NationStates Jolt Archive

Circumcision, or an alternatively brutal sounding term, genital mutilation, is something that should be encouraged throughout every country because of its obvious positives. Contrary to this proposal, circumcision can increase sexual contact, due to a decrease in the amount of skin around the penis leaving more skin exposed during intercourse. Another obvious advantage is that it has hygienic positives. Infections are easy to come about if the genitals are not washed properly if the male has not been circumcised. The extra skin can trap viruses and bacteria and lead to these infections. Do not be mislead by this proposal. Circumcision, as it should be called, should be promoted as a betterment to our world not as something so negative and misleading as a ritual as the proposer would have you call it. Instead, call it a medical procedure that promotes more sexual contact which leads to more workers, happier people and cleaner people. I stand firmly against this proposal!

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.

2 to 10% and useful does not equal essential. The fact that the part has some use and that use is being denied the child throughout their life is an issue of rights not medicine. It is up to the government to protect the rights of the child. No one claims there is not a use for the foreskin. No one claims that it is not a healthy part of the body. No medical organization claims there is a medical reason for the routine practice of circumcision. Given these three things, it's clear that the child is being denied use with no compelling reason for being denied that use, that denial continues throughout the child's life unabated and irreparably. The fact that there is not compelling medical evidence either way, makes it an issue of rights and certainly the state has the job of protecting an infant from clear harm which is undeniably occuring when parents cut useful, healthy and normal parts off of them. The religious rights of the parent does not trump the child's right to his/her body.

Circumcision, or an alternatively brutal sounding term, genital mutilation, is something that should be encouraged throughout every country because of its obvious positives. Contrary to this proposal, circumcision can increase sexual contact, due to a decrease in the amount of skin around the penis leaving more skin exposed during intercourse. Another obvious advantage is that it has hygienic positives. Infections are easy to come about if the genitals are not washed properly if the male has not been circumcised. The extra skin can trap viruses and bacteria and lead to these infections. Do not be mislead by this proposal. Circumcision, as it should be called, should be promoted as a betterment to our world not as something so negative and misleading as a ritual as the proposer would have you call it. Instead, call it a medical procedure that promotes more sexual contact which leads to more workers, happier people and cleaner people. I stand firmly against this proposal!

Can you name any medical organizations that support the routine practice of circumcision? No? Can you name the incidence of complications? No? Can you name the incidence of the issues you mention (the ones that aren't completely false)? No? Everything you stated has been debunked time and again throughout this thread. Take some time and read up.

Can you name any medical organizations that support the routine practice of circumcision? No? Can you name the incidence of complications? No? Can you name the incidence of the issues you mention (the ones that aren't completely false)? No? Everything you stated has been debunked time and again throughout this thread. Take some time and read up.


Actually kind sir, you are on the affermative in this case which binds you with the burden of proof inthis matter. I am refuting said what has previously been said. If youd like some evidence of the things you ask for, I will be back shortly.

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.



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.



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.


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.
Did I ever claim that it should be routine? I've claimed there's no reason to ban it. I've claimed that there's no reason to impede upon religious or cultural practices. Well, that's not true. I've acknowledged that there's reason, but it's not reason enough, especially given the ambiguity. There's a 0.2%-0.5% (as it's now been stated) complication rate in male circumcision. Compare that with female circumcision's 80%+, and you'll see that you're not going to win this argument using the same tactics before. You're not going to pass a bill with the same wording, and you're not going to successfully debate it the same way.

While potential benefits may not equal medical reason, they do equal legislative ambiguity. You're not arguing for medical reason here, you're arguing for legislation.

Now you're ignoring the point. The example I gave wasn't about weighing evidence, it was about weighing evidence and knowledge. I recently was in a debate regarding a Seattle man who killed himself after a tree collapsed onto his trailer, and pinning his legs to the ground. It was claimed that he gave up, and had he not been a coward, he would have stayed alive to be discovered the next day (when his body was). The argument was made using hindsight. They knew he'd be rescued, they knew his injuries were not life-threatening. However, there is no reason to suspect that the man knew this.

What we know is just as important as what is true. You believe what's posted on CIRC.org, and dismiss anything else. You believe this, and base your decisions off of this. Other people weigh in other sources and consider other studies. Other studies provide them with ambiguity. Just because you're absolutely sure of it does not mean the rest of us are, or should be.

And as far as CIRC.org is concerned, contradict != debunk. Just because it agrees with your perspective does not make it the absolute authority on the matter. It provides ambiguity, not answers.

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.
But you are. Let's not kid ourselves; you want to outlaw circumcision, despite your "education" cover. If circumcision is outlawed, any doctor or Rabbi who performs a circumcision is liable, as is any parent who asks for it. You act as if the intent of the act is to deprive the child of a body part, which is extremely twisted and wrong. It villifies parents and doctors; not a particularly bright thing to do when you're trying to make your case.

Here's how it is: Doctors voluntarily give circumcisions because they believe there are medical benefits. Rabbis voluntarily give circumcisions because they believe there are spiritual benefits. Parents voluntarily ask for circumcisions because they agree with either of those two beliefs, and/or believe there are cosmetic benefits. The sooner you learn to accept this fact, the sooner you might start winning people to your side and the sooner you might make headway with your "education."

Everyone involved has only the best interests of the child in mind.

The following comments can be sourced at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm
2 to 10% and useful does not equal essential.
Research suggests that circumcision is generally a safe procedure. Complications occur in 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 circumcised newborn males and are most often minor; the two most common are mild bleeding and local infection.
According to my math, that's from 0.2% to 0.5%.
The fact that the part has some use and that use is being denied the child throughout their life is an issue of rights not medicine...
Unless my source is inaccurate, which I highly doubt, you are making a huge issue out of something that is not:

The policy concluded, however, that it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this decision. It states that to make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision with their pediatrician.
If the foreskin was so entirely useful, and it was such a big problem to be circumcised, they why does the AAP say that religious traditions may be taken into account?

I feel you are hugely exaggerating the facts. There's not enough evidence, and in fact the AAP says there are both benefits and risks, to "CONDEMN the process of Genital Mutilation".

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.I'm not certain about any of those assertions. And that's my point: you've presented lots of conclusions, but not the evidence to prove that conclusion (at least not enough for me to be convinced). It's the evidence toward the conclusions that I'm questioning.

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.No, plenty of people are deprived of things in life without choice, often by medical procedures. Not every one of those cases is a violation of human rights.

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.See, that's where the personal bias comes in. Yes the studies aren't personally biased, but is your assessment of them possibly biased? Yes, it could be.
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.Yeah, that's what I said. I'm not really sure why repeating what I said is relevant (except that perhaps you want to start an anti-Christian debate in the middle of your anti-circumcision debate).
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.First, I'm not certain of your assertions. And second, I'm not aware of the UN's stance toward parent's role in the making youths' decisions--just as I'm not sure of the exact lines drawn by RL governments on the matter. That the baby undergo this procedure may be within the parents' realm of decision making.

Actually kind sir, you are on the affermative in this case which binds you with the burden of proof inthis matter. I am refuting said what has previously been said. If youd like some evidence of the things you ask for, I will be back shortly.

Certainly. The policy statements have been presented throughout the thread by both sides where everyone admits that no medical group advocates the routine practice. Provide evidence to the contrary or expect to be dismissed.

The following comments can be sourced at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm


According to my math, that's from 0.2% to 0.5%.

It only takes into account direct complications of a certain degree. Here is one of the sources of the earlier referenced AMA paper (it reflects much of the same language and statistics as your citing, you can find it on the previous page).

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

You'll notice that Meatal ulceration alone occurs in 8 to 20% of circumcised men.
Meatal stenosis is generally a direct consequence of circumcision that is seldom encountered in uncircumcised men; meatal calibre is know to be greater in uncircumcised individuals. The incidence of meatal ulceration following circumcision is from 8 to 20 per cent14,46,64.

Unless my source is inaccurate, which I highly doubt, you are making a huge issue out of something that is not:

You assume because it is not condemned it is of no use. The fact that it is not condemned says it is not essential. Your conclusion is based on a false assumption.

If the foreskin was so entirely useful, and it was such a big problem to be circumcised, they why does the AAP say that religious traditions may be taken into account?

Because they are also a political groups so they are attempting to be politically correct. If the majority of Americans were against circumcision their policies would reflect that. Honestly, are you claiming it has no use? If not then we won't need to have this argument again, since I'm not arguing it's essential and you're not arguing it's of no use, so the degree of use is not really important. It is of some use and that use is denied children who it is removed from.

I feel you are hugely exaggerating the facts. There's not enough evidence, and in fact the AAP says there are both benefits and risks, to "CONDEMN the process of Genital Mutilation".

They won't condemn it unless that's the political climate. This is typical practice of groups that have to operate in the politcal arena but are not primarily political. It is not their place to condemn the practice, as I've stated before. You admit there is no medical group that claims there is a medical argument for the routine practice (and if you deny certain arguments no medical argument against).

There should have to be a medical reason to cut useful, normal, healthy parts off babies, not a medical reason not to. The fact that you would require proof that people should not be allowed to cut useful, healthy, normal parts off children without medical cause shows your view of the rights of children and their bodily integrity and how they weigh against religious and cultural freedom. Sad, really.

Certainly. The policy statements have been presented throughout the thread by both sides where everyone admits that no medical group advocates the routine practice. Provide evidence to the contrary or expect to be dismissed.
This whole "human rights" and "right to body" argument is fallacious, because there is no medical proof to back it up. Could you repeat (yes, I know you said it somewhere, but I don't feel like looking it up) exactly what purpose the foreskin serves? In absence of that, at least 99.5% of circumcised men (that's 199 out of 200) are in no way inconvenienced by the circumcision process, and the other 0.5% suffers generally minor complications. Supposing that 40% of Jews believe in circumcision, uncircumcised Jews have a 40% chance of being inconvenienced from their circumcision, because they would have to do it later in life, when the complication rate goes up.

There should have to be a medical reason to cut useful, normal, healthy parts off babies, not a medical reason not to. The fact that you would require proof that people should not be allowed to cut useful, healthy, normal parts off children without medical cause shows your view of the rights of children and their bodily integrity and how they weigh against religious and cultural freedom. Sad, really.
If you accept that there is no medical reason to and no medical reason not to, I see no reason why the UN should legislate on this. There is a cultural and religious reason to (as I said in my last post), and an "Average Joe" reason not to. It all balances out.

Actually, manslaughter is negligent homicide.No it isn't. Accidentally killing someone is manslaughter. Allowing someone to die through inaction is negligent homicide.

It's not negligence. If they were negligent and it happened it implies there was no intent.Negligence is a specific intent crime.

Negligence requires a lack of intent.No, it doesn't.

Actually, it's only conspiracy to commit if they don't die. You can be tried for murder if they die.Also incorrect. The person who contracted the killer is guilty of conspiracy. Just because conspiracy to commit murder carries the same punishment as murder doesn't make it the same thing.

But you are. Let's not kid ourselves; you want to outlaw circumcision, despite your "education" cover. If circumcision is outlawed, any doctor or Rabbi who performs a circumcision is liable, as is any parent who asks for it.

Let's not kid ourselves, you want to make cutting off the entire penis legal. Or, here's an idea... we could argue against each other's arguments instead of making up arguments. How about that?

You act as if the intent of the act is to deprive the child of a body part, which is extremely twisted and wrong. It villifies parents and doctors; not a particularly bright thing to do when you're trying to make your case.

The fact that they are doing it for some uneducated reason doesn't mean anything to me. The child loses the part. Whether or not that was their motivation it is a known result. I don't have any problem condemning the practice of cutting healthy, useful, normal parts off children.

Here's how it is: Doctors voluntarily give circumcisions because they believe there are medical benefits. Rabbis voluntarily give circumcisions because they believe there are spiritual benefits. Parents voluntarily ask for circumcisions because they agree with either of those two beliefs, and/or believe there are cosmetic benefits. The sooner you learn to accept this fact, the sooner you might start winning people to your side and the sooner you might make headway with your "education."

I accept that fact. I accept the fact that they are making a choice for the child that can never be undone, a choice that cuts a normal, healthy, useful part off a child. Again, you can pretend that my attempt at education is not to let people know the actual medical facts, the actual use of the foreskin, but it's simply not true. I wish to do this in the hopes that they will realize that the only thing they are doing 'for' their child is putting him through an unnecessary surgery that cuts a useful, normal, healthy part off their body.

Everyone involved has only the best interests of the child in mind.
Why don't they let the child make the decision? There is little or no evidence that the surgery need take place as a baby. If as an adult I decide I don't want my foreskin then I can have it lopped off.

No it isn't. Accidentally killing someone is manslaughter. Allowing someone to die through inaction is negligent homicide.

False. It's relatively easy to look it up.

http://www.iejs.com/Law/Criminal_Law/Negligent_Homicide-Manslaughter.htm

In some states, the term negligent homicide replaces the terminology of manslaughter (involuntary) with similar defining. Unintentional killing(s) in which the actor(s) should have known they were creating substantial and unjustified risks of death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care summarizes the relationship between the definitions of these terms (Samaha, 2002, p. 536).
...
Three versions of manslaughter (involuntary) exist. Involuntary manslaughter is separated into criminal reckless manslaughter, (gross) criminal negligence manslaughter, and unlawful or misdemeanor manslaughter.

Negligence is a specific intent crime.

The exact definition of negligent homicide requires it to be unintentional.

No, it doesn't.

Unfortunately, the definition disagrees with you.

EDIT: Actually, I looked up a bunch of states and some states (See Tennesee, for example) allow it to still be negligent homicide when it's intentional, but most (see Montana, for example) define it as unintentional. Turns out we're both right, but I call it first, so I'm more right.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-104.htm

http://www.tncrimlaw.com/TPI_Crim/07_07.htm

Also incorrect. The person who contracted the killer is guilty of conspiracy. Just because conspiracy to commit murder carries the same punishment as murder doesn't make it the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_killing

Both a hit man and his customer can be found guilty of homicide.

This whole "human rights" and "right to body" argument is fallacious, because there is no medical proof to back it up. Could you repeat (yes, I know you said it somewhere, but I don't feel like looking it up) exactly what purpose the foreskin serves? In absence of that, at least 99.5% of circumcised men (that's 199 out of 200) are in no way inconvenienced by the circumcision process, and the other 0.5% suffers generally minor complications. Supposing that 40% of Jews believe in circumcision, uncircumcised Jews have a 40% chance of being inconvenienced from their circumcision, because they would have to do it later in life, when the complication rate goes up.

Um, what does medicