your comparisons are inaccurate because the labia does not serve the same purpose as the scrotum. The labia are approximately equivalent to other skin on the penis that I suppose could be removed or scarred intentionally. You mention the most grievous type of FGM and pretend like only that is condemned. All mutilation of the female genitalia is condemned.

The point was not that they are equivalent. The point is that ALL TYPES of mutilation of the genitals are condemned when it is a woman including just the removal of the hood. The point is that ALL TYPES of mutilation should be condemned NO MATTER WHAT SEX THE 'PATIENT' IS. To say that any mutilation of the female genitals is wrong and that male genitals CAN be mutilated is sexist. Period.

like in the FGM resolution, this is misleading. in this case, it states exactly what it does: removal of the foreskin. to us, there is no solid evidence to support or condem male circumcision, so at this point, it should be left to the individual, and the state should provide information. we commend point 4 (similar to what we suggested) but condem the rest, especially this part:

You admit there is no solid evidence to support the practice. Shouldn't that in and of itself be enough evidence to condemn ritual mutilation of the penis? Shouldn't that be enough to condemn the practice of cutting off a part of the penis?

because there is no force behind it, this is toothless. it is no good to condem this, and not take action to stop it.
It does exactly what the FGM resolution does. And it is correct. The first step is education and condemnation. Look at the arguments in this thread. If were internationally condemned would people keep saying that it's not harmful or that there is no evidence of its harm (as if maiming the penis isn't harm)? If people were educated about the effects of this practice would we have to continually prove that the practice is not considered medically beneficial by any international medical organization? If people were educated about the practice would they know that one of the diseases it is supposed to prevent, Phimosis, is caused by another type of mistreatment of the penis and can be prevented simply by not scarring the foreskin by tearing back prematurely? Education about this practice is direly necessary. Condemnation of this practice is the only tool that will get people to start examining the practice as abhorrent.

FGM in its worst forms is far worse, unquestionably. However, FGM is not nearly as widespread as MGM. All mutilation of the genitals for cosmetic, religious or cultural reasons should be condemned regardless of what gender/sex those genitals belong to.

I don't act like FGM is acceptable and this is not an attack on the FGM resolution. I agree with the resolution except I think the genitals of everyone should be protected. I modeled the resolution off of the FGM resolution because it was well-written and is an excellent way to address the problem.

If you follow my comments I contine to condemn both practices and I specifically said the FGM resolution was not sexist in purpose. It is sexist in effect, though. Even Gru admitted it has the effect of treating the female genitalia as more important (not his/her exact words).

It's not a religious thing - it's a cultural thing. There are many elements of the Jewish community...

Well, that does make it religious, the Jewish culture = Jewish religion.

OOC: Unnecessary does not equate to harmful.

Unnecessarily mutaliting a child's sex organ does not equate to harmful? I beg to differ. Would you consider it harmful to cut off a male child's nipples? Would you protect a parent's right to do so?

Fine. You need medical harm caused by it.

How about causing meatal stenosis which requires surgery to correct (something I and all of my brothers were subjected to. Incidentally, children do remember surgery on their penis that is a result of an unnecessary surgery on their penis that they don't remember.)? Meatal stenosis is caused by the removal of the natural and helpful foreskin that protects the head of the penis particularly in the very young. Removing it exposes the opening in the penis to the world and sometimes causes callousing and irritation in the glans that causes the hold to become too small. Imagine how fun that surgery is, the one now necessary, due to MGM, that enlarges the hole in the penis. This is the most common side effect of MGM. It is said some to be as common as ten percent of MGM's result in this. I'd say it's closer to about 6%. Only a portion of those require surgery. However, this is far more than will suffer from UTI's, penile cancer and phimosis combined, the main reasons given for the surgery other than cultural or religious reasons. And just for a little more fun, meatal stenosis is caused by a meatal ulcer that occurs in about four times as many patients as get stenosis. So even if your son does not require surgery, he is way too likely to get an ulcer on the tip of his penis as a result.

Now, let's talk about the surgery itself. In infants and young boys the foreskin is melded to the glans of the penis. In order to remove the foreskin, one must cut around the foreskin and then tear it away from the glans, leaving the glans raw and missing a layer of skin. The glans and accompanying wound on the rest of the penis from where the foreskin used to be are in danger of infection and other further complications like skin bridges, fistulae, bleeding (in about 35% of cases. This is particularly bad in that a newborn infant has less than a pint of blood), etc.

Yep, nothing harmful about a circumcision, an unnecessary surgery with unnecessary complications.

Well, that does make it religious, the Jewish culture = Jewish religion.

Not true. Religious means it's a necessary part of their religious practice and has religious significance. Cultural means it's just a part of the culture of many individuals who are Jewish. If one renounces Judaism, he may still circumcize his/her children as still being a part of the culture. It is much like a head scarf is not religious and is cultural. Cultural != religious.

OOC: My OOC views are inconsequential.

IC:

Here's the relevant comment in case you missed it:

Willful choice refers to the owner of the genitals deciding if they wish to mutilate them. It's an entirely appropriate clause.

Unnecessarily mutaliting a child's sex organ does not equate to harmful? I beg to differ. Would you consider it harmful to cut off a male child's nipples? Would you protect a parent's right to do so?

Fine. You need medical harm caused by it.

How about causing meatal stenosis which requires surgery to correct (something I and all of my brothers were subjected to. Incidentally, children do remember surgery on their penis that is a result of an unnecessary surgery on their penis that they don't remember.)? Meatal stenosis is caused by the removal of the natural and helpful foreskin that protects the head of the penis particularly in the very young. Removing it exposes the opening in the penis to the world and sometimes causes callousing and irritation in the glans that causes the hold to become too small. Imagine how fun that surgery is, the one now necessary, due to MGM, that enlarges the hole in the penis. This is the most common side effect of MGM. It is said some to be as common as ten percent of MGM's result in this. I'd say it's closer to about 6%. Only a portion of those require surgery. However, this is far more than will suffer from UTI's, penile cancer and phimosis combined, the main reasons given for the surgery other than cultural or religious reasons. And just for a little more fun, meatal stenosis is caused by a meatal ulcer that occurs in about four times as many patients as get stenosis. So even if your son does not require surgery, he is way too likely to get an ulcer on the tip of his penis as a result.

Now, let's talk about the surgery itself. In infants and young boys the foreskin is melded to the glans of the penis. In order to remove the foreskin, one must cut around the foreskin and then tear it away from the glans, leaving the glans raw and missing a layer of skin. The glans and accompanying wound on the rest of the penis from where the foreskin used to be are in danger of infection and other further complications like skin bridges, fistulae, bleeding (in about 35% of cases. This is particularly bad in that a newborn infant has less than a pint of blood), etc.

Yep, nothing harmful about a circumcision, an unnecessary surgery with unnecessary complications.
That's a touching sob-story with little relevance. I believe you're reading too much into my single sentence. "Unnecessary" does not equate to "harmful." Unnecessary equates to unnecessary. Not required. By all accounts, the negatives no not adequately outweigh the positives in order to warrant cultural intrusion.

Now, if you show me a widespread cultural motion to remove male nipples at birth and reported side effects that aren't soaked with ambiguity, then maybe, just maybe, we can discuss the validity or invalidity of such a practice. As it stands, such a thing is not comparable with male circumcision, and male circumcision is not something that should be legislated against, at least not on the international scale.

Feel free to legislate against it on the national level, but good luck dealing with religious freedom and all that fun stuff.

Now, if you show me a widespread cultural motion
Jewish culture.

Not true. Religious means it's a necessary part of their religious practice and has religious significance. Cultural means it's just a part of the culture of many individuals who are Jewish. If one renounces Judaism, he may still circumcize his/her children as still being a part of the culture. It is much like a head scarf is not religious and is cultural. Cultural != religious.
You are making your opinion weaker. When people are religious they also follow the culture, so add religious Jews + non-religious Jews, and you have a larger group wanting circumcision. Don't punish religious minorities.

OOC: RL reference, not necessarily the case in those NS nations where male children are routinely circumcised on religious grounds.


***********************************

The government of St Edmund will vote AGAINST this proposal, if it gets as far as the General Assembly, on the grounds that [a] its failure to define "Male Genital Mutilation" at all actually leaves it so open to deliberate misinterpretation that it's effectively valueless, because any governments that want to leave [the usual version of] male circumsision legal within their nations can claim that that isn't a "mutilation" & consequently isn't covered by the ban;

Except it's mentioned in the proposal. It's specifically points to the practice of circumcision, much like the FGM specifically references female circumcision.

[b] it could be interpereted as requiring governments to ban male-to-female sex-change operations, which are legal [although rare] in St Edmund; and

Would be true, if one hadn't read the proposal.


[c] the supposed ill-effects of male circumcision (which it's clear from the discussion here is what you're mainly trying to ban) are far less proven than those of female genital mutilation;

Supposed ill effects? Are you kidding? The ill-effects have been proven for about fifty years. The only question that has ever been presented is whether the good outweighs the bad. The recent view is that it doesn't. And as presented, shouldn't one have to have conclusive proof of benefit in order to PERFORM an amputation of a part of the penis?

and [d] that although the circumcision of male children is not practised by the main cultural groups within our nation we consider this proposal to be culturally insensitive, and unduly intrusive on national sovereignity.

I don't have a problem with being culturally insensitive. Banning FGM was culturally insensitive and I would have voted for that one twice if I could have.

That's a touching sob-story with little relevance. I believe you're reading too much into my single sentence. "Unnecessary" does not equate to "harmful." Unnecessary equates to unnecessary. Not required. By all accounts, the negatives no not adequately outweigh the positives in order to warrant cultural intrusion.

Again, mutilating the genital is enough of a negative. The ill-effects of circumcision are conclusively proven. That sob-story is one that affects a large number of circumcised children. Even if nothing else occurs they are still missing a part of their body. I condemn EVERY practice of subjecting children to unnecessary surgery and removing body parts that are of use unnecessarily is clearly worth condemning. The foreskin has a use and it is being denied children. That is clear and obvious harm.

Now, if you show me a widespread cultural motion to remove male nipples at birth and reported side effects that aren't soaked with ambiguity, then maybe, just maybe, we can discuss the validity or invalidity of such a practice. As it stands, such a thing is not comparable with male circumcision, and male circumcision is not something that should be legislated against, at least not on the international scale.

Ambiguity? Again, is that a joke? What's ambiguous about being denied use of a part of your body? What's ambiguous about requiring another surgery to clear up a side-effect of the first UNNECESSARY surgery? What's ambiguous about the pain a child is subjected to? What's ambiguous about the complications that can and does occur with any surgery?

By the way, I wouldn't and most wouldn't support female circumcision if there were NO side-effects. Mutilating the genitals of infants is an unacceptable practice.

Feel free to legislate against it on the national level, but good luck dealing with religious freedom and all that fun stuff.

This is NOT a religious practice. It's a cultural practice. Show me any religious document that says it's required. And if sacrificing children was a religious practice, I'd still legislate against it. Note that being a religious practice is one of the common arguments FOR FGM. Blaming it on your religion does not excuse mutilating the sexual organs of an infant.

Your statements make it obvious that education on this issue is even more necessary than most would think.

Jewish culture.


You are making your opinion weaker. When people are religious they also follow the culture, so add religious Jews + non-religious Jews, and you have a larger group wanting circumcision. Don't punish religious minorities.

Ha. How widespread the practice is a better argument for condemnation. It's not a religious practice, so your point about religious minorities is ridiculous. In many countries, circumcised males are in the majority.

Ha. How widespread the practice is a better argument for condemnation. It's not a religious practice, so your point about religious minorities is ridiculous. In many countries, circumcised males are in the majority.
It is both, which makes it even more important.

It is both, which makes it even more important.

No, it's a cultural practice. Ask any jew if it's a necessary part of the faith or just a part of the culture. However, whether it's cultural or religious has no bearing on whether it's acceptable to maim the genitals of children.

On behalf of the people of The Republic of Westenwales, I would like to commend the representative of Jocabia for his intentions.

I am convinced that the enforced, ritualistic mutilation of genitals--of males, females, infants and adults--to be physiologically and possibly psychologically traumatic. The incision, circumcision, subcision, etc. (all of which are considered to be acts of Male Genital Mutilation) of the penis have vague, if not absent, medical foundings. It is my opinion that there are notions that MGM is restricted only to circumcision, while this is not the case.

However, I do not agree that this is an item for UN legislature (Resolution #62 predates my membership to the UN, and I cannot comment on its passage here), and must humbly deny my approval for this proposal, well-intended though it is.

On behalf of the people of The Republic of Westenwales, I would like to commend the representative of Jocabia for his intentions.

I am convinced that the enforced, ritualistic mutilation of genitals--of males, females, infants and adults--to be physiologically and possibly psychologically traumatic. The incision, circumcision, subcision, etc. (all of which are considered to be acts of Male Genital Mutilation) of the penis have vague, if not absent, medical foundings. It is my opinion that there are notions that MGM is restricted only to circumcision, while this is not the case.

However, I do not agree that this is an item for UN legislature (Resolution #62 predates my membership to the UN, and I cannot comment on its passage here), and must humbly deny my approval for this proposal, well-intended though it is.
An absolutely fair response and thank you for actually admitting that it is a problem. I would like to point out that this merely condemns the practice and calls for education programs in member nations. It does not move the ability to legislate on the matter to only a international level. You are free to make your own laws on the subject without any interference by the UN (at least not from this proposal). This proposal simply calls for international condemnation.

And, yes, it deals with all forms of genital mutilation, while only circumcision is mentioned.

Willful choice refers to the owner of the genitals deciding if they wish to mutilate them. It's an entirely appropriate clause.
OOC: OK, it's your call. Just bear in mind that 'wilful' carries a negative connotation.

Jewish culture.
I understand that the Jewish culture includes circumcision; I am Jewish. The next part of that sentence explains that I'm looking for a widespread cultural movement that wishes to remove male nipples.

OOC: OK, it's your call. Just bear in mind that 'wilful' carries a negative connotation.

Actually, I thought that connotation only related to the adjective and not the adverb, but, on researching it, I've found it's enough of an issue to change that wording in a future proposal.

I understand that the Jewish culture includes circumcision; I am Jewish. The next part of that sentence explains that I'm looking for a widespread cultural movement that wishes to remove male nipples.

I did catch that even if he didn't and since you were talking to me...

Again, mutilating the genital is enough of a negative. The ill-effects of circumcision are conclusively proven. That sob-story is one that affects a large number of circumcised children. Even if nothing else occurs they are still missing a part of their body. I condemn EVERY practice of subjecting children to unnecessary surgery and removing body parts that are of use unnecessarily is clearly worth condemning. The foreskin has a use and it is being denied children. That is clear and obvious harm.



Ambiguity? Again, is that a joke? What's ambiguous about being denied use of a part of your body? What's ambiguous about requiring another surgery to clear up a side-effect of the first UNNECESSARY surgery? What's ambiguous about the pain a child is subjected to? What's ambiguous about the complications that can and does occur with any surgery?

By the way, I wouldn't and most wouldn't support female circumcision if there were NO side-effects. Mutilating the genitals of infants is an unacceptable practice.



This is NOT a religious practice. It's a cultural practice. Show me any religious document that says it's required. And if sacrificing children was a religious practice, I'd still legislate against it. Note that being a religious practice is one of the common arguments FOR FGM. Blaming it on your religion does not excuse mutilating the sexual organs of an infant.

Your statements make it obvious that education on this issue is even more necessary than most would think.
You have said there are positives. There have been links to websites that debate the good with the bad on this thread. That's ambiguity. I'm not about to tread on someone's culture because it doesn't agree with me; there has to be confirmed negative effects that largely outweigh the positive effects.

It is a religious matter. Like it or not, Orthodox Judaism requires strict adherence to the Talmud - there's your religious document. I'm not saying that it should be protected because it's a religious practice; I'm saying that it should not be legislated against internationally because it's a religious practice with both positive and negative health effects.

You have said, Jocabia, that it has both positive and negative health effects, and thus was a "redundant" practice. Do you now wish to recant this statement? It sure looks like you're trying your best to contradict yourself.

You have said there are positives. There have been links to websites that debate the good with the bad on this thread. That's ambiguity. I'm not about to tread on someone's culture because it doesn't agree with me; there has to be confirmed negative effects that largely outweigh the positive effects.

No, I haven't. I have said it was at one time it was argued that positives exist. That position is no longer held by any major medical organization. There are confirmed negative effects and no accepted benefits. There is no ambiguity.

The 'benefits' I mentioned should be put in quotes as they have since been debunked. Even phimosis can still occur in a circumcized penis and is better prevented by proper education about the penis. It's an entirely preventable disease that is a much greater problem in countries that routinely practice circumcision. I challenge you to find one medical benefit that isn't an unbelievably unlikely benefit or has simply been completely debunked.

It is a religious matter. Like it or not, Orthodox Judaism requires strict adherence to the Talmud - there's your religious document. I'm not saying that it should be protected because it's a religious practice; I'm saying that it should not be legislated against internationally because it's a religious practice with both positive and negative health effects.

There are no positive effects. Many of the perceived positive effects have been debunked. Cancer of the penis was said to have been caused by smegma (virtually eliminated in the Jewish practice of circumcision, but not so in other practices that do not remove as much foreskin), but has been since been proven to be caused by HPV (like cervical cancer). Many countries that do not practice circumcision have far lower rates of penile cancer than the few countries that still practice routine circumcision. It has been said to prevent STD's but has since been proven to increase the overall incidence of STD's particularly the most common STD, clamydia. They say it prevents UTI's but it merely reduces the rate of UTI's by .9%. 100% circumcision to prevent a case of UTI in 9 out of 1000 boys? Ridiculous. Particularly when the rate of UTI's is over 10 times that in female babies and is handled routinely and easily by oral antibiotic.

Any doctor who suggested surgery for a highly unlikely disease that can easily be completely cured by a single pill and will likely never return would have his license revoked in any other case than circumcision.

You have said, Jocabia, that it has both positive and negative health effects, and thus was a "redundant" practice. Do you now wish to recant this statement? It sure looks like you're trying your best to contradict yourself.

There are no positive health effects. It accomplishes nothing that cannot be accomplished through other means and causes lots of things that are irreversible or require surgery to correct. It's not a redundant practice. It's a practice that CUTS OFF a useful part of the male genitalia based on outdated and debunked medical information.

No major health organization endorses the practice any longer and it is condemned by many national and international health organizations. Again, I challenge anyone to find any organization of pediatricians that views this to be necessary or beneficial. And if it's not necessary or beneficial, it's just removing a useful part of the male genitalia through a painful procedure that has many possible side-effects and many gauranteed side-effects for no reason other than the parent wants to do so.

Jocabia:
Would you oppose parents removing the child's appendix for no reason at all? Or how about the tailbone? Or maybe I could think of something that still has SOME use like the foreskin. I've got it! How about having a tooth pulled?(I realize that this could not be performed on a little baby, but not for reasons that apply to this argument. So pretend.)I realize that most people wouldn't want to have their teeth pulled for no reason at all, but how about some small medical reason, like male circumcision? That's usually legal, if rare. Why should male circumcision be banned if having teeth pulled isn't?

Teeth are not pulled from a child unless there is a clear and imminent medical need. I am not opposed to circumcision when addressing a clear and imminent medical need, but the routine practice does no such thing.

Actually, I thought that connotation only related to the adjective and not the adverb, but, on researching it, I've found it's enough of an issue to change that wording in a future proposal.
OOC: I appreciate you taking the time to investigate this. Glad to be of some help, even though Ecopoeia doesn't support the proposal.

I feel compelled to move past the health issue with circumcision - I think everyone can accept there are no compelling medical benefits for having the procedure performed when there is no medical reason to do so. However, I have to linger to say a few words.

We should accept that in the absence of any tangable health benefit when there are no medical reasons for the procedure, we have effectively none of the major reasons that people have the treatment performed. The burden of proof is upon those who support the health benefits of the procedure to justify the removal, not those who wish to preserve the status quo.

Moving on, the biggest issue I have with the practice is human rights. Why inflict pain when there are no noticable benefits? Is it not tantamount to torture to inflict pain for no apparent benefit in the majority of cases?

The reasons people cite to protect it are interesting. I've made my assertion that the practice is cultural, not religious. The vast, vast, vast majority of males (http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html) who go through the process are not jewish - which is misconception number 1 in this topic. I'll concede that Brit Milah is older than the practices of some other nations and cultures, (although it is not as established as one might think (http://www.circumstitions.com/Chronology.html)) but that should not make a difference.

According to modern scholars, circumcision is not even mentioned in the either the earliest, "J", version of Bereshith ("Genesis") nor the next three rewrites by other authors. Most importantly, the story of Abram is there in its entirety, except the part about the Covenant being "sealed" with circumcision. The parallel Covenant story of "a smoking kiln and its blazing torch" passing between the halves of animals and birds sacrificed by Abram is in J. Many biblical scholars agree on this point, and it is in accord with the mitzvot against desecrating the body. It has even been suggested by religious scholars that early Judaism forbad circumcision!

Two of the great strengths of Judaism are its rationality and its commitment to learning and scholarship. Another is the tradition of gemilut chasadim, acts of loving kindness, and the prohibition on deliberately causing pain. (There are also the mitzvot against imprinting any marks on one's body or making cuttings in one's flesh.) Cutting part of a baby's genitals off flies in the face of all of these. (A sop of wine or even modern anaesthesia during the operation is no solution to the pain problem. The wound continues to sting whenever urine enters it, until it heals, 10 to 14 days later.)

Many people invoke the power of "tradition". Yet no-one would deny that some traditions, such as slavery, segregation and female circumcision, are bad traditions, that traditions can change*, and that bad ones should. (And a literal reading of the Torah by Christians was used to justify slavery only 150 years ago, and segregation only a few decades ago. A literal reading of the 'New Testament' is also one of the roots of the tradition of anti-Semitism, of course.)

Finally, the other reason I support this draft (and welcome this topic) is that it has worked to erase half-facts, myths and misunderstandings about the process.

I'll be posting shortly on why it IS possible to equate circumcision.

Mutilation?
The question of whether circumcision is "mutiltation" is contentious. It very much depends on one's attitude towards circumcision, especially whether one considers it beneficial or not. The (5000-page) Shorter Oxford Dictionary says


Mutilate (miü·tilëit), v. 1534. [f. L. mutilat-, ppl. stem of mutilare to lop off; f. mutilus maimed (cf. Gr. mutiloV [mutilos] hornless); see -ATE3.] 1. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or organ of the body; to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ) 1562. 2. To render (a thing, e.g. a record, etc) imperfect by cutting off or destroying a part 1534.
1. The Greeks . . mutilated the slain THIRLWALL. 2. I wil not in any words wyllinglye mangle or mutilate that honourable mans worke MOR. Hence Mu·tilator, also †-er, one who mutilates.
Mutilation (miütilëi·§@n), 1535. [ad. L. mutilationem.] The action of mutilating; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part. b. spec. Castration 1737.

[Some symbols are approximate.]


Circumcision fits all of the second part of 1.

to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ)

There is no doubt that the skin is an organ - the body's biggest. (The penis is independently an organ, of course.) There is no doubt that circumcision cuts off and destroys the foreskin's use. So the questions of whether the foreskin is "essential" (intact men consider theirs to be "of the essence" of their penises, ie integral to them) and whether circumcision renders the penis "imperfect" (it certainly renders the foreskin imperfect) are secondary.
The derivation from the Greek for "hornless" is also suggestive. The farmer may think dehorning cattle improves them, the cattle may not. Likewise castration.

If the word "mutilation" still seems excessive, the M of MGM (and FGM) can always stand for the neutral "Modification".

In my opinion, this is non of the UN's business. It is a religious practice, and is not allowed to be stopped by a secular orginization. Also, circumsision improves hygein in the genitles.

I repeat, it is not your business, and I would like to say that it has no negitive side effects which I can see.

In my opinion, this is non of the UN's business. It is a religious practice, and is not allowed to be stopped by a secular orginization. Also, circumsision improves hygein in the genitles.

I repeat, it is not your business, and I would like to say that it has no negitive side effects which I can see.

read my post just above, read what I have said. Read them and consider.

it's NOT a religious practice. It is a cultural tradition. Just like slavery WAS.

It has plenty of negative side effects - just because you don't see them does not erase their existence - it simply highlights the lack of understanding.

In my opinion, this is non of the UN's business. It is a religious practice, and is not allowed to be stopped by a secular orginization. Also, circumsision improves hygein in the genitles.

I repeat, it is not your business, and I would like to say that it has no negitive side effects which I can see.

Almost every part of this post is incorrect and further documents the need for education on the subject.

Mutilation?
The question of whether circumcision is "mutiltation" is contentious. It very much depends on one's attitude towards circumcision, especially whether one considers it beneficial or not. The (5000-page) Shorter Oxford Dictionary says


Mutilate (miü·tilëit), v. 1534. [f. L. mutilat-, ppl. stem of mutilare to lop off; f. mutilus maimed (cf. Gr. mutiloV [mutilos] hornless); see -ATE3.] 1. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or organ of the body; to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ) 1562. 2. To render (a thing, e.g. a record, etc) imperfect by cutting off or destroying a part 1534.
1. The Greeks . . mutilated the slain THIRLWALL. 2. I wil not in any words wyllinglye mangle or mutilate that honourable mans worke MOR. Hence Mu·tilator, also †-er, one who mutilates.
Mutilation (miütilëi·§@n), 1535. [ad. L. mutilationem.] The action of mutilating; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part. b. spec. Castration 1737.

[Some symbols are approximate.]


Circumcision fits all of the second part of 1.

to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ)

There is no doubt that the skin is an organ - the body's biggest. (The penis is independently an organ, of course.) There is no doubt that circumcision cuts off and destroys the foreskin's use. So the questions of whether the foreskin is "essential" (intact men consider theirs to be "of the essence" of their penises, ie integral to them) and whether circumcision renders the penis "imperfect" (it certainly renders the foreskin imperfect) are secondary.
The derivation from the Greek for "hornless" is also suggestive. The farmer may think dehorning cattle improves them, the cattle may not. Likewise castration.

If the word "mutilation" still seems excessive, the M of MGM (and FGM) can always stand for the neutral "Modification".

I don't agree that it is contentious. It is clear that the foreskin has a use. There is no medical question as to its use, only some that question whether its use is essential. It is has nerves and feeling that are useful during sexual intercourse. It protects the end of the penis. There is no question that these things are true. And whether you agree it is make it useless (which if it's gone it surely is), it is definitely cutting it off.

People may complain about the use of the word 'mutilate' but they likewise complain about the word 'genocide' and that will not stop me from using both words appropriately.

I am circumcised and I definitely consider it mutilation. Whether the people who are performing it are in favor of it and think it is not mutilation or not, shouldn't the opinion of the victim matter? Wouldn't it be prudent to wait until they can answer for us whether they want the procedure?

I feel compelled to move past the health issue with circumcision - I think everyone can accept there are no compelling medical benefits for having the procedure performed when there is no medical reason to do so. However, I have to linger to say a few words.

We should accept that in the absence of any tangable health benefit when there are no medical reasons for the procedure, we have effectively none of the major reasons that people have the treatment performed. The burden of proof is upon those who support the health benefits of the procedure to justify the removal, not those who wish to preserve the status quo.

Moving on, the biggest issue I have with the practice is human rights. Why inflict pain when there are no noticable benefits? Is it not tantamount to torture to inflict pain for no apparent benefit in the majority of cases?

The reasons people cite to protect it are interesting. I've made my assertion that the practice is cultural, not religious. The vast, vast, vast majority of males (http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html) who go through the process are not jewish - which is misconception number 1 in this topic. I'll concede that Brit Milah is older than the practices of some other nations and cultures, (although it is not as established as one might think (http://www.circumstitions.com/Chronology.html)) but that should not make a difference.

According to modern scholars, circumcision is not even mentioned in the either the earliest, "J", version of Bereshith ("Genesis") nor the next three rewrites by other authors. Most importantly, the story of Abram is there in its entirety, except the part about the Covenant being "sealed" with circumcision. The parallel Covenant story of "a smoking kiln and its blazing torch" passing between the halves of animals and birds sacrificed by Abram is in J. Many biblical scholars agree on this point, and it is in accord with the mitzvot against desecrating the body. It has even been suggested by religious scholars that early Judaism forbad circumcision!

Two of the great strengths of Judaism are its rationality and its commitment to learning and scholarship. Another is the tradition of gemilut chasadim, acts of loving kindness, and the prohibition on deliberately causing pain. (There are also the mitzvot against imprinting any marks on one's body or making cuttings in one's flesh.) Cutting part of a baby's genitals off flies in the face of all of these. (A sop of wine or even modern anaesthesia during the operation is no solution to the pain problem. The wound continues to sting whenever urine enters it, until it heals, 10 to 14 days later.)

Many people invoke the power of "tradition". Yet no-one would deny that some traditions, such as slavery, segregation and female circumcision, are bad traditions, that traditions can change*, and that bad ones should. (And a literal reading of the Torah by Christians was used to justify slavery only 150 years ago, and segregation only a few decades ago. A literal reading of the 'New Testament' is also one of the roots of the tradition of anti-Semitism, of course.)

Finally, the other reason I support this draft (and welcome this topic) is that it has worked to erase half-facts, myths and misunderstandings about the process.

I'll be posting shortly on why it IS possible to equate circumcision.

Well-put.

it's NOT a religious practice. It is a cultural tradition. Just like slavery WAS.
If it's not a religious practice, then why does God command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew Bible?

If it's not a religious practice, then why does God command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew Bible?

Because it was added to the bible later on. Read my earlier post.

Here, I'll make it easier for you.
According to modern scholars, circumcision is not even mentioned in the either the earliest, "J", version of Bereshith ("Genesis") nor the next three rewrites by other authors. Most importantly, the story of Abram is there in its entirety, except the part about the Covenant being "sealed" with circumcision. The parallel Covenant story of "a smoking kiln and its blazing torch" passing between the halves of animals and birds sacrificed by Abram is in J. Many biblical scholars agree on this point, and it is in accord with the mitzvot against desecrating the body. It has even been suggested by religious scholars that early Judaism forbad circumcision!

Moreover, just because the hebrew bible sanctions slavery, does not mean we still practice it today. And yes, it does sanction slavery.

Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Both Old Testament, which as I understand it are part of the jewish faith.

Because it was added to the bible later on. Read my earlier post.

Here, I'll make it easier for you.
According to modern scholars, circumcision is not even mentioned in the either the earliest, "J", version of Bereshith ("Genesis") nor the next three rewrites by other authors. Most importantly, the story of Abram is there in its entirety, except the part about the Covenant being "sealed" with circumcision. The parallel Covenant story of "a smoking kiln and its blazing torch" passing between the halves of animals and birds sacrificed by Abram is in J. Many biblical scholars agree on this point, and it is in accord with the mitzvot against desecrating the body. It has even been suggested by religious scholars that early Judaism forbad circumcision!
Early Judaism is not the question. Current Judaism is. As I understand it, the "Old Testament" or Hebrew Bible is the official rules on Judaism. Just because a rulebook's been changed doesn't mean it's not still in effect.

Because it was added to the bible later on. Read my earlier post.

Here, I'll make it easier for you.
According to modern scholars, circumcision is not even mentioned in the either the earliest, "J", version of Bereshith ("Genesis") nor the next three rewrites by other authors. Most importantly, the story of Abram is there in its entirety, except the part about the Covenant being "sealed" with circumcision. The parallel Covenant story of "a smoking kiln and its blazing torch" passing between the halves of animals and birds sacrificed by Abram is in J. Many biblical scholars agree on this point, and it is in accord with the mitzvot against desecrating the body. It has even been suggested by religious scholars that early Judaism forbad circumcision!

Moreover, just because the hebrew bible sanctions slavery, does not mean we still practice it today. And yes, it does sanction slavery.

Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Both Old Testament, which as I understand it are part of the jewish faith.

Point one: I for one do no care WHEN that part of the Bible was written, I simply care that it was written. It is not up to you to decide which Biblical doctorine I am allowed to accept.

Point two: The whole slavey arguement doesn't fly. The Bible says that you aren't allowed to steal slaves, not that slavery is right. This is part of a general ban on theft, and you are perpusfully misconstruing this to try to talk people out of their faiths.

Whether or not circumsision was origionally part of the Bible is irrelevant. It now is an official religious madate for millions of people, not mearly a cultural practice. Back off and leave people to their faiths.

Point one: I for one do no care WHEN that part of the Bible was written, I simply care that it was written. It is not up to you to decide which Biblical doctorine I am allowed to accept.

Point two: The whole slavey arguement doesn't fly. The Bible says that you aren't allowed to steal slaves, not that slavery is right. This is part of a general ban on theft, and you are perpusfully misconstruing this to try to talk people out of their faiths.

Whether or not circumsision was origionally part of the Bible is irrelevant. It now is an official religious madate for millions of people, not mearly a cultural practice. Back off and leave people to their faiths.

Nope. The nation of Jocabia will not endorse the practice of slavery whether religious or not, the practice of sacrificing people or animals whether religious or not, the practice of cutting healthy and useful parts off of babies whether religious or not. Your argument does not excuse the practice.


OOC: And by the way, the Bible does endorse slavery -

Leviticus 25:44-46 44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Those are the words of God to Moses. That is the current form of the Bible and it says that Isrealites may not be treated as slaves and must be protected (in the previous verses) but that people from other nations whether living among you or actually captured in other nations may be bought and sold as slaves. Your argument would be served by being aware of the words of God as told to Moses. These were the same words that were used by early Americans to justify the enslavement of other cultures, eventually leading the widespread practice of owning black slaves.

Early Judaism is not the question. Current Judaism is. As I understand it, the "Old Testament" or Hebrew Bible is the official rules on Judaism. Just because a rulebook's been changed doesn't mean it's not still in effect.

Well, then let's repeal the UN ban on slavery because it clearly says in the Old Testament that people may be bought and sold as property provided they are not Isrealites.

Early Judaism is not the question. Current Judaism is. As I understand it, the "Old Testament" or Hebrew Bible is the official rules on Judaism. Just because a rulebook's been changed doesn't mean it's not still in effect.So when you say, "then why does God command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew Bible?" you mean "then why does some generic Jewish author with an agenda command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew bible?"

You see, you've just admitted the "rulebook" has been changed. Except God isn't editor-in-chief. It's someone with an agenda. I have demonstrated enough evidence that God did not command anything of the sort, and you accepted that by accepting the rulebook has changed. Thank you.

Point one: I for one do no care WHEN that part of the Bible was written, I simply care that it was written. It is not up to you to decide which Biblical doctorine I am allowed to accept.you can accept whatever you want. Does not mean you are right to accept it. You could accept slavery is right because the bible said so, but it's illegal. Religion and it's justifications can only be measured with modern day values. Previous thinking was that the practice was more hygenic. That thinking has been demolished in this topic.

Would you say it is acceptable to practice anti-sementic values because the bible can be used as justification? Should Mr Hitler been allowed to follow whatever bible doctrine he wants? Nobody in sane judgement would accept this. There is a difference in scale, but little else.

Moreover, if the bible was authored by JK Rowling, would you still accept it blindly? Because that's basically what you are saying. You'll accept a book, called the bible, because someone used the pseudonym GOD when they edited the document. I'm not saying god didn't have anything to do with the bible, simply that the alterations were not his work.

Point two: The whole slavey arguement doesn't fly. The Bible says that you aren't allowed to steal slaves, not that slavery is right. This is part of a general ban on theft, and you are perpusfully misconstruing this to try to talk people out of their faiths. I'll quote more then.
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

I have dozens more, but for the sake of keeping such windy discussions to a minimum and to avoid taking this off topic, lets accept I can make a strong arguement the bible found slavery acceptable. If you want to discuss further on slavery and the bible, we can do so at another time.

Whether or not circumsision was origionally part of the Bible is irrelevant. It now is an official religious madate for millions of people, not mearly a cultural practice. Back off and leave people to their faiths.

1. Circumcision is not universal among Jews. In sweden for example only 40% of Jews are circumcised.
2. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not."
3. Circumcision conflicts with significant Jewish laws and values which are universally clear within the bible.
4. Whilst Ceorana pointed out that the commonly believed religious origin of Jewish circumcision is in the Torah, most Jews are unaware of this origin, and in a survey of American Jews, the large majority (87%) do not believe that the Torah is the actual word of God. (link (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&q=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x))
5. In actual practice, many Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not religious reasons. Based on a national survey of American Jews, 90 percent define being Jewish as being a member of a cultural or ethnic group. Most circumcisions of male infants of American Jewish parents are done in hospitals without any religious ritual.

So when you say, "then why does God command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew Bible?" you mean "then why does some generic Jewish author with an agenda command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew bible?"

You see, you've just admitted the "rulebook" has been changed. Except God isn't editor-in-chief. It's someone with an agenda. I have demonstrated enough evidence that God did not command anything of the sort, and you accepted that by accepting the rulebook has changed. Thank you.
You are making the assumption that God is in charge of the holy book of Judaism. This is not correct. God did many/most of the things in the Bible, but didn't actually write it. So the story of Abraham and God and circumcision was (probably) known about/passed down over generations, and then it was decided that it was important enough to add.

I believe your argument is centered on saying that the holy book of a major religion is incorrect. Be careful. Even if a certain percentage of Jews don't believe it, there's some who do.

1st of all rabbis opinions also affect how Jews view the Torah also, which explains the different forms, like reconstructionist, reform, conservative, and orthodox.

2nd don't use NIV when refering to Judaism, as while it contains the old testament (which is the Torah) it isn't really recognized by Jewish people.

1. Circumcision is not universal among Jews. In sweden for example only 40% of Jews are circumcised.
2. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not."
3. Circumcision conflicts with significant Jewish laws and values which are universally clear within the bible.
4. Whilst Ceorana pointed out that the commonly believed religious origin of Jewish circumcision is in the Torah, most Jews are unaware of this origin, and in a survey of American Jews, the large majority (87%) do not believe that the Torah is the actual word of God. (link (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&q=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x))
5. In actual practice, many Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not religious reasons. Based on a national survey of American Jews, 90 percent define being Jewish as being a member of a cultural or ethnic group. Most circumcisions of male infants of American Jewish parents are done in hospitals without any religious ritual.
about point 5, have you took into account that some find a sterile environment safer, and might consider a religious ritual, if it was maybe.. better regulated, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE BANNED.
about point 2, that is true, but the circumsision is still of major importance.
about point 4, the % doesn't matter, and i belive non-religious jews may get circumcised too if they wish to as part of culture.

You are making the assumption that God is in charge of the holy book of Judaism. This is not correct. God did many/most of the things in the Bible, but didn't actually write it. So the story of Abraham and God and circumcision was (probably) known about/passed down over generations, and then it was decided that it was important enough to add.I wonder if the story of Harry Potter will be passed through generations and become part of a major religous text in the distant future....;)

In effect you are saying that a story, not neccessarily true or reliable, but a STORY is good enough to make it into the Torah. Moreover, if those stories were deemed relevant to be admitted into the Torah at the time, their relevance does not remain constant. Do you think a story about a modern day scenario (such as stem cell research) would have relevance in the ancient world and been admitted to the Torah? Values change as time passes, and it is foolish to try and stick to outdated notions. Many we have gone beyond - slavery being the previous example. Slavery at the time was acceptable, and was discussed.

Finally, The majority of jews tend to think of the Torah as the writings of Moses, inspired by God. Over time however (as noted by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra circa 8th century AD) there will have been scribal errors.I believe your argument is centered on saying that the holy book of a major religion is incorrect. Be careful. Even if a certain percentage of Jews don't believe it, there's some who do.I'm not saying it's incorrect, I am saying it is unreliable. I'm saying it is hypocritical to accept some parts of it and not others, or to accept one version of it above others. I'm saying the version that is relied upon for justification is not a reliable source to justify anything when I can provide a strong argument that the source itself is unreliable.

As for being careful....I've offended people before, and I'm sure I'll do it again. One tries to avoid it, but it's an inevitability of life ;)

Mutilation?
The question of whether circumcision is "mutiltation" is contentious. It very much depends on one's attitude towards circumcision, especially whether one considers it beneficial or not. The (5000-page) Shorter Oxford Dictionary says


Mutilate (miü·tilëit), v. 1534. [f. L. mutilat-, ppl. stem of mutilare to lop off; f. mutilus maimed (cf. Gr. mutiloV [mutilos] hornless); see -ATE3.] 1. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or organ of the body; to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ) 1562. 2. To render (a thing, e.g. a record, etc) imperfect by cutting off or destroying a part 1534.
1. The Greeks . . mutilated the slain THIRLWALL. 2. I wil not in any words wyllinglye mangle or mutilate that honourable mans worke MOR. Hence Mu·tilator, also †-er, one who mutilates.
Mutilation (miütilëi·§@n), 1535. [ad. L. mutilationem.] The action of mutilating; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part. b. spec. Castration 1737.

[Some symbols are approximate.]


Circumcision fits all of the second part of 1

No it doesn't. You are not actually destroying anythink, the body functions as normal.

about point 5, have you took into account that some find a sterile environment safer, and might consider a religious ritual, if it was maybe.. better regulated, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE BANNED.quite right that a hospital is safer. But....it is not a proper circumcision in the eyes of Judaism. This guy is a rabbi: linky (http://www.torahview.com/bris/html/only_bris.html) he knows better about how the procedure has to be performed by the mohel - part of the reason I feel this is soo hypocritical when it's compared to point 2.about point 4, the % doesn't matter, and i belive non-religious jews may get circumcised too if they wish to as part of culture.So you accept the majority of jews practice it on cultural grounds, not religous?

Splendid.

No it doesn't. You are not actually destroying anythink, the body functions as normal.

I'd appreciate if you did not quote me out of context. You have missed the remainder of that particular post explaining why. If you have to resort to these means then I have nothing more to say to you.

The remainder of the topic says:
Circumcision fits all of the second part of 1.

to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ)

There is no doubt that the skin is an organ - the body's biggest. (The penis is independently an organ, of course.) There is no doubt that circumcision cuts off and destroys the foreskin's use. So the questions of whether the foreskin is "essential" (intact men consider theirs to be "of the essence" of their penises, ie integral to them) and whether circumcision renders the penis "imperfect" (it certainly renders the foreskin imperfect) are secondary.
The derivation from the Greek for "hornless" is also suggestive. The farmer may think dehorning cattle improves them, the cattle may not. Likewise castration.

If the word "mutilation" still seems excessive, the M of MGM (and FGM) can always stand for the neutral "Modification".

look at the second to last paragraph of that link... you will; understand my reasoning.

2.So you accept the majority of jews practice it on cultural grounds, not religous?

No, i belive the majority is religious Jews in the full religious ceramony.

2nd don't use NIV when refering to Judaism, as while it contains the old testament (which is the Torah) it isn't really recognized by Jewish people.No, but the many many many many other different versions are.

I could use any other version to accomplish the same aims. And the fact you have accepted the existence of multiple versions demonstrates further how unreliable as source evidence the torah is.

No, but the many many many many other different versions are.

I could use any other version to accomplish the same aims. And the fact you have accepted the existence of multiple versions demonstrates further how unreliable as source evidence the torah is.
No, the NIV actually isn't Torah, it is the whole bible, therefore not a Torah.

<sigh> Like I said, if you have to resort to quoting me out of context then I have nothing more to say to you.

I'm off to go find someone to argue for the 500,000,000 circumcised Muslims, rather than the minority of Jews overly represented on these boards, whilst the real majority of circumcised men are overshadowed by a vocal minority. The time I have wasted quibbling over what is a very small minority is disproportionate to the time it deserves.

You know full well I could have quoted one of the many versions of the Torah floating around rather than from the NIV version, and accomplished the same aims. Instead you are now trying to seek to disrupt rather than contribute. When you are ready to discuss and contribute I will be ready to listen.

Suffice to say, your ignorance has reinforced the need for education, as outlined in the original proposal. Your failure to read any older posts has highlighted the fact you have failed to understand we are not seeking to ban anything, merely to educate about the realities of the situation.

Read the whole topic, and learn.

[QUOTE=Hirota]So when you say, "then why does God command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew Bible?" you mean "then why does some generic Jewish author with an agenda command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew bible?"

You see, you've just admitted the "rulebook" has been changed. Except God isn't editor-in-chief. It's someone with an agenda. I have demonstrated enough evidence that God did not command anything of the sort, and you accepted that by accepting the rulebook has changed. Thank you.

you can accept whatever you want. Does not mean you are right to accept it. You could accept slavery is right because the bible said so, but it's illegal. Religion and it's justifications can only be measured with modern day values. Previous thinking was that the practice was more hygenic. That thinking has been demolished in this topic.

Would you say it is acceptable to practice anti-sementic values because the bible can be used as justification? Should Mr Hitler been allowed to follow whatever bible doctrine he wants? Nobody in sane judgement would accept this. There is a difference in scale, but little else.

Moreover, if the bible was authored by JK Rowling, would you still accept it blindly? Because that's basically what you are saying. You'll accept a book, called the bible, because someone used the pseudonym GOD when they edited the document. I'm not saying god didn't have anything to do with the bible, simply that the alterations were not his work.

I'll quote more then.
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

I have dozens more, but for the sake of keeping such windy discussions to a minimum and to avoid taking this off topic, lets accept I can make a strong arguement the bible found slavery acceptable. If you want to discuss further on slavery and the bible, we can do so at another time.]

First of all, I should point out that you are becoming hypocritical, you have asked another poster to not quote you out of context, however you continue to quote others out of coontext.

Second, You have repeatedly shown an open mocking of other people's religions, comparing the Bible to Harry Potter, so I ask you to, with all due respect, shut the - up.

Third, the Bible does not endorse anti-sematism. The Gosples had to be taken out of context to sujest any such thing.

Fourth, again, God does not say that slavery is right, he says that the Jews may continue their normal practices. Nowhere does he say that slavery is not a moral evil, he simply never addresses it. Every example you, or anyone else on this subject gives is used in the Bible: A) as a metaphore. B) As a warning against theft. or C) As a reminder that the Jews are considered to be the chosen people of God throughout the Old Testoment.

As a Jewish state, Avdotya is strongly opposed to any measures designed to prevent the freedom of religious expression required to practice circumcision.

Our bris ceremonies are sanitary and professional, putting doubt into claims of cruelty towards our nation's male children. We urge the other nations to support Avdotya's right to exist as a peaceful Jewish nation by respecting our millenia old customs.

No, I haven't. I have said it was at one time it was argued that positives exist. That position is no longer held by any major medical organization. There are confirmed negative effects and no accepted benefits. There is no ambiguity.

The 'benefits' I mentioned should be put in quotes as they have since been debunked. Even phimosis can still occur in a circumcized penis and is better prevented by proper education about the penis. It's an entirely preventable disease that is a much greater problem in countries that routinely practice circumcision. I challenge you to find one medical benefit that isn't an unbelievably unlikely benefit or has simply been completely debunked.



There are no positive effects. Many of the perceived positive effects have been debunked. Cancer of the penis was said to have been caused by smegma (virtually eliminated in the Jewish practice of circumcision, but not so in other practices that do not remove as much foreskin), but has been since been proven to be caused by HPV (like cervical cancer). Many countries that do not practice circumcision have far lower rates of penile cancer than the few countries that still practice routine circumcision. It has been said to prevent STD's but has since been proven to increase the overall incidence of STD's particularly the most common STD, clamydia. They say it prevents UTI's but it merely reduces the rate of UTI's by .9%. 100% circumcision to prevent a case of UTI in 9 out of 1000 boys? Ridiculous. Particularly when the rate of UTI's is over 10 times that in female babies and is handled routinely and easily by oral antibiotic.

Any doctor who suggested surgery for a highly unlikely disease that can easily be completely cured by a single pill and will likely never return would have his license revoked in any other case than circumcision.



There are no positive health effects. It accomplishes nothing that cannot be accomplished through other means and causes lots of things that are irreversible or require surgery to correct. It's not a redundant practice. It's a practice that CUTS OFF a useful part of the male genitalia based on outdated and debunked medical information.

No major health organization endorses the practice any longer and it is condemned by many national and international health organizations. Again, I challenge anyone to find any organization of pediatricians that views this to be necessary or beneficial. And if it's not necessary or beneficial, it's just removing a useful part of the male genitalia through a painful procedure that has many possible side-effects and many gauranteed side-effects for no reason other than the parent wants to do so.
I see. So when we say there's no ambiguity, that's only because we're ignoring those studies which suggest that circumcision might help prevent prostate cancer, penile cancer, HPV, cervical cancer in female partners, urinary tract infections, epiditymus, and AIDS. Not to mention that issues involving the foreskin, like infection and phimosis, really wouldn't be a problem anymore.

No ambiguity at all.

So when you say, "then why does God command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew Bible?" you mean "then why does some generic Jewish author with an agenda command Abraham to do it in the Hebrew bible?"

You see, you've just admitted the "rulebook" has been changed. Except God isn't editor-in-chief. It's someone with an agenda. I have demonstrated enough evidence that God did not command anything of the sort, and you accepted that by accepting the rulebook has changed. Thank you.

you can accept whatever you want. Does not mean you are right to accept it. You could accept slavery is right because the bible said so, but it's illegal. Religion and it's justifications can only be measured with modern day values. Previous thinking was that the practice was more hygenic. That thinking has been demolished in this topic.

Would you say it is acceptable to practice anti-sementic values because the bible can be used as justification? Should Mr Hitler been allowed to follow whatever bible doctrine he wants? Nobody in sane judgement would accept this. There is a difference in scale, but little else.

Moreover, if the bible was authored by JK Rowling, would you still accept it blindly? Because that's basically what you are saying. You'll accept a book, called the bible, because someone used the pseudonym GOD when they edited the document. I'm not saying god didn't have anything to do with the bible, simply that the alterations were not his work.

I'll quote more then.
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

I have dozens more, but for the sake of keeping such windy discussions to a minimum and to avoid taking this off topic, lets accept I can make a strong arguement the bible found slavery acceptable. If you want to discuss further on slavery and the bible, we can do so at another time.

First of all, I should point out that you are becoming hypocritical, you have asked another poster to not quote you out of context, however you continue to quote others out of coontext. Untrue.Second, You have repeatedly shown an open mocking of other people's religions, comparing the Bible to Harry Potter, so I ask you to, with all due respect, shut the - up.I'm not mocking the faith, I'm mocking the blind acceptance of a booked written by people, edited by people and re-edited by people over 1000's of years. I bet good money Harry Potter will look pretty different over a couple of 1000 years, my point is that religious books (indeed all books) will be changed over time. Thus to say that the bible in your hotel bedside table is what god said is laughable.

I mock the failure to acknowledge this, not the religion itself.Third, the Bible does not endorse anti-sematism. The Gosples had to be taken out of context to sujest any such thing.On a less immotive note - how about the idea that pearls should not be worn? A passage in 1 Timothy 2:11 condemned the wearing gold or pearls.

The bible is such a vague and contradictory piece of text that it is impossible to say at times what it does or does not endorse. If you have such a floppy piece of documentation at the center of a religion, no wonder the religion has fundamental flaws.

(and yes, I'm aware that that particular section is from the NT rather than the Torah, but the observation stands).

Fourth, again, God does not say that slavery is right, he says that the Jews may continue their normal practices. Nowhere does he say that slavery is not a moral evil, he simply never addresses it.Yes it does....Every example you, or anyone else on this subject gives is used in the Bible: A) as a metaphore. B) As a warning against theft. or C) As a reminder that the Jews are considered to be the chosen people of God throughout the Old Testoment.That's your understanding of the bible - not everyones - highlighting even further what an unreliable document it is.

We have shown evidence the bible is inconsistent, we have shown evidence it is sometimes unintelligable, and we have shown evidence that nobody really knows what it is talking about. But the bible is not what we should be talking about. It's the koran which is really the big issue.

I'm off to bed. But if you think I'm going to be told to shut up by someone too idle to read a topic in it's entirety, then you are sadly mistaken.

In effect you are saying that a story, not neccessarily true or reliable, but a STORY is good enough to make it into the Torah.
Yes. Because:

it did.
I'm not saying it's incorrect, I am saying it is unreliable.
Which means, to my knowledge, "liable to be incorrect". My point still stands.

I see. So when we say there's no ambiguity, that's only because we're ignoring those studies which suggest that circumcision might help prevent prostate cancer, penile cancer, HPV, cervical cancer in female partners, urinary tract infections, epiditymus, and AIDS. Not to mention that issues involving the foreskin, like infection and phimosis, really wouldn't be a problem anymore.

No ambiguity at all.

Suggest maybe, but nothing is proven.

HIV - UNTRUE linky (http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html)

Penile Cancer, Cervical Cancer - UNTRUE linky (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/)

Prostate Cancer - UNTRUE linky (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/54/61564.htm?z=1688_81000_0000_ep_04)

urinary tract infections - UNTRUE linky (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/)

epiditymus - one study found the incidence of epiditymus in uncircumcised boys to be higher. This does not mean clear evidence, and there are better solutions

HPV - UNCONVINCED linky (http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/Dec/vol49-dec-letters-4.asp)

regardless, the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS have decided that there is not enough evidence to support recommend routine neonatal circumcision. linky (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/)They recognise potential benefits (whilst mindful of negatives as well), but appear to support my assertion regarding the burden of proof being unsatified.

Yes. Because:

it did.So in 1000s of years time it could be Harry Potter of Nazereth which makes it in ;)Which means, to my knowledge, "liable to be incorrect". My point still stands.Your point is pointless. It means, to my knowledge "why I think it might be incorrect," not that it is incorrect, but simply must be evaluated on the basis of it's reliability. ON that basis, it must not be taken as gospel (pun wholly intended).

It's been fun guys, but it's 3am here, and i need sleep.

regardless, the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS have decided that there is not enough evidence to support recommend routine neonatal circumcision. linky (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/)They recognise potential benefits (whilst mindful of negatives as well), but appear to support my assertion regarding the burden of proof being unsatified.
But because research is still being done and there are many things we don't know for certain, we shouldn't just go "condemn" something and then have to un-condemn it if/when it is recommended again. I would support leaving this up to individual nations until we have better evidence over the medical concerns, religious concerns aside.

But because research is still being done and there are many things we don't know for certain, we shouldn't just go "condemn" something and then have to un-condemn it if/when it is recommended again. I would support leaving this up to individual nations until we have better evidence over the medical concerns, religious concerns aside.

Still people forget the primary reason to oppose this. Human rights. That's the whole point of this proposal. It does not BAN the practice - it educates. It condemns the uninformed mindless practice, and encourages information. It also encourages the banning of neonatal circumcision, but not explicit.

It's called informed debate, and if there is one thing this topic has proven, it's that people need more information.

Right, now I really am going to bed.

I find it a bit scary that so many people see nothing wrong with performing totally un-necessary surgery on babies/children. I've said it before and I'll say it again, let the boys grow into men and decide for themselves.

This proposal is a step in the right direction. As Hirota said, it bans nothing but just condems the practice and urges education.

In RL Queensland we've just banned the practice of docking the tails of dogs, because it's un-necessary, painful and traumatic, but parents are still allowed to trot off to the the doctor and ask him to remove part of their baby son's genitals for no bloody good reason. Its a shame we treat our animals better than our children in this state.

1st of all rabbis opinions also affect how Jews view the Torah also, which explains the different forms, like reconstructionist, reform, conservative, and orthodox.

2nd don't use NIV when refering to Judaism, as while it contains the old testament (which is the Torah) it isn't really recognized by Jewish people.

You can't seriously be arguing that rabbis can edit the word of God? Leviticus is a telling of the specific words God told Moses. It's a quote. Anything other than the original version is the edited word of God. The word of God in the Torah endorsed slavery and DID NOT endorse circumcision.

Still people forget the primary reason to oppose this. Human rights. That's the whole point of this proposal. It does not BAN the practice - it educates. It condemns the uninformed mindless practice, and encourages information. It also encourages the banning of neonatal circumcision, but not explicit.
But what about the other side of the argument? I would support education, but ONLY if it were neutral and depending on current knowledge and facts, not trying to persuade in one direction or another.

It's called informed debate, and if there is one thing this topic has proven, it's that people need more information.
What the draft is suggesting is not informed debate. As I said above, informed debate can only happen when parents are educated about both sides and can make their own informed decision.

They recognise potential benefits (whilst mindful of negatives as well), but appear to support my assertion regarding the burden of proof being unsatified.
You're confusing two different situations. In a recommendation for an individual circumcision, burden of proof lies with those who want the circumcision. This is not that situation. Here, we have a movement to suppress a religious and cultural practice. The burden of proof lies with those who suggest that the negatives outweigh the positives to the extent that such a suppression is warranted. With female circumcision, there was such proof. Here it is not.

By the way, here's some ambiguity.
HIV - True. linky (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124004711.htm)
Penile and Cervical Cancer - True (with high-risk partners) linky (http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/sep/vol49-sep-critical-1.asp)
Urinary Tract Infection - True. linky (http://www.med.umich.edu/pediatrics/ebm/cats/circ.htm)
HPV - Unconvinced isn't enough to ban.

Truth be told, if there were to be a resolution that said Doctors were no longer allowed to suggest circumcision, I'd vote for it. If there were a resolution that said no circumcisions should be allowed beyond those done in religious or cultural instances, I'd likely abstain, but I wouldn't vote against. This is neither. This is culturally insensitive without adequate justification.

No it doesn't. You are not actually destroying anythink, the body functions as normal.

How does the foreskin function after the surgery? Does it still perform its function?

You can't seriously be arguing that rabbis can edit the word of God? Leviticus is a telling of the specific words God told Moses. It's a quote. Anything other than the original version is the edited word of God. The word of God in the Torah endorsed slavery and DID NOT endorse circumcision.
1. I believe you may have misunderstood Northern Sushi. He did not say that Rabbis could change the word of God, just change the interpretation. For example, look at the number of different forms of Christianity. They all follow the New Testament (as well as the Hebrew Bible), but have different interpretations.
2. If a religion says that rabbis can edit their holy book, then rabbis can edit their holy book. God might not be so happy, but a religion can do what it wants as far as we on earth are concerned.
3. Unless a person is a follower of Judaism, it really should make no difference whether it's edited or not. The point is that the religion endorses it, and there are followers of that religion. It would be impinging on religious sovereignity (if you'll excuse my invented expression) to condemn their religious practice.

But what about the other side of the argument? I would support education, but ONLY if it were neutral and depending on current knowledge and facts, not trying to persuade in one direction or another.

What the draft is suggesting is not informed debate. As I said above, informed debate can only happen when parents are educated about both sides and can make their own informed decision.

There aren't two sides. All medical organizations no longer recognize this as medically necessary. Education is teaching people that there is no medical need for this surgery and there are side effects and the major primary effect which cuts a useful, healthy part off of a child and denies the child the use of that part.

How does the foreskin function after the surgery? Does it still perform its function?
Does the foreskin serve a huge purpose before surgery? Circumcision has existed for a long time. If there was a serious medical reason to stop it (not just a few cases), we would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

1. I believe you may have misunderstood Northern Sushi. He did not say that Rabbis could change the word of God, just change the interpretation. For example, look at the number of different forms of Christianity. They all follow the New Testament (as well as the Hebrew Bible), but have different interpretations.
2. If a religion says that rabbis can edit their holy book, then rabbis can edit their holy book. God might not be so happy, but a religion can do what it wants as far as we on earth are concerned.
3. Unless a person is a follower of Judaism, it really should make no difference whether it's edited or not. The point is that the religion endorses it, and there are followers of that religion. It would be impinging on religious sovereignity (if you'll excuse my invented expression) to condemn their religious practice.
Fortunately this isn't religious sovereignty. The child is be denied a choice. It gets a choice of religion later in life, but it never gets a choice of use of a healthy, useful part of its body that its parents ignorantly cut off.

As far as misunderstanding, he is claiming that the Torah doesn't say what it does. Then we show him what it says he claims it's not the Torah or it's not the way some rabbis interpret it. It's a weak tactic because we're not going to go interview every rabbi. So we show him the word of God. He can choose to acknowledge or not. However, Judaism does not hold that rabbis can edit the word of God. To claim otherwise is simply false.

There aren't two sides. All medical organizations no longer recognize this as medically necessary. Education is teaching people that there is no medical need for this surgery and there are side effects and the major primary effect which cuts a useful, healthy part off of a child and denies the child the use of that part.
There are other factors to consider besides health.

There aren't two sides. All medical organizations no longer recognize this as medically necessary. Education is teaching people that there is no medical need for this surgery and there are side effects and the major primary effect which cuts a useful, healthy part off of a child and denies the child the use of that part.
It also denies the child the risk for phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanitis.

Greetings all,

Nucleardom is new to NS and NSUN, so while I read this whole thread, please forgive me if I retread some previous postings. I will try not to misrepresent anyone's postions.

Nucleardom agrees that the goal of education on this topic is admirable, and should be vigorously pursued. In order to accomplish this, I would make the following proposition:

Modify to some extent the condemnation phrase in the resolution. By condemning the practice, it puts a political slant that will, no matter how much arguement is made, always be seen as an attack against various religions. I know that there are some who argue that MGM is cultural rather than religous, and point heavily to discrepancies in religous doctrine as part of their effort (or at least that is how I have percieved the arguement, please forgive me if I have misconstrued anything). I would argue that, even if we can logically or factually prove that some doctrine is inconsistent, and possibly unreliable, this does not change the fact that there are sects within major religions that still believe in the infallability of the documents as a source for their religion. As such, I believe that the circumcision aspect of MGM has a religious aspect (possibly as well as a cultural aspect).

In either case, I think that this arguement is beside the point to some repect. Without the condemnation clause, I would think that it would be hard for anyone to vote against education on this issue. After all, I doubt anyone believes that they are doing something that they deliberately know is harmful, and so, most any side would feel that education would be in their favor.

I know that it may take away some of the message about MGM that the author wishes to put forth, but if the real goal is to get the world educated on the practice, then perhaps some concessions should be made to accomplish the overall objective.


Just food for thought.

Fortunately this isn't religious sovereignty. The child is be denied a choice. It gets a choice of religion later in life, but it never gets a choice of use of a healthy, useful part of its body that its parents ignorantly cut off.
So we educate them. Just not one sidedly.

As far as misunderstanding, he is claiming that the Torah doesn't say what it does. Then we show him what it says he claims it's not the Torah or it's not the way some rabbis interpret it. It's a weak tactic because we're not going to go interview every rabbi. So we show him the word of God. He can choose to acknowledge or not. However, Judaism does not hold that rabbis can edit the word of God. To claim otherwise is simply false.
There is a strong case for that part of the Hebrew Bible being interpreted metaphorically, especially in modern context.

Does the foreskin serve a huge purpose before surgery? Circumcision has existed for a long time. If there was a serious medical reason to stop it (not just a few cases), we would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

It does serve a purpose. It protects the glans of the penis. No doctor will deny this. There are a ton of cases of problems. The problems are mainly curable, but the child is denied use of that part of his penis FOREVER. You don't seem to understand. I don't have to give you a compelling reason not to cut parts off of children. If you don't have compelling evidence the child needs this surgery then I'm not going to do anything other than CONDEMN cutting that part off the children. It's amazing that anyone would not acknowledge that parents should not have the choice of cutting parts off their child unnecessarily.

So we educate them. Just not one sidedly.

There is only one side. There are no studies that show a benefit of this surgery that outweighs the damage it does (even if you ignore the inherent damage of simply removing a useful, healthy part of the body). There are no medical organizations that believe this surgery to be necessary. To pretend that cutting a part off of a child that is both useful and healthy unnecessarily is anything other than an abomination is preposterous.

There is a strong case for that part of the Hebrew Bible being interpreted metaphorically, especially in modern context.
What's slavery a metaphor for?

Does the foreskin serve a huge purpose before surgery? Circumcision has existed for a long time. If there was a serious medical reason to stop it (not just a few cases), we would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

(OOC)80 to 85% of the worlds males aren't circumcised. In all western nations except the US numbers of babies having this inflicted on them have gone down significantly over the last 50 years or so.

Click Me (http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/majority.htm)

It does serve a purpose. It protects the glans of the penis. No doctor will deny this. There are a ton of cases of problems. The problems are mainly curable, but the child is denied use of that part of his penis FOREVER. You don't seem to understand. I don't have to give you a compelling reason not to cut parts off of children. If you don't have compelling evidence the child needs this surgery then I'm not going to do anything other than CONDEMN cutting that part off the children. It's amazing that anyone would not acknowledge that parents should not have the choice of cutting parts off their child unnecessarily.
No, you don't have to give compelling reason not to cut parts off of children, but you do have to give compelling reason to suppress religious traditions. Yes, religious.

(OOC)80 to 85% of the worlds males aren't circumcised. In all western nations except the US numbers of babies having this inflicted on them have gone down significantly over the last 50 years or so.

Click Me (http://www.cirp.org/)

OOC: Is Canada not a Western nation anymore?

What's slavery a metaphor for?
It might server your purposes not to be condescending on such topics.

Greetings all,

Nucleardom is new to NS and NSUN, so while I read this whole thread, please forgive me if I retread some previous postings. I will try not to misrepresent anyone's postions.

Nucleardom agrees that the goal of education on this topic is admirable, and should be vigorously pursued. In order to accomplish this, I would make the following proposition:

Modify to some extent the condemnation phrase in the resolution. By condemning the practice, it puts a political slant that will, no matter how much arguement is made, always be seen as an attack against various religions. I know that there are some who argue that MGM is cultural rather than religous, and point heavily to discrepancies in religous doctrine as part of their effort (or at least that is how I have percieved the arguement, please forgive me if I have misconstrued anything). I would argue that, even if we can logically or factually prove that some doctrine is inconsistent, and possibly unreliable, this does not change the fact that there are sects within major religions that still believe in the infallability of the documents as a source for their religion. As such, I believe that the circumcision aspect of MGM has a religious aspect (possibly as well as a cultural aspect).

In either case, I think that this arguement is beside the point to some repect. Without the condemnation clause, I would think that it would be hard for anyone to vote against education on this issue. After all, I doubt anyone believes that they are doing something that they deliberately know is harmful, and so, most any side would feel that education would be in their favor.

I know that it may take away some of the message about MGM that the author wishes to put forth, but if the real goal is to get the world educated on the practice, then perhaps some concessions should be made to accomplish the overall objective.


Just food for thought.

Well said.

It also denies the child the risk for phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanitis.

Phimosis and paraphimosis are rare diseases that are generally caused by mistreating the penis. Paraphimosis is always caused by prematurely forcing back the foreskin before it naturally seperates. You don't mistreat the penis in order to protect it from a disease caused by mistreating the penis. How about nobody mistreats the penis and everyone wins.

And nice try with balanitis. The only types of balanitis prevented by circumcision are phimosis and paraphimosis. Blananitis is an irritation of the glans and can still occur with no foreskin. Incidentally, phimosis can still occur after circumcision in most cases. Most types of circumcision leave some part of the foreskin.

Phimosis and paraphimosis are rare diseases that are generally caused by mistreating the penis. Paraphimosis is always caused by prematurely forcing back the foreskin before it naturally seperates. You don't mistreat the penis in order to protect it from a disease caused by mistreating the penis. How about nobody mistreats the penis and everyone wins.

And nice try with balanitis. The only types of balanitis prevented by circumcision are phimosis and paraphimosis. Blananitis is an irritation of the glans and can still occur with no foreskin. Incidentally, phimosis can still occur after circumcision in most cases. Most types of circumcision leave some part of the foreskin.
I wasn't trying anything. I was being snippy.

It might server your purposes not to be condescending on such topics.

Can't answer the question? Nothing offensive about asking a question. It was denied that slavery is endorsed in the Torah which it clearly is. There is no denying the facts of what is in the Torah.

I wasn't trying anything. I was being snippy.

Yes, well, cutting the breasts off definitely prevents breasts cancer but no one would allow parents to cut the breasts off of their children.

Can't answer the question? Nothing offensive about asking a question. It was denied that slavery is endorsed in the Torah which it clearly is. There is no denying the facts of what is in the Torah.
I didn't say you were offensive. You're welcome to ask questions. I didn't even say you can't be condescending. I'm just saying it's kind of counter-productive.

I mean, primarily, there are two types of circumcisions. The paternal circumcisions (our child will be circumcised because his father was) and the religious (Jewish). Now, it might help in your education (a laughable cover, I might add) attempts if you weren't insulting to the people you were trying to "educate."

I'm circumcised and my dick works just fine.

-President of the Skatellite Republic of Florida Oranges

Yes, well, cutting the breasts off definitely prevents breasts cancer but no one would allow parents to cut the breasts off of their children.
And if they did, that would probably be their primary argument. Again, being snippy. (Pun still intended.)

OOC: Is Canada not a Western nation anymore?

I don't know what you mean about Canada, I never mentioned it.

That was the wrong link. I made a mistake. This is the right one...

Click Me (http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/majority.htm)

There is only one side.
Supposing that you are correct in saying that there are no medical reasons to do it, then there are two sides: for and against. For by members and teachers of the mentioned religions, and against by doctors. You cannot pretend that the argument of so many here who have argued against is no argument at all.What's slavery a metaphor for?
Not being a teacher of religion or a member of the Jewish faith, I am not qualified to answer that question. However, I believe it may have been a metaphor for the "chosen" Israelites to be allowed to rule over "lesser" groups.

I don't know what you mean about Canada, I never mentioned it.

That was the wrong link. I made a mistake. This is the right one...

Click Me (http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/majority.htm)

Right, you didn't mention Canada because it's apparently not a Western Nation anymore.

In all western nations except the US numbers of babies having this inflicted on them have gone down significantly over the last 50 years or so.

Right, you didn't mention Canada because it's apparently not a Western Nation anymore.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't mention Australia, NZ, the UK or France either. Whats the problem?

There are other factors to consider besides health.

Really? Like what? We should allow people to cut parts healthy, useful parts off children for cultural or religious reasons? If not considering the mutilation as a reason to stop the practice and the medical reasons as reason to stop the practice, then how does one justify the stopping of castration, FGM, and various other types of mutilation to babies?

Really? Like what? We should allow people to cut parts healthy, useful parts off children for cultural or religious reasons? If not considering the mutilation as a reason to stop the practice and the medical reasons as reason to stop the practice, then how does one justify the stopping of castration, FGM, and various other types of mutilation to babies?
How about the ambiguity of the effects of circumcision, coupled with religious rights, does that suit you?

But because research is still being done and there are many things we don't know for certain, we shouldn't just go "condemn" something and then have to un-condemn it if/when it is recommended again. I would support leaving this up to individual nations until we have better evidence over the medical concerns, religious concerns aside.

No evidence is ABSOLUTELY enough reason to condemn it. These people are denying their sons the use of a healthy part of their anatomy, of their genitals based on either faulty information or simply conformity. You are cutting a part off a child. You sure as hell better have compelling medical evidence that this has a substantial medical benefit or its simply inexcusable.

How about the ambiguity of the effects of circumcision, coupled with religious rights, does that suit you?

There is no ambiguity. All evidence for the benefit of the procedure has been debunked or is not compelling. The child is CLEARY denied use of that part of their anatomy. The child is CLEARLY endangered by an unnecessary surgery. Religious rights do not allow parents to mutilate their children.

No evidence is ABSOLUTELY enough reason to condemn it. These people are denying their sons the use of a healthy part of their anatomy, of their genitals based on either faulty information or simply conformity. You are cutting a part off a child. You sure as hell better have compelling medical evidence that this has a substantial medical benefit or its simply inexcusable.
You are trying to restrict a religion. You sure as hell better have compelling medical evidence that this has a substancial difference in benefits and complications, or it's simply disgusting.

I keep hearing that there's all this evidence that says circumcision is harmful, and then I turn around and am told that the AMA has stated that there are both positives and negatives, and that it should no longer be used as standard procedure.

That's a far cry from the sure thing that you make it out to be.

No, it's a cultural practice. Ask any jew if it's a necessary part of the faith or just a part of the culture. However, whether it's cultural or religious has no bearing on whether it's acceptable to maim the genitals of children.
I'm Jewish. It's religious. By the way, don't only look to the Old Testament for Jewish law, as quite a lot of it was made/interpreted by rabbis. I'm not quite sure which this is, but you should be assured it is a religious thing. And to your argument a bit before, yes an atheistic jew may well circumcise his children, however no religious jew would not. It's very important. (Note that the part of the first post that says it's to prevent masturbation is probably incorrect, as if I recall correctly the punishment for not being circumcised(Ancient Israel) is greater then the punishment for masturbation.)
(Replied as soon as I saw this and did not bother to read the rest of the topic. Sorry.)

All medical organizations no longer recognize this as medically necessary.
http://familydoctor.org/042.xml. This website is operated by the American Association of Family Physicians, a reputable medical organization. While it doesn't recommend circumcision outright, it doesn't condemn it, and it certainly says that it has its benefits.

I'm Jewish. It's religious. By the way, don't only look to the Old Testament for Jewish law, as quite a lot of it was made/interpreted by rabbis. I'm not quite sure which this is, but you should be assured it is a religious thing. And to your argument a bit before, yes an atheistic jew may well circumcise his children, however no religious jew would not. It's very important. (Note that the part of the first post that says it's to prevent masturbation is probably incorrect, as if I recall correctly the punishment for not being circumcised(Ancient Israel) is greater then the punishment for masturbation.)
(Replied as soon as I saw this and did not bother to read the rest of the topic. Sorry.)

False. That's been shown to be utterly false. There are MANY practicing Jews that do not circumcise.

And it's interesting the you compared masturbation and circumcision, because let's not get this mixed up. The religious reason for cutting off this part of the penis is the belief it discourages masturbation. People are protecting the practice of cutting a useful, healthy part of the babies genitals in order to keep them from masturbating.

http://familydoctor.org/042.xml. This website is operated by the American Association of Family Physicians, a reputable medical organization. While it doesn't recommend circumcision outright, it doesn't condemn it, and it certainly says that it has its benefits.

You're right. None of those organizations condemn it. It would be political suicide to ask them to do so. However, they have found that it is not medically necessary. Also the listed advantages are the same one everyone touts. Those benefits are thoroughly debunked. The only sure thing it affects (or most sure) is UTI's, an easily addressed disease without surgery and something that is only reduced by 9 boys for every 1000 that are mutilated.

Not medically necessary is certainly reason to condemn the routine practice of cutting parts off babies.

False. That's been shown to be utterly false. There are MANY practicing Jews that do not circumcise.

And it's interesting the you compared masturbation and circumcision, because let's not get this mixed up. The religious reason for cutting off this part of the penis is the belief it discourages masturbation. People are protecting the practice of cutting a useful, healthy part of the babies genitals in order to keep them from masturbating.
Where is it that you got this information about Judaism?

False. That's been shown to be utterly false. There are MANY practicing Jews that do not circumcise.

What if, as Weirdnameistan suggests, you define "practicing" as "circumcised". There's no big black line saying what makes a practicing Jew and what doesn't. There's a lot of area in between. You can't make generalizations about a religion.

You're right. None of those organizations condemn it. It would be political suicide to ask them to do so. However, they have found that it is not medically necessary. Also the listed advantages are the same one everyone touts. Those benefits are thoroughly debunked. The only sure thing it affects (or most sure) is UTI's, an easily addressed disease without surgery and something that is only reduced by 9 boys for every 1000 that are mutilated.

Not medically necessary is certainly reason to condemn the routine practice of cutting parts off babies.
If cutting off parts of babies was a serious medical concern, I'm sure these organizations would have at least said something about it on their websites. According to the link I've provided, circumcision appears to be a largely benign process, with limited medical risks and benefits.

You are trying to restrict a religion. You sure as hell better have compelling medical evidence that this has a substancial difference in benefits and complications, or it's simply disgusting.

I keep hearing that there's all this evidence that says circumcision is harmful, and then I turn around and am told that the AMA has stated that there are both positives and negatives, and that it should no longer be used as standard procedure.

That's a far cry from the sure thing that you make it out to be.

Easy. It's known to be a useful part of the anatomy. It's known to be a healthy part of the anatomy. It's being cut off the child. It has no recognized medical benefit that explains the routine practice. Parts cut off babies for no medical reason is compelling reasons to condemn the practice.

What if, as Weirdnameistan suggests, you define "practicing" as "circumcised". There's no big black line saying what makes a practicing Jew and what doesn't. There's a lot of area in between. You can't make generalizations about a religion.
Keep in mind, Ceorana, he's going to show you a website made by a Jewish organization (how it is proved, I don't know). This somehow represents "many" Jews who do not practice circumcision. I can go into my local synagogue on a Saturday morning and point out a group of male Jews, 100% of whom are circumcised.

If cutting off parts of babies was a serious medical concern, I'm sure these organizations would have at least said something about it on their websites. According to the link I've provided, circumcision appears to be a largely benign process, with limited medical risks and benefits.

Are you actually saying that cutting parts off of babies unnecessarily is not concerning? Ridiculous.

Are you actually saying that cutting parts off of babies unnecessarily is not concerning? Ridiculous.
I am indeed saying what you accuse: although I don't pretend to be an expert in the subject, I have found and heard significant evidence that it is fairly benign. Are you arguing on the basis of medical evidence, or simply a layman's common sense?

Keep in mind, Ceorana, he's going to show you a website made by a Jewish organization (how it is proved, I don't know). This somehow represents "many" Jews who do not practice circumcision. I can go into my local synagogue on a Saturday morning and point out a group of male Jews, 100% of whom are circumcised.

100% of some Christian churches are racist and antisemitic. Should we not condemn racism and antisemitism? Apparantly, it's a religious practice and it has benefits (which some don't acknowledge) and risks (which others don't acknowledge). There are no compelling medical reasons to condemn the practice. Well, except for that whole human rights thingy, there's really no reason to condemn racism or circumcision.

Where is it that you got this information about Judaism?

Someone is not following along. There have been links and quotes.

...there's really no reason to condemn racism...

There isn't. It's called freedom of expression. If you are talking about racial discrimination, then it is you are hurting them by not giving them equal opportunity. You have not proved such with circumcision.

Hm. Setting aside the pointless political debate, the Proposal itself gives me pause.

Firstly, and primarily, I don't see how this could be considered "Signifigant". Unless there has been a major rewrite somewhere in the past 200 posts, it does nothing but CONDEMN and URGE, neither of which are anything more than bluster. As written on Post 1, this is Mild.

Also, "Rights of Minorities and Women", despite being an utter abomination, would prohibit an outright universal ban on circumcision, as "[n]ot a single religion or belief is better or more right than another." If nothing else, circumcision for religious purposes would have to be allowed.

I am indeed saying what you accuse: although I don't pretend to be an expert in the subject, I have found and heard significant evidence that it is fairly benign. Are you arguing on the basis of medical evidence, or simply a layman's common sense?

Both. No doctor claims the foreskin has no use. Simply that we can survive without that use. No doctor will tell you there are not dangers in EVERY surgery, including circumcision. All medical organizations find the routine practice to have no medical purpose. Thus medically it should not be done.

However, in common practice we add a simply entity called human rights into the equation that isn't really considered medically. Common sense says you do not cut the parts off babies unless you have a compelling reason.

No compelling reason makes it just ritualistic mutilation of babies.

Common sense says you do not cut the parts off babies unless you have a compelling reason.
Like the fact that GOD, the supreme ruler of the universe, told you to. I think that's a compelling reason, and far outweighs the risks.

Easy. It's known to be a useful part of the anatomy. It's known to be a healthy part of the anatomy. It's being cut off the child. It has no recognized medical benefit that explains the routine practice. Parts cut off babies for no medical reason is compelling reasons to condemn the practice.
If the majority of circumcised men go on to live fruitful and healthy lives, I'm not convinced that it's a useful part of the anatomy.

Before you go on to talk about pinkies, let me tell you that it's irrelevant. There are no studies involving the removal of pinkies or male nipples. There are, however, studies involving male circumcision. The complication rate is about 5%. It has been placed as low as 2% and as high as 10%. Do I think that this is important? Yes, I do.

Female circumcision was banned because its medical complications far outweighed any religious or cultural sensitivities (nevermind the fact that it enslaves women, whereas male circumcision does nothing of the sort). Given its 80% (or higher) complication rate, I'd say it's fairly certain that you're not going to get as clear-cut a response on the topic of male circumcision.

Does a parent have a right to remove a child's tail? Does a doctor have a right to give a child an "innie" belly-button, or should we all have "outies" to prevent the risk of complications? Should parents who allow their pree-teen daughter to get a piercing or a tattoo be put behind bars? Should 16-year-olds who get breast implants be tried in court? Don't bother trying the "cosmetic surgery" route.

Someone is not following along. There have been links and quotes.
I want to know where you got the idea that the origins of circumcision was as a way to stop masturbation. I want to know where you got the figure "many" as it relates to the number of Jews who don't practice circumcision.

I have to sleep so I'll sum up for everyone. This is pointless.

Some people in the thread believe that ritualistic mutilation of babies (versus surgery based on a medical need) to be a practice that should condemned locally, nationally and internationally, spiritually, politically and socially.

Others in the thread believe that in the absense of SERIOUS medical detriment that parents should have the choice of mutilating their babies if it is done for cultural or religious reasons.



"Why won't you condemn it?"
"Because it's widespread."
"Well, it's widespread because it's not condemned."
"Exactly"
"Uh, your logic is infallible."

I have to sleep so I'll sum up for everyone. This is pointless.

Some people in the thread believe that ritualistic mutilation of babies (versus surgery based on a medical need) to be a practice that should condemned locally, nationally and internationally, spiritually, politically and socially.

Others in the thread believe that in the absense of SERIOUS medical detriment that parents should have the choice of mutilating their babies if it is done for cultural or religious reasons.



"Why won't you condemn it?"
"Because it's widespread."
"Well, it's widespread because it's not condemned."
"Exactly"
"Uh, your logic is infallible."
I won't condemn it because, in general, it isn't harmful. To condemn it would mean to limit religious freedoms which would have a few thousand years of tradition thrown out the window on the grounds that you don't like this particular cosmetic surgery.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpg

It would appear from a cursory polling of a group of Ecopoeians that there is a significant level of support for a UN-authorised awareness programme concerning male circumcision. Were you to remove some of the more contentious points of this proposal, you would most likely receive our support.

MV

OOC: It genuinely stuns me that circumcision is widespread amongst non-semitic Americans. Can anyone explain to me why this is?

It would appear from a cursory polling of a group of Ecopoeians that there is a significant level of support for a UN-authorised awareness programme concerning male circumcision. Were you to remove some of the more contentious points of this proposal, you would most likely receive our support.

MV

OOC: It genuinely stuns me that circumcision is widespread amongst non-semitic Americans. Can anyone explain to me why this is?

OOC: Many americans still believe there is a medical benefit to circumcision and the AMA's and AAP's inability to come out harder against it has continued this myth. There are still doctors that tell patients that this is a medically-beneficial procedure and most studies show that some doctors do hardly any of them and some doctors circumcise nearly ever baby delivered. A friend of mine found out her son was scheduled to be circumcised without even asking her just about a year ago (not saying this is the norm, just evidence of the need for education). Regardless of information against routine circumcision, it continues to happen with only a far-too-slow decline in the practice.

IC: I am appalled that people would accept ANY reasoning for unnecessarily mutilating babies. I don't accept that the religious rights of the parents give them the right to take away the choice of the child regarding the mutilation of his body.

I hear people complain about religious freedom, but no one cries for the freedom of the child. I am among the children who were mutilated. What about my wishes? Why is it so important that we not protect the rights of the innocent in order to protect the rights of his parents? I most certainly was denied use of my foreskin for all time. I most certainly remember the surgery I underwent to correct the complications that were a direct result of circumcision. I most certainly consider my penis to be mutilated and incomplete. I am not alone. What about our rights? Why should the cultural needs of my parents (both of my parents now say they would not circumcise a child. Too late, ma) trump my need to have an complete, healthy and unmutilated penis that has not had not one, but two surgeries that would not have happened if my parents were properly educated and circumcision was condemned?

Why are the rights of those that can protect themselves so much more important than the rights of those that can't?

[OOC: Speaking as a circumcised (non-Semitic) American, I can assure you that the lack of a foreskin neither prevents masturbation nor decreases sexual sensitivity, and that circumcised males suffer neither prolonged pain nor complications from surgery (not even death or maiming). My mom told me I was circumcised for "health" reasons -- apparently, certain cancers are less frequent among circumcised males, and it's just easier to keep clean. Most the guys at my school were circumcised, and we even considered guys who weren't weird. One of my friends scandalously whispered to us about new guys at our school; he used to play with them when they were younger, and they were -- *gasp!* -- uncircumcised. American culture even regards foreskin play as a fetish.],

I want my foreskin back... :(

I hear people complain about religious freedom, but no one cries for the freedom of the child. I am among the children who were mutilated. What about my wishes? Why is it so important that we not protect the rights of the innocent in order to protect the rights of his parents? I most certainly was denied use of my foreskin for all time. I most certainly remember the surgery I underwent to correct the complications that were a direct result of circumcision. I most certainly consider my penis to be mutilated and incomplete. I am not alone. What about our rights? Why should the cultural needs of my parents (both of my parents now say they would not circumcise a child. Too late, ma) trump my need to have an complete, healthy and unmutilated penis that has not had not one, but two surgeries that would not have happened if my parents were properly educated and circumcision was condemned?Dude, I don't want to hear about your "mutilated" penis. Seriously. If you got a personal ax to grind, take it up with your parents; don't take it out on us. It's very hard to read this thread and not think of Agnostic Deeishpeople. ...

I won't condemn it because, in general, it isn't harmful. To condemn it would mean to limit religious freedoms which would have a few thousand years of tradition thrown out the window on the grounds that you don't like this particular cosmetic surgery.

The foreskin has a use that is denied to millions of children. That's harm. That you don't recognize their rights and their needs is saddening. The foreskin is a healthy part of the penis that has a use (there is no medical organization denying that the foreskin is a useful part of the penis). Children are having to undergo an unnecessary surgery that causes possible complications and clear and irrevokable mutilation of the foreskin and penis. That's harm.

The widespread practice is barely over 100 years old and the practice in Judaism was revived not more than a few hundred years ago and has been altered from the original practice thousands of years ago. The current practice of circumcision among Jews resembles the original practice as much as making cars resembles making a chariot for horses.

It's clear you won't be pursuaded but only because you (a)refuse consider the widespread practice evidence of the lack of harm, despite medical evidence you clearly refuse to read, (b) refuse to acknowledge that the reason it is widespread is because the education is reaching the people and because it is not condemned, (c) refuse to accept that foreskin has a use and is a healthy part of the body, despite all medical evidence, (d) see nothing wrong with mutilating babies as part of a religious or cultural rite.

Fair enough. I can see I won't convince that mutilating babies in and off itself is a condemnable practice.

Dude, I don't want to hear about your "mutilated" penis. Seriously. If you got a personal ax to grind, take it up with your parents; don't take it out on us. It's very hard to read this thread and not think of Agnostic Deeishpeople. ...

I can't fix my penis, but I can try to prevent the mutilation of future children. Protecting children from the mutilation of their genitals with not medical reason is a 'personal axe to grind'. Your commitment to the youth of the world is a beacon to us all.

OOC: All I can say is.. blimey. Circumcision as standard? Now I've heard it all.

I can't fix my penis, but I can try to prevent the mutilation of future children. Protecting children from the mutilation of their genitals with not medical reason is a 'personal axe to grind'. Your commitment to the youth of the world is a beacon to us all.

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that personal axes should be left outside the hallowed halls of this austere body.

Hm. Setting aside the pointless political debate, the Proposal itself gives me pause.

Firstly, and primarily, I don't see how this could be considered "Signifigant". Unless there has been a major rewrite somewhere in the past 200 posts, it does nothing but CONDEMN and URGE, neither of which are anything more than bluster. As written on Post 1, this is Mild.

Also, "Rights of Minorities and Women", despite being an utter abomination, would prohibit an outright universal ban on circumcision, as "[n]ot a single religion or belief is better or more right than another." If nothing else, circumcision for religious purposes would have to be allowed.

I chose significant modeled after the FGM resolution for the same thing and MGM being more widespread (but admittedly less likely to be as grievous as FGM).

On your second point, it does not ban as you pointed out in your earlier point. And if the current wording is a violation then so is the FGM which I got the wording from.

Also, it is completely in line with "The Child Protection Act" which already should protect the child from such actions -
"ARTICLE 3

1. In all actions concerning minors, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the minor shall be a primary consideration."

No one can claim that circumcision is in the best interests of the minor.

The people of Cluichstan respectfully submit that personal axes should be left outside the hallowed halls of this austere body.

Agreed. However, when discussing a topic it is worthwhile to say that one is speaking from a position of being among the group of people that was not protected and should have been. In fighting for rights for gays, it is not inappropriate for a delegate to mention they are gay or the descrimination they suffered because of it. In fighting for rights for women, it is not inappropriate for a delegate to mention they are a woman or the descrimination they suffered because of it. In discussing the cessation of MGM, it is not inappropriate to mention that one is a victim of it and the results of being a victim of it.

However, I do agree that all weapons should be left outside the hallowed halls of this austere body and that any delegate should be permitted to ruin the joke of another.

There's a fine line between mentioning personal experiences and harping on endlessly about them.

There's a fine line between mentioning personal experiences and harping on endlessly about them.

It was mentioned the surgery is not harmful, after all evidence to the contrary is rejected without cause, it leaves someone clearly harmed by the surgery struck by a sense of disgust. Certainly, my experience is evidence that there are those harmed by the surgery and they deserve protection from this generally ignorant practice that is a clear violation of human rights.

As for continuously harping, it has been mentioned twice within 13 pages, prior to the suggestion that it is a 'personal axe to grind'.

In fighting for rights for gays, it is not inappropriate for a delegate to mention they are gay or the descrimination they suffered because of it. Yes, it isn't inappropriate, but it can be disadvantaging. If a person seems to be approaching an issue from a personal experience it can make the audience doubt that person's argument, because that person's judgment will appear biased.

If I were to say first that I were a "Fundamentalist Christian" who believed abortion a severe sin and then followed it up with an argument about how abortion shouldn't be legalized by the government based on a seperation of powers (or somesuch), the audience is less likely to believe my latter argument. This because the audience could presume my arguments are just fronts for some subversive motivations to inflict upon them my own personal bias.

It was mentioned the surgery is not harmful, after all evidence to the contrary is rejected without cause, it leaves someone clearly harmed by the surgery struck by a sense of disgust. Certainly, my experience is evidence that there are those harmed by the surgery and they deserve protection from this generally ignorant practice that is a clear violation of human rights.That you have been personally harmed by the procedure definitely means that it isn't entirely safe.

That you've been personally harmed doesn't make it a violation of human rights or generally unsafe--or even ignorant.

That you have been personally harmed by the procedure definitely means that it isn't entirely safe.

That you've been personally harmed doesn't make it a violation of human rights or generally unsafe--or even ignorant.

Ignorant refers to the fact that the general public is unaware of the complications and effects of the surgery. Ignorant refers to the fact that doctors still often tout this surgery as medically-beneficial against all evidence that suggests there is no medical reason for routine circumcision. Ignorant is the fact that majority of the general public still believes the medical benefits to be a reason for routine circumcision.

That I was not given a choice as to weather a healthy, useful part of my anatomy was removed makes it a violation of human rights.

In a procedure that is unnecessary, not entirely safe is of great concern.

Yes, it isn't inappropriate, but it can be disadvantaging. If a person seems to be approaching an issue from a personal experience it can make the audience doubt that person's argument, because that person's judgment will appear biased.

If I were to say first that I were a "Fundamentalist Christian" who believed abortion a severe sin and then followed it up with an argument about how abortion shouldn't be legalized by the government based on a seperation of powers (or somesuch), the audience is less likely to believe my latter argument. This because the audience could presume my arguments are just fronts for some subversive motivations to inflict upon them my own personal bias.

I am personally biased. I'm more than willing to explain and offer up my personal biases in order for that to be considered in my argument as well as my experiences.

However, my information and the offered studies are not personally-biased. In fact, most current evidence suggests that the original studies that supported routine circumcision showed a bias for a desired outcome and this is the reason many of them have been thrown out.

If I were a fundamentalist Christian who wanted to convince others that abortion is wrong I better come up with a little more than it's a sin.

Everything I have mentioned points to the fact that infants are being denied use of a healthy part of their body for no medical reason, being forced to undergo a surgery with possible complications for no medical reasons. If that is not a reason to condemn the practice, then, again, I am saddened by the state of affairs.

It was mentioned the surgery is not harmful, after all evidence to the contrary is rejected without cause, it leaves someone clearly harmed by the surgery struck by a sense of disgust. Certainly, my experience is evidence that there are those harmed by the surgery and they deserve protection from this generally ignorant practice that is a clear violation of human rights.

As for continuously harping, it has been mentioned twice within 13 pages, prior to the suggestion that it is a 'personal axe to grind'.
Correction, it was mentioned that, in general, circumcision is not harmful. The complication rate has been placed between two and ten percent. The fact that you suffered from a complication does not make you the rule. You are the exception.

As for the axes, let me remind you that you already explicitly told us about your penis problems. You harped before anyone mentioned the word "axe," "ax," or any variation of those words.

Correction, it was mentioned that, in general, circumcision is not harmful. The complication rate has been placed between two and ten percent. The fact that you suffered from a complication does not make you the rule. You are the exception.

As for the axes, let me remind you that you already explicitly told us about your penis problems. You harped before anyone mentioned the word "axe," "ax," or any variation of those words.

Except, you do not include the denial of use of the foreskin as harm. It is. If I deny you use of pinkies are you harmed? Of course. Can you live a normal life without them? Of course. Still if I remove the pinkies of people who did not okay their removal I have harmed them. The same is true of foreskins.

I do not feel harmed by not having a foreskin. Although I do want Gruenberg to give it back...

While some forms of FGM are insanely dangerous, among other things, there is a practice called 'Sunna' cirumcision that is just removing the hood of the clitoris, the reason for the name is that it is part of a religious and cultural practice. Many of the reasons are the same as they are for circumcision and many of the effects are the same. Would anyone here support this practice which when performed requires one to rip the hood away from the clitoris just as they rip the foreskin away from the glans of the penis (both the clitoris and the glans are damaged by the practices)? Would anyone condemn it? I would certainly condemn such a practice or any mutilation of the female genitalia without medical cause.

Most of the complications of FGM are related to the use of unsterilized tools and environment during the procedure, and in the more extreme versions of FGM that damage the vagina, affecting menstruation, normal function of the vagina, and childbirth. When the vagina is unaffected and a surgical environment is used with the same types of anesthesia, the incidence of complications drops to that of male circumcisions (OOC: the practice is still legal and occasionally performed, and on the rise, in the US and some other western nations). However, the practice is still abominable.

I equally condemn the practice of mutilating the genetalia of all genders and sexes unless there is either a compelling and immediate medical need OR consent from the patient. Religious freedom and freedom of expression allows you the right to believe as you wish and to practice your religion as you wish provided you do not harm others in the process. If I cut a healthy part, any healthy part, off of another person without their consent, regardless of complications, it is clear they are harmed.

The General Assembly,

OBSERVING that genital mutilation (hereafter 'GM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

ALARMED by the possible long-term effects of GM, including prolonged pain, complications from surgery (including death or permanent maiming) and decreased sexual sensitivity, psychological scarring, and the certain long-term effects of GM, including denial of use of any removed, healthy parts, damage to any parts that remain and were subject to mutilation, an unnatural appearance of the genitalia.

Deeply disturbed that many persons are subjected to GM against their will, primarily at a time when they are too young to exert their will,

Recognizing that GM is irreversible,

Recognizing that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

Defining GM as all acts done to the genitals of any sex or gender that remove or damage all or part of the genitals and that do not serve an immediate and compelling medical need.

1. CONDEMNS the practice of GM;

2. URGES all member nations to fund programs educating citizens about the effects of GM;

3. ENCOURAGES all member nations to avoid using the alternative phrase 'circumcision' for either practice, as it implies it is a medical surgery rather than a ritual mutilation.

4. URGES member nations to avoid and discourage this practice, unless necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child, until the individual reaches the age of majority for the member nation.

I have changed the language to better reflect some of the comments of the thread that don't change the point of the proposal which is to protect all genitals from ritualistic mutilation against the will of the owner of said genitals.

Jacobia,
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Nucleardom believes that education on this subject is not only desirable, but would be extremely beneficial. Again, I would suggest that, if the true object of your resolution is to promote the education, then it would ease passage to remove the condemnation clause, since it would be near impossible to convince many that circumcision is intimately tied up with religion. If your overarching goal is actually to condemn the practice, then obviously removing the clause would not accomplish this, but I feel that that would be a much harder resolution to get passed.

It comes down to which portion of the resolution you feel to better serve the cause. As for us, I do not feel that Nucleardom could support a resolution that did not provide some recognition for circumcision tied up with religion.

Repectfully,
HG Rickover
Founder of Nucleardom

Except, you do not include the denial of use of the foreskin as harm. It is. If I deny you use of pinkies are you harmed? Of course. Can you live a normal life without them? Of course. Still if I remove the pinkies of people who did not okay their removal I have harmed them. The same is true of foreskins.
It's not the same. The pinky serves a purpose in striking keys on the keyboard that I would normally have to painfully stretch my ring finger to get to.

The foreskin puts me at risk for infection. It helps protect my penis by providing another flap of skin. Hooray, skin.

If you're born with a tail, are your parents wrong to have it removed? It's got blood vessels and muscles. It got there naturally, and it might serve a purpose, if the purpose is only to win bar bets later on in life. Should conjoined twins be separated? Should my parents be put away for not preventing me from biting my fingernails as a child?

If you're born with a tail, are your parents wrong to have it removed? It's got blood vessels and muscles. It got there naturally, and it might serve a purpose, if the purpose is only to win bar bets later on in life.

It might also be prehensile, so that when you get picked on for having a tail, you can punch your tormenters in the face and escape into the trees.

It might also be prehensile, so that when you get picked on for having a tail, you can punch your tormenters in the face and escape into the trees.
Did you know that the longest human tail on record was on a fourteen-year-old (I believe) from India (I believe)? It was nine-inches-long (I'm sure).

But was it prehensile?

It was nine-inches-long (I'm sure).

Someone called?

Nuck Chorris
Deputy Ambassador to the UN
Assistant Secretary of State for Penis Innuendos

It's not the same. The pinky serves a purpose in striking keys on the keyboard that I would normally have to painfully stretch my ring finger to get to.

The foreskin puts me at risk for infection. It helps protect my penis by providing another flap of skin. Hooray, skin.

If you're born with a tail, are your parents wrong to have it removed? It's got blood vessels and muscles. It got there naturally, and it might serve a purpose, if the purpose is only to win bar bets later on in life. Should conjoined twins be separated? Should my parents be put away for not preventing me from biting my fingernails as a child?

Find me one medical authority that suggests the foreskin has no use? Just one.

A tail has not use. Removing a tail requires a surgery to correct an abnormality. Circumcision is a surgery to create an abnormality.

Conjoined twins have a compelling medical reason for being seperated. There is absolutely compelling evidence that their quality of life is improved by such a surgery which is a compelling medical reason.

Fine lets use fingernails as an example. Cutting fingernails is a process that does not change the use of the fingernail nor damage the fingernail organ. If one chooses you can simply stop cutting your fingernails and they would grow out and you would return to the state you were preventing. To make fingernails comparable we would have to compare this to parents completely removing the fingernails. And let's be clear. Not cutting them off. But cutting the base of the nail near the cuticle and then ripping the nail away from the finger. It's not cruel. Sure the child is in excruciating pain and is denied use of his/her fingernails ever, but don't worry, they won't remember it. Well, until they try to scratch.

Fine lets use fingernails as an example. Cutting fingernails is a process that does not change the use of the fingernail nor damage the fingernail organ. If one chooses you can simply stop cutting your fingernails and they would grow out and you would return to the state you were preventing. To make fingernails comparable we would have to compare this to parents completely removing the fingernails. And let's be clear. Not cutting them off. But cutting the base of the nail near the cuticle and then ripping the nail away from the finger. It's not cruel. Sure the child is in excruciating pain and is denied use of his/her fingernails ever, but don't worry, they won't remember it. Well, until they try to scratch.

I want my fingernails back from Gruenberg, too... :(

Quite a collection I'm acruing here.

Quite a collection I'm acruing here.

Are you sure you're not just planning on taking me apart and then reassembling your very own Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich? :eek:

Find me one medical authority that suggests the foreskin has no use? Just one.

A tail has not use. Removing a tail requires a surgery to correct an abnormality. Circumcision is a surgery to create an abnormality.

Conjoined twins have a compelling medical reason for being seperated. There is absolutely compelling evidence that their quality of life is improved by such a surgery which is a compelling medical reason.

Fine lets use fingernails as an example. Cutting fingernails is a process that does not change the use of the fingernail nor damage the fingernail organ. If one chooses you can simply stop cutting your fingernails and they would grow out and you would return to the state you were preventing. To make fingernails comparable we would have to compare this to parents completely removing the fingernails. And let's be clear. Not cutting them off. But cutting the base of the nail near the cuticle and then ripping the nail away from the finger. It's not cruel. Sure the child is in excruciating pain and is denied use of his/her fingernails ever, but don't worry, they won't remember it. Well, until they try to scratch.
I never claimed it had no use. Re-read that post.

How do we know a tail has no use? It contains muscles and blood vessels. Find me one medical authority that suggests the tail has no use. Just one.

The quality of life is improved, except that in many cases, only one of the two survives, and sometimes neither. I don't like your definition of "quality of life."

I did not say cutting. I said biting. There is a difference. As a child, on several occasions, I suffered through painful infections. The flesh around my fingernails turned a pale green instead of the normal, healthy pink. What's your opinion? Should my parents be merely fined or should they be jailed for failing to prevent me from biting my nails, and, in doing so, putting me at risk for those infections?

I never claimed it had no use. Re-read that post.

How do we know a tail has no use? It contains muscles and blood vessels. Find me one medical authority that suggests the tail has no use. Just one.

I have checked in with the Surgeon General of Cluichstan, who himself has a nine-inch tail. He says his wives rather like it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

I have checked in with the Surgeon General of Cluichstan, who himself has a nine-inch tail. He says his wives rather like it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala
There you have it! Bresnian scientists, in cooperation with Cluichstan's Surgeon General, have concluded that a human's tail improves the ability of homo sapiens to attract a mate(s).

There you have it! Bresnian scientists, in cooperation with Cluichstan's Surgeon General, have concluded that a human's tail improves the ability of homo sapiens to attract a mate(s).

Indeed, 'tis a fine example of international scientific cooperation.

I chose significant modeled after the FGM resolution for the same thing and MGM being more widespread (but admittedly less likely to be as grievous as FGM).Ehh... be that as it may, a Proposal that does nothing more than URGE should only be Mild. Not enough for deletion, but something to keep in mind.

1. In all actions concerning minors, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the minor shall be a primary consideration."

No one can claim that circumcision is in the best interests of the minor.Actually, several people can, and do, which is why this thread is so bloody long. The problem is the aforementioned abomination. It allows pretty much any action to be shielded from prosecution (and persecution) by claiming it is of a religious nature.

However, that was more a hypothetical I was pointing out. As the Proposal is currently worded, my only concern is the strength.

I never claimed it had no use. Re-read that post.

How do we know a tail has no use? It contains muscles and blood vessels. Find me one medical authority that suggests the tail has no use. Just one.

Funny. Okay, what is the tail's use? There is no debate that the foreskin has a purpose and that said purpose is denied a person it is removed from. So what use of the tail is the person being denied. They're being allowed to sit more comfortably. They're being permitted to wear pants normally. But what are they being denied?

I'm not talking about the mere right to a foreskin. I'm talking about a healthy, normal, useful part of the body. No one here has presented the argument that the foreskin being removed is unhealthy, abnormal or of no use to the person who it is being removed from.

So what's your point? Are you having trouble sticking to the subject?

The quality of life is improved, except that in most cases, only one of the two survives, and sometimes neither. I don't like your definition of "quality of life."

In cases of seperation and case of medical need must be presented in order to get anyone in most western countries to perform the surgery, particularly if the lives of one or both children hang in the balance. The arguement is certainly not religious, cultural or cosmetic. You are still talking about weighing various child rights in the case of seperation. The right to privacy. The right to your body (in this case you are being required to submit at least some ways to the will of the other person).

I love your comparisons. Yes, let's compare correcting abnormalities to cutting off normal, useful, healthy parts. Exactly the same, really. Yes, let's compare weighing the various rights of the child against each other in an attempt to reach the most beneficial outcome for the child (which would be the case if there were a medical argument for circumcision or is the case in a seperation) to weighing the religious rights of the parent against to the rights of the child to body integrity.

I did not say cutting. I said biting. There is a difference. As a child, on more than one occasion, I suffered painful infections -- the flesh around my fingernails turned green. What's your opinion? Should my parents be merely fined or should they jailed for failing to prevent me from biting my nails?

Unless it can be shown that your parents are being negligent in attempting to prevent it than neither. You're really diverging at this point. Now if your parents were biting your nails for you that would show intent, much like their intent to deprive you of your foreskin... Now would you like to talk about an issue that the child is not doing of its own volition? When the child cuts off its own foreskin, even bites off the foreskin, I won't condemn the practice. I promise. I'll probably discourage because of the risks involved which I'm sure your parents did, but I would refer to it as an abomination like I do mutilation of the genitals by the parents or guardians.

Ehh... be that as it may, a Proposal that does nothing more than URGE should only be Mild. Not enough for deletion, but something to keep in mind.

It's not going to pass, so I'll change it in the future revisions.

Actually, several people can, and do, which is why this thread is so bloody long. The problem is the aforementioned abomination. It allows pretty much any action to be shielded from prosecution (and persecution) by claiming it is of a religious nature.

However, that was more a hypothetical I was pointing out. As the Proposal is currently worded, my only concern is the strength.

Yeah, that 'abomination' is next on my hit list. I read it and it protects ALL acts claimed to be religious. Technically, the 'abomination' was in direct conflict of FGM when it was passed.

Indeed, 'tis a fine example of international scientific cooperation.

OOC: While amusing, you kinda suck. Now are we just gonna degrade into an argument with fake scientific proofs?

I'll probably discourage because of the risks involved which I'm sure your parents did, but I would refer to it as an abomination like I do mutilation of the genitals by the parents or guardians.

But what if the Cluichstani Surgeon General's tail had been surgically removed? Given the pleasure it has provided him -- and his 12 wives -- as an adult, I'm sure he would consider its removal to be mutilation.

OOC: While amusing, you kinda suck. Now are we just gonna degrade into an argument with fake scientific proofs?

OOC: You betcha! :p

But what if the Cluichstani Surgeon General's tail had been surgically removed? Given the pleasure it has provided him -- and his 12 wives -- as an adult, I'm sure he would consider its removal to be mutilation.

Good point. The delegate of the region of Zion and the representative from the great nation of Jocabia calls for an end to mutilating this poor tailed children. However, this legislation is not centered on that, but any legislation that prevents said mutilation will be endorsed by the region of Zion and nation of Jocabia.

Would you consider rewriting this proposal then to include the surgical removal of tails as well?

Would you consider rewriting this proposal then to include the surgical removal of tails as well?

I would prefer it if this proposal remain focused on genital mutilation so that the scope of the legislation not be hard to define. However, I would encourage you to begin writing new legislation right away to protect our tailed friends.

I never claimed it had no use. Re-read that post.

How do we know a tail has no use? It contains muscles and blood vessels. Find me one medical authority that suggests the tail has no use. Just one.

Funny. Okay, what is the tail's use? There is no debate that the foreskin has a purpose and that said purpose is denied a person it is removed from. So what use of the tail is the person being denied. They're being allowed to sit more comfortably. They're being permitted to wear pants normally. But what are they being denied?

I'm not talking about the mere right to a foreskin. I'm talking about a healthy, normal, useful part of the body. No one here has presented the argument that the foreskin being removed is unhealthy, abnormal or of no use to the person who it is being removed from.

So what's your point? Are you having trouble sticking to the subject?



In cases of seperation and case of medical need must be presented in order to get anyone in most western countries to perform the surgery, particularly if the lives of one or both children hang in the balance. The arguement is certainly not religious, cultural or cosmetic. You are still talking about weighing various child rights in the case of seperation. The right to privacy. The right to your body (in this case you are being required to submit at least some ways to the will of the other person).

I love your comparisons. Yes, let's compare correcting abnormalities to cutting off normal, useful, healthy parts. Exactly the same, really. Yes, let's compare weighing the various rights of the child against each other in an attempt to reach the most beneficial outcome for the child (which would be the case if there were a medical argument for circumcision or is the case in a seperation) to weighing the religious rights of the parent against to the rights of the child to body integrity.



Unless it can be shown that your parents are being negligent in attempting to prevent it than neither. You're really diverging at this point. Now if your parents were biting your nails for you that would show intent, much like their intent to deprive you of your foreskin... Now would you like to talk about an issue that the child is not doing of its own volition? When the child cuts off its own foreskin, even bites off the foreskin, I won't condemn the practice. I promise. I'll probably discourage because of the risks involved which I'm sure your parents did, but I would refer to it as an abomination like I do mutilation of the genitals by the parents or guardians.

I'm having no problems sticking to the subject. I'm responding to what you say. Do I need to copy and paste the history here to remind you? The tail might serve as a defense mechanism. An appendage that can be used as a blunt object. An appendage that appeals to the opposite gender. An appendage that wins the wearer money and surprises many a drinking buddy.

You maintain that there are no medical benefits, and I maintain that there are (linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10213929&postcount=122)). I maintain that it is a parent's right to decide what is best for the child, except in cases of severe mistreatment. I maintain that it is a parent's right to raise the child according to their religion, except in cases of severe mistreatment. I maintain that the UN has no jurisdiction when it comes to my household, except in cases of severe mistreatment.

My parents certainly could have done a better job to stop me from biting my fingernails and protecting me from infections caused by that practice. A few times my father threatened to put vasoline on my fingertips to get me to stop. He never did. A child's volition? It was habit. A tradition, you could say. I'd wake up, eat my cereal, walk out to the bus stop and start nibbling. Every day. Here's the thing. My parents, regardless of what your biases might have me and others believe, didn't circumcise me in an attempt to deprive me of my foreskin. There was no such intent. The best you can argue is negligence, and that's the same thing as the fingernail-biting. My parents, through their negligence, caused me to get infections in my fingertips. My parents, through their negligence, caused me to get my foreskin removed.

My parents, through their negligence, caused me to get my foreskin removed.

Did Gruenberg take your foreskin, too?

Did Gruenberg take your foreskin, too?It's a possibility. I haven't seen it since shortly after I was born. I should look into that.

No one can claim that circumcision is in the best interests of the minor.
I can.

#1. It is a known fact that parents do imprint some ideas on their children.
#2. It is a known fact that the complication rate for circumcision rises as a person gets older.
#3. If the parents of a child are Jewish, or any other religion/belief/secular ideology that supports circumcision, by #1 the child has a fair chance of wanting to be circumcised.
#4. However, the child may not be able to do as they wanted by #3, due to the risk rate being so high by #2.

I'm having no problems sticking to the subject. I'm responding to what you say. Do I need to copy and paste the history here to remind you? The tail might serve as a defense mechanism. An appendage that can be used as a blunt object. An appendage that appeals to the opposite gender. An appendage that wins the wearer money and surprises many a drinking buddy.

Great, let's keep tail. I'm all for keeping unnecessary surgeries to a minimum. Right now, I'm concerned with the genitals but feel free to start your own legislation.

And when you can show me a single comparison I've given that wasn't discussing the removal of useful, healthy, normal tissue or the violation of a normal, useful, healthy part of the anatomy, I'll give you a cookie. Your example is not normal and you've given no evidence it has a use (other than advantages you made up) or even that it's healthy.

You maintain that there are no medical benefits, and I maintain that there are (linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10213929&postcount=122)). I maintain that it is a parent's right to decide what is best for the child, except in cases of severe mistreatment. I maintain that it is a parent's right to raise the child according to their religion, except in cases of severe mistreatment. I maintain that the UN has no jurisdiction when it comes to my household, except in cases of severe mistreatment.

Yeah, the only problem is every one of those links was debunked. Why is it necessary to keep showing you that EVERY MEDICAL AGENCY holds that there is no medical reason for routine circumcision. No medical reason means no medical reason, but, hey, that's just the opinion of doctors.

So what if I place a babies penis in my mouth on a regular basis for religious purposes. I believe that oral sex on an infant leads to enlightenment. The infant is not harmed and won't remember it, right? I mean, yes, it's a violation of its person, but we don't need to treat infants like people, do we?

My parents certainly could have done a better job to stop me from biting my fingernails and protecting me from infections caused by that practice. A few times my father threatened to put vasoline on my fingertips to get me to stop. He never did. A child's volition? It was habit. A tradition, you could say. I'd wake up, eat my cereal, walk out to the bus stop and start nibbling. Every day. Here's the thing. My parents, regardless of what your biases might have me and others believe, didn't circumcise me in an attempt to deprive me of my foreskin. There was no such intent. The best you can argue is negligence, and that's the same thing as the fingernail-biting. My parents, through their negligence, caused me to get infections in my fingertips. My parents, through their negligence, caused me to get my foreskin removed.

Again, you are talking about correcting something wrong. Taking your nails off could have prevented the habit, but I doubt anyone would claim that it's a reason for routine removal. It would also releive parents of the annoying practice of trimming the nails. I doubt anyone would claim it's a reason for routine removal. But that's just because it's not widespread enough. Let's start removing children's fingernails. We'll start a trend.

Meanwhile, you continue to change the subject. Every example I gave was of a parent commiting an act with intent to commit the act. If you can't see how that really isn't the same as a parent not doing enough to prevent YOU from biting YOUR nails, I can't help you. It has nothing to do with my point. Slippery slope arguments suck even when they actually follow a logical flow. This one doesn't.

My parents, through their negligence, caused me to get infections in my fingertips. My parents, through their negligence, caused me to get my foreskin removed.

Caused you to get your foreskin removed? They gave permission to someone to remove your foreskin. That's not negligence. The removal of the foreskin is the purpose of the surgery. Are you actually claiming your parents weren't aware that circumcision removes the foreskin? Seriously?

That's like saying that I didn't intend to shoot you because I didn't throw the bullet, I merely pulled the trigger and the bullet came out. Now, the bullet coming out was the obvious outcome of pulling the trigger and I was aware that if I pulled the trigger the bullet would come out, but I didn't actually push the bullet throw the air to strike you in the chest, so I wasn't murderous. I was just negligent. I wonder how that would hold up in a court of law... hmmm...

So what if I place a babies penis in my mouth on a regular basis for religious purposes. I believe that oral sex on an infant leads to enlightenment. The infant is not harmed and won't remember it, right? I mean, yes, it's a violation of its person, but we don't need to treat infants like people, do we?
What do you mean by a "violation of its person"?

Sorry but all the cultural and religious arguments fail outright because of the fact that freedom of religion only applies to belief and the actions of ones self, to ones self, not actions or beliefs involving others. We should be debating the very important human rights issues, not trying to debate extremely weak religious arguments in support of MGM, with people who wont listen anyway and act like this is a joke! (tails)


It’s really sad to see that the (usual) level of idiocy and ignorance from the opposition on this topic hasn’t gone away.

I told myself that I didn’t want to get into this debate again right now. But after reading through 20 something pages of the same long debunked arguments. Made by, as far as I could see, religious zealots, chronic appeasers/apologizers, feminazi’s (i.e. sexist morons), brainwashed dolts and a few people, that I can only guess have some kind of perverse fascination (i.e. obsession) with the circumcised penis of small boys. I couldn’t help it.

Expect more from me on this issue in the next few days.


P.S. Oh and before you come crying because I may have offended or insulted you.... Don’t! Because I don’t really care... I’ve been called a nazi, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-religion, anti-parent, a horrible person, a monster (?), not human and more then a few other things. Not to mention the f***ing death threats... Yes DEATH THREATS!!! As well as other hate. So I don’t really give a sh!t if I’ve “upset” you.


Well that’s all for now, have a nice night everyone. :)

Great, let's keep tail. I'm all for keeping unnecessary surgeries to a minimum. Right now, I'm concerned with the genitals but feel free to start your own legislation.

And when you can show me a single comparison I've given that wasn't discussing the removal of useful, healthy, normal tissue or the violation of a normal, useful, healthy part of the anatomy, I'll give you a cookie. Your example is not normal and you've given no evidence it has a use (other than advantages you made up) or even that it's healthy.



Yeah, the only problem is every one of those links was debunked. Why is it necessary to keep showing you that EVERY MEDICAL AGENCY holds that there is no medical reason for routine circumcision. No medical reason means no medical reason, but, hey, that's just the opinion of doctors.

So what if I place a babies penis in my mouth on a regular basis for religious purposes. I believe that oral sex on an infant leads to enlightenment. The infant is not harmed and won't remember it, right? I mean, yes, it's a violation of its person, but we don't need to treat infants like people, do we?



Again, you are talking about correcting something wrong. Taking your nails off could have prevented the habit, but I doubt anyone would claim that it's a reason for routine removal. It would also releive parents of the annoying practice of trimming the nails. I doubt anyone would claim it's a reason for routine removal. But that's just because it's not widespread enough. Let's start removing children's fingernails. We'll start a trend.

Meanwhile, you continue to change the subject. Every example I gave was of a parent commiting an act with intent to commit the act. If you can't see how that really isn't the same as a parent not doing enough to prevent YOU from biting YOUR nails, I can't help you. It has nothing to do with my point. Slippery slope arguments suck even when they actually follow a logical flow. This one doesn't.
Tail - Just because it's useful doesn't mean it's not an abnormality. Should parents be allowed to surgically remove the tail? I wasn't arguing that they shouldn't.

Links - Debunked by whom? CIRC.org? Please. It's not unbiased, and has been debunked on issues itself. The agencies say that there is no reason for routine removal because the benefits do not outweigh the costs. They do not say that the practice should be banned. I know, I know, they're just trying to cover their asses, but seriously, if you're going to keep referencing to what they say, why not reference to all of what they say, instead of the bits that you like?

Nails - Yes, I'm talking about correcting something wrong. So are you. I'm talking about correcting the parental negligence in relation to the bad and dangerous habit of nail-biting, you're talking about correcting the parental negligence in relation to the (as you'd have us believe) bad and dangerous tradition of circumcision. Your comprehension skills could use a little brushing up. You call it changing the subject, and I call it trying to get you to understand what you are apparently unwilling to.

The parents have the intent of removing the foreskin, but not the intent of depriving their child of a "useful" part of their body. If a man cuts off his arm to free himself from a fallen boulder, does he do it to put himself at risk to die from infection? No, he does it to save his life. Regardless of whether or not he died from infection, his choice was his own. By the way, this isn't changin the subject. This is drawing comparison to a subject that I'd hope you're not so biased on so that you understand the point.

Psst, here's the part where you miss the point and tell me that the children aren't the ones making the choice to cut on themselves.

What do you mean by a "violation of its person"?

The same as molesting any child is a violation of its person. The child has a right to its body and there needs to be compelling reasons to violate that right.

SI can only guess have some kind of perverse fascination (i.e. obsession) with the circumcised penis of small boys. I couldn’t help it.

Expect more from me on this issue in the next few days.

You're the one who insists on bringing it up all the time...

Caused you to get your foreskin removed? They gave permission to someone to remove your foreskin. That's not negligence. The removal of the foreskin is the purpose of the surgery. Are you actually claiming your parents weren't aware that circumcision removes the foreskin? Seriously?

That's like saying that I didn't intend to shoot you because I didn't throw the bullet, I merely pulled the trigger and the bullet came out. Now, the bullet coming out was the obvious outcome of pulling the trigger and I was aware that if I pulled the trigger the bullet would come out, but I didn't actually push the bullet throw the air to strike you in the chest, so I wasn't murderous. I was just negligent. I wonder how that would hold up in a court of law... hmmm...
As ridiculous as your statements are, they're also mostly wrong. Here's what it would be like, if you want to use the gun thing:

"Can I have your gun? I can make it produce pretty flowers."
"Okay."
"Thanks."
"Wait, you just killed three people! Where are my flowers?"

Caused you to get your foreskin removed? They gave permission to someone to remove your foreskin. That's not negligence.Actually... it's textbook common law negligence (provided you assume that it's harmful):
"The duty element is the legal requirement that the person being sued for negligence must adhere to a standard of conduct in protecting others from unreasonable risk of harm."
-Parents have the duty to protect their children from harm.
Breach of duty.
-Allowing children to be harmed, through action or inaction, is a breach of duty.
Casuation
Cause in Fact
Identify the injuries for which redress is sought;
identify the wrongful conduct;
mentally correct wrongful conduct to extent necessary to make it lawful, leaving everything else the same;
ask whether the injuries would still have occurred if the defendant had acted correctly in this case.
Proximate Cause
-Clearly, the parents knew what would happen.
Damage
-Self explanitory

Assuming that the procedure is harmful, then it would indeed be negligence.

Are you actually claiming your parents weren't aware that circumcision removes the foreskin? Seriously?Not knowing the effects of one's actions is a defense against a charge of negligence.

That's like saying that I didn't intend to shoot you because I didn't throw the bullet, I merely pulled the trigger and the bullet came out.Now you're being silly.

but I didn't actually push the bullet throw the air to strike you in the chest, so I wasn't murderous. I was just negligent. I wonder how that would hold up in a court of law... hmmm..."Negligent homicide is a charge brought against persons, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die. This offense mostly concerns itself with the death of small infants or children, the handicapped, or the elderly. An example of such a case is when an elderly person is allowed to accumulate bedsores, as they are not helped out of a couch or bed for a prolonged period of time and die as a result of necrotic tissue. If a more able person, often a son or daughter, was present or expected to be present during the time when the elderly person was accumulating bedsores, they may be found liable of negligent homicide, as their inaction and blantant disregard for human life resulted in the death of someone under their care. Negligent homicide generally only applies if a pattern of negligence resulted in the death of the individual."

You're a better debator than this, Jocabia. Leave the strawmen for the fields.

Tail - Just because it's useful doesn't mean it's not an abnormality. Should parents be allowed to surgically remove the tail? I wasn't arguing that they shouldn't.

What? Who said useful things can't be abnormalities? I certainly didn't. I said that it is neither useful nor normal. Regardless, your point sucks because I wouldn't object to leaving the tail on until the child is old enough to make a decision. I know a kid born with six fingers and his parents let him wait until he was old enough to tell them whether he wanted them removed and that he appreciated it.

Links - Debunked by whom? CIRC.org? Please. It's not unbiased, and has been debunked on issues itself. The agencies say that there is no reason for routine removal because the benefits do not outweigh the costs. They do not say that the practice should be banned. I know, I know, they're just trying to cover their asses, but seriously, if you're going to keep referencing to what they say, why not reference to all of what they say, instead of the bits that you like?

They don't have to ban the practice. You claim there's a medical reason and they (every medical organization) say there's not. Who do you think is right? My reasoning for banning the practice is not simply medical, it's that the child is denied access to the part for all time, a useful, healthy, normal part. That is undeniable harm that can never be repaired.

Nails - Yes, I'm talking about correcting something wrong. So are you. I'm talking about correcting the bad and dangerous habit of nail-biting, you're talking about correcting the (as you'd have us believe) bad and dangerous tradition of circumcision. Your comprehension skills could use a little brushing up. You call it changing the subject, and I call it trying to get you to understand what you are apparently unwilling to.

You are talking about wanting your parents to correct something that is wrong with you. I am talking about not wanting parents to perform surgeries routinely when nothing is wrong. Hello, Apples, these are oranges. A more apt comparison would be removing the nails of all children because some children bite their nails.

The parents have the intent of removing the foreskin, but not the intent of depriving their child of a "useful" part of their body. If a man cuts off his arm to free himself from a fallen boulder, does he do it to put himself at risk to die from infection? No, he does it to save his life. Regardless of whether or not he died from infection, his choice was his own. By the way, this isn't changin the subject. This is drawing comparison to a subject that I'd hope you're not so biased on so that you understand the point.

Depriving the child of a useful part of the body is an obvious outcome of the surgery. If they are not aware of the use of the foreskin and the lack of medical reason for the surgery then the doctor is guilty of malpractice. Doctors are required to allow patients to make informed decisions. I may fire a gun at you without the intent of killing you but if I pointed it at your eye and pulled the trigger, I'm guilty of murder.

And yes, I see the comparison, however, in one case there is an immediate and compelling medical need, which is an excellent reason for the surgery. The person removing the arm is aware he is depriving himself of the arm, but it is NECESSARY, in order to meet an immediate and compelling need. It's obvious that a parent would and should perform an identical surgery on a child in similar circumstances. However, when not immediate and compelling, you BETTER give a reason better than "You'll not take me freedom" as reasoning for depriving a child of a body part.

Psst, here's the part where you miss the point and tell me that the children aren't the ones making the choice to cut on themselves.
Really? Huh. Psst, here's the part where you prove you're not following along.

Actually... it's textbook common law negligence (provided you assume that it's harmful):
"The duty element is the legal requirement that the person being sued for negligence must adhere to a standard of conduct in protecting others from unreasonable risk of harm."
-Parents have the duty to protect their children from harm.
Breach of duty.
-Allowing children to be harmed, through action or inaction, is a breach of duty.
Casuation
Cause in Fact
Identify the injuries for which redress is sought;
identify the wrongful conduct;
mentally correct wrongful conduct to extent necessary to make it lawful, leaving everything else the same;
ask whether the injuries would still have occurred if the defendant had acted correctly in this case.
Proximate Cause
-Clearly, the parents knew what would happen.
Damage
-Self explanitory

Assuming that the procedure is harmful, then it would indeed be negligence.

Not knowing the effects of one's actions is a defense against a charge of negligence.

Now you're being silly.

"Negligent homicide is a charge brought against persons, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die. This offense mostly concerns itself with the death of small infants or children, the handicapped, or the elderly. An example of such a case is when an elderly person is allowed to accumulate bedsores, as they are not helped out of a couch or bed for a prolonged period of time and die as a result of necrotic tissue. If a more able person, often a son or daughter, was present or expected to be present during the time when the elderly person was accumulating bedsores, they may be found liable of negligent homicide, as their inaction and blantant disregard for human life resulted in the death of someone under their care. Negligent homicide generally only applies if a pattern of negligence resulted in the death of the individual."

You're a better debator than this, Jocabia. Leave the strawmen for the fields.

You're actually making my point. What's the difference between negligent homicide and murder? Negligent homicide is when death is a reasonable but not direct result. I give a gun to my eight-year-old and he walking the other room and shoots his sister. Murder is when death is a reasonable and direct result. I give a gun to my eight-year-old and I tell him to shoot his sister and he does. It's a difference of intent.

The parents clearly had intent when they ask a doctor to perform a surgery that cuts off the foreskin of the penis (unless they were unaware of what the surgery actually does, in which case the doctor is guilty of malpractice).

As ridiculous as your statements are, they're also mostly wrong. Here's what it would be like, if you want to use the gun thing:

"Can I have your gun? I can make it produce pretty flowers."
"Okay."
"Thanks."
"Wait, you just killed three people! Where are my flowers?"

So you are claiming your parents didn't know what circumcision was? Wow. Okay, let's not talk about the tiny percentage of the population that doesn't know that guns don't produce flowers and that circumcision removes the foreskin. And if you think it's not a tiny percentage that's an even greater reason for condemnation of the practice and education about it.

What? Who said useful things can't be abnormalities? I certainly didn't. I said that it is neither useful nor normal. Regardless, your point sucks because I wouldn't object to leaving the tail on until the child is old enough to make a decision. I know a kid born with six fingers and his parents let him wait until he was old enough to tell them whether he wanted them removed and that he appreciated it.



They don't have to ban the practice. You claim there's a medical reason and they (every medical organization) say there's not. Who do you think is right? My reasoning for banning the practice is not simply medical, it's that the child is denied access to the part for all time, a useful, healthy, normal part. That is undeniable harm that can never be repaired.



You are talking about wanting your parents to correct something that is wrong with you. I am talking about not wanting parents to perform surgeries routinely when nothing is wrong. Hello, Apples, these are oranges. A more apt comparison would be removing the nails of all children because some children bite their nails.



Depriving the child of a useful part of the body is an obvious outcome of the surgery. If they are not aware of the use of the foreskin and the lack of medical reason for the surgery then the doctor is guilty of malpractice. Doctors are required to allow patients to make informed decisions. I may fire a gun at you without the intent of killing you but if I pointed it at your eye and pulled the trigger, I'm guilty of murder.

And yes, I see the comparison, however, in one case there is an immediate and compelling medical need, which is an excellent reason for the surgery. The person removing the arm is aware he is depriving himself of the arm, but it is NECESSARY, in order to meet an immediate and compelling need. It's obvious that a parent would and should perform an identical surgery on a child in similar circumstances. However, when not immediate and compelling, you BETTER give a reason better than "You'll not take me freedom" as reasoning for depriving a child of a body part.


Really? Huh. Psst, here's the part where you prove you're not following along.
That was nice of his parents. I don't think his parents should be penalized for removing the extra fingers, nor do I think they should be penalized for removing the tail.

1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision.

2. The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. You sure EVERY medical organization says what you claim? I'm not. Parents should have the option available to them if they feel it is best. If there is a history of penile cancer in the family, then, yes, let's remove the foreskin. Again, it is not clear that there is no medical benefit. There is enough question for the AMA not to outright ban the practice. There is enough question for no country in RL the world to outright ban the practice.

You missed the point, again. What if the guy left a note on his car telling people where he'd be climbing? Which would mean it was only a matter of time before help found him. Regardless, he didn't know that his life was actually in danger. He believed it. He was making the best decision based on his knowledge. The point is that it's a parent's duty to parent correctly, not the government's, and certainly not the UN's. It's a parent's right to decide what is best for their child, given that there aren't mountains of evidence telling them they're wrong (which, in this case, there aren't).

Sorry but all the cultural and religious arguments fail outright because of the fact that freedom of religion only applies to belief and the actions of ones self, to ones self, not actions or beliefs involving others. We should be debating the very important human rights issues, not trying to debate extremely weak religious arguments in support of MGM, with people who wont listen anyway and act like this is a joke! (tails)


It’s really sad to see that the (usual) level of idiocy and ignorance from the opposition on this topic hasn’t gone away.

I told myself that I didn’t want to get into this debate again right now. But after reading through 20 something pages of the same long debunked arguments. Made by, as far as I could see, religious zealots, chronic appeasers/apologizers, feminazi’s (i.e. sexist morons), brainwashed dolts and a few people, that I can only guess have some kind of perverse fascination (i.e. obsession) with the circumcised penis of small boys. I couldn’t help it.

Expect more from me on this issue in the next few days.


P.S. Oh and before you come crying because I may have offended or insulted you.... Don’t! Because I don’t really care... I’ve been called a nazi, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-religion, anti-parent, a horrible person, a monster (?), not human and more then a few other things. Not to mention the f***ing death threats... Yes DEATH THREATS!!! As well as other hate. So I don’t really give a sh!t if I’ve “upset” you.


Well that’s all for now, have a nice night everyone. :)
Did you not notice the mods on the same page? If you want to make an argument, name-calling isn't the way to do it.

You're actually making my point. What's the difference between negligent homicide and murder? Negligent homicide is when death is a reasonable but not direct result.I quoted you the definition. Death is a direct result of the negligence. The elderly person is left in the same position, allowing for blood clots and bed sores. The clot becomes a stroke and the sores necrotic, and the elderly person dies. The death is directly caused by the inaction of the person(s) charged with their care.

The parents clearly had intent when they ask a doctor to perform a surgery that cuts off the foreskin of the penis (unless they were unaware of what the surgery actually does, in which case the doctor is guilty of malpractice).And yet you argued the opposite:
Caused you to get your foreskin removed? They gave permission to someone to remove your foreskin. That's not negligence.

That was nice of his parents. I don't think his parents should be penalized for removing the extra fingers, nor do I think they should be penalized for removing the tail.

Great. However, this is still to correct an abnormality, not really evidence that a parent should have the right to with intent make their child abnormal.

You sure EVERY medical organization says what you claim? I'm not.

Ha, perfect example. So in that statement where does it say there is ANY medical reason for ROUTINE neonatal circumcision. It says there isn't sufficient evidence for ROUTINE practice, i.e no reason.

Here's the paper that's from -
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ama2000/

Notice how it goes through every medical reason and then says it is not a reason for the routine practice. So if I was wrong to say there is no reason for the routine practice, then what is the medical reason for the routine practice that the AMA is ignoring? No medical reason doesn't mean no potential benefits. There is no medical reason for removing my lips, but it doesn't mean that if I remove them it won't prevent cancer of the lips.

Potential benefits != medical reason.

Parents should have the option available to them if they feel it is best. If there is a history of penile cancer in the family, then, yes, let's remove the foreskin. Again, it is not clear that there is no medical benefit. There is enough question for the AMA not to outright ban the practice. There is enough question for no country in RL the world to outright ban the practice.

If there is a history of penile cancer in your family, there are far better prevention methods. However, you are talking about specific case for specific consideration. Not a very good argument for a routine practice. I'm not talking about an outright ban of the practice, simply not making it elective. There should be a compelling medical reason for the surgery. If there is a compelling medical reason for a child with a history of penile cancer to have a circumcision, you go, boy. However, that's not what we're discussing.

The AMA is not in a position to ban the practice simply on the basis of no medical benefit. The AMA is not charged with standing up for the rights of children that are undergoing elective surgery. They are positioned make medical decisions. The government is in a postion to protect and enforce our rights.

You missed the point, again. What if the guy left a note on his car telling people where he'd be climbing? Which would mean it was only a matter of time before help found him. Regardless, he didn't know that his life was actually in danger. He believed it. He was making the best decision based on his knowledge. The point is that it's a parent's duty to parent correctly, not the government's, and certainly not the UN's. It's a parent's right to decide what is best for their child, given that there aren't mountains of evidence telling them they're wrong (which, in this case, there aren't).
Really? I missed the point? The point is that he weighed decision there was compelling evidence for. He was correct, he would have died. There was also a immediate need, he was dying. There was a requirement for a decision because he was in a life and death situation. So he made it. The evidence that danger was immediate and immenent was compelling. You're making my point.

You show a doctor compelling evidence that YOUR particular child is need of a circumcision OR they discover and go for it, buddy. But you are advocating the routine practice. That's far different. That means doing the surgery without medical reason for doing so.

I'm not missing the the point. You persist in using examples that are not evidence of routine procedures, but non-routine procedures that were required or appeared to be when medical evidence was weighed. Where in the case of the general circumcision patient is there imminent and compelling evidence that a surgery MAY be required? What is special about that patient that make them 'not routine'? There isn't any evidence and there isn't anything special. Which is why the AMA, AAP, and national organizations from every Western nation in the world no longer support the routine practice of this operation.

I quoted you the definition. Death is a direct result of the negligence. The elderly person is left in the same position, allowing for blood clots and bed sores. The clot becomes a stroke and the sores necrotic, and the elderly person dies. The death is directly caused by the inaction of the person(s) charged with their care.

And yet you argued the opposite:

I should have used different wording. However negligence is without intent and murder is with intent. Unless a person is not aware that a bullet will come out of a gun when they pull the trigger and that it is capable of killing a person then they are guilty of murder, not negligence. Murder is when you perform an action with the knowledge that death is a the result of said action. You can't say, "I knew it would kill him, but I only intended to pull the trigger and point the gun at him. I didn't intend for him to die."

Come on, Hack, he didn't claim they didn't know the surgery removes the foreskin (at least not at the time I made the argument). He claimed they intended for the doctor to perform the surgery but their intent was for it to make me look like everyone else, or follow their faith, or whatever. What he said was their motivation for the surgery was not to remove the foreskin. That is not an argument against intent. If they knew what circumcision was (and at the time he hadn't claimed otherwise), then whether they wanted to remove the part or not, it's still not negligent. Let's not mix up motive and intent.

A similar argument would be, well, I just wanted to be single again. I didn't want her to die, but I couldn't see any other way. Is that person not guilty of murder? If they performed an action they knew would directly result in the death of another, then yes. Telling someone to shoot my wife in the head is murder. Telling someone to perform a circumcision is still with the intent of you being denied use of your foreskin forever. They may have decided that in their world it's worth it or it doesn't matter, but they still intended to perform an action that would DEFINITELY result in the removal of the foreskin.

We are talking about a general practice. I don't believe he's actually suggesting that the a large portion of people are not aware that circumcision cuts a part off of the penis.

I should have used different wording. However negligence is without intent and murder is with intent. Unless a person is not aware that a bullet will come out of a gun when they pull the trigger and that it is capable of killing a person then they are guilty of murder, not negligence.


Actually, the charge of murder is generally hinged on some form of premeditation. Even if I know that a bullet will come out of a gun if I pull the trigger, this does not necessitate "murder." In a scenario where I am robbing someone at gunpoint, andin the course of the robbery, something happens and the victim gets shot and killed, the charge would most likely be manslaughter. The same reasoning occurs in other scenarios (such as hitting someone with a car - everyone knows that hitting a person with a car carries a likely risk of death, but if it is not premeditated, vehicular manslaughter is the normal charge.)

Kind of off the original topic, but hey.

Actually, the charge of murder is generally hinged on some form of premeditation. Even if I know that a bullet will come out of a gun if I pull the trigger, this does not necessitate "murder." In a scenario where I am robbing someone at gunpoint, andin the course of the robbery, something happens and the victim gets shot and killed, the charge would most likely be manslaughter. The same reasoning occurs in other scenarios (such as hitting someone with a car - everyone knows that hitting a person with a car carries a likely risk of death, but if it is not premeditated, vehicular manslaughter is the normal charge.)

Kind of off the original topic, but hey.

Actually, you're talking about the degree of murder.

Here are definitions of Murder and Manslaughter from online sources:

-In the criminal law, murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (traditionally termed "malice aforethought") (see attempted murder where the mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind") requirement is limited). In some common law jurisdictions, an accused is not guilty of murder if the victim lives for longer than a year and a day after the attack. This reflects the likelihood that, if the victim has survived so long after the initial attack, there will be other factors contributing to the cause of death and so break the chain of causation). Subject to the local statute of limitation, the accused can still be charged with an offense representing the seriousness of the initial assault. But, with the advance of modern medicine, the majority of countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts. In most countries murder is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law. As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions.

-Manslaughter, also called criminally negligent homicide in the United States or culpable homicide in Scotland, arises when criminal liability as a homicide is imposed on those who kill when they do not intend to cause death or serious injury but cause the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence (not recognized in Australia)

The second definition has undergone some editing for format.

I would say that the key differentiation between the two is the intent (ie that negligence would be a cause of manslaughter).

Unless a person is not aware that a bullet will come out of a gun when they pull the trigger and that it is capable of killing a person then they are guilty of murder, not negligence.Negligence doesn't enter into this scenerio at all. Accidentally killing someone with a gun, or being too young (or too blindingly stupid) to know better is manslaughter. Negligence deals with inaction (either personal or by allowing someone else to do something). That's why I called this a strawman; it really doesn't apply.

Come on, Hack, he didn't claim they didn't know the surgery removes the foreskin (at least not at the time I made the argument).That's why it's negligence. They allowed the doctor to perform the surgery knowing it would result in the removal of the foreskin. If they didn't know that removal was the result of the procedure, then their idiots, and the doctor failed in his feduciary duties to inform the parents. As I said, ignorance of the result is a defence against negligence.

If they knew what circumcision was (and at the time he hadn't claimed otherwise), then whether they wanted to remove the part or not, it's still not negligent.If the procedure causes 'harm', and if the parents went ahead with it anyway, then it is negligence. A person(s) [the parents] had a duty [protect their child from harm] and failed to perform their duty [by allowing the procedure to be done] thus causing harm [removal of the foreskin] that is the expected, immediate, result of the failure of duty [they knew what the procedure would did and did it anyway]. That is negligence.

Let's not mix up motive and intent.I'm not. I'm talking about legal definitions here.

Telling someone to shoot my wife in the head is murder.No it isn't. It's conspiracy to commit murder.

We are talking about a general practice. I don't believe he's actually suggesting that the a large portion of people are not aware that circumcision cuts a part off of the penis....which is why it's negligence.

Your continued attempts to compare this to murder are irrelevent strawmen and legally unsound. I don't know why you keep insisting on doing so.

Ha, perfect example. So in that statement where does it say there is ANY medical reason for ROUTINE neonatal circumcision. It says there isn't sufficient evidence for ROUTINE practice, i.e no reason.

If your family has a history of penile cancer, you're not a routine circumstance.

So there's no strong medical reason to circumcise, and no strong medical reason to not circumcise. With the level of ambiguity involved, wouldn't it be best to leave it up to individual nations or people?

Negligence doesn't enter into this scenerio at all. Accidentally killing someone with a gun, or being too young (or too blindingly stupid) to know better is manslaughter. Negligence deals with inaction (either personal or by allowing someone else to do something). That's why I called this a strawman; it really doesn't apply.

Actually, manslaughter is negligent homicide. They are the same thing essentially. Accidentally killing with a gun is only manslaughter if some form of negligence is a part of the act. Otherwise, it's just an unfortunate accident.

That's why it's negligence. They allowed the doctor to perform the surgery knowing it would result in the removal of the foreskin. If they didn't know that removal was the result of the procedure, then their idiots, and the doctor failed in his feduciary duties to inform the parents. As I said, ignorance of the result is a defence against negligence.

It's not negligence. If they were negligent and it happened it implies there was no intent. However, they had intent and thus it wasn't negligent. Negligence requires and unintended result. In the example you used, it would be murder if I intended for the person to die from bedsores and negligent homicide (manslaughter) if I didn't intend for it to happen but I didn't take reasonable steps to prevent it.

If the procedure causes 'harm', and if the parents went ahead with it anyway, then it is negligence. A person(s) [the parents] had a duty [protect their child from harm] and failed to perform their duty [by allowing the procedure to be done] thus causing harm [removal of the foreskin] that is the expected, immediate, result of the failure of duty [they knew what the procedure would did and did it anyway]. That is negligence.

Negligence requires a lack of intent. If they knew that it was a guaranteed result then it's not negligent, it's something else (what else depends on the degree of harm).

I'm not. I'm talking about legal definitions here.

Yes and in legal definitions, motive is the general reason I took the action. Intent is whether I intended the result (or intended to perform an action that could not have any other result than harm).

No it isn't. It's conspiracy to commit murder.

Actually, it's only conspiracy to commit if they don't die. You can be tried for murder if they die.

...which is why it's negligence.

Your continued attempts to compare this to murder are irrelevent strawmen and legally unsound. I don't know why you keep insisting on doing so.

It's not negligent. They have the intent of taking the action or telling someone else to take an action they know will result in the loss of that part. That's not legal negligence, it's likely a type of assault (if it's an illegal act). Again, intent is the difference between criminal negligence or some other crime (again depending on the degree of harm.

In the end, the strawman is that he pretended like I'm talking about punishing parents for negligence (while I'm not talking about punishing anyone for anything) and they are being negligent to the fact the child will lose his foreskin rather than intending to cause him to lose his foreskin.

If your family has a history of penile cancer, you're not a routine circumstance.

So there's no strong medical reason to circumcise, and no strong medical reason to not circumcise. With the level of ambiguity involved, wouldn't it be best to leave it up to individual nations or people?

Nope. In the absense of strong medical reasons, there is no reason to perform an unnecessary, irreversible surgery and to deny the child use of a part of his body. You can only call it ambiguity if you think that child isn't inherently hard by having a useful, healthy part of his penis surgically removed from his body, with all the complications that can occur with any surgery.

You can only call it ambiguity if you think that child isn't inherently hard by having a useful, healthy part of his penis surgically removed from his body, with all the complications that can occur with any surgery.
According to the article you cited, the complication rate is 0.2% to 0.6%, if I recall correctly. But you're sidestepping my point, which is that what you accuse me of thinking is true. If they were really being denied such a useful part of their body, then why don't all these medical organizations come out more strongly against it. The fact is, most of the creditable websites I've looked at seem to be very neutral, which says that your basic point (of being denied a useful part of their body) may not be true. If it were, you wouldn't be the only one telling me.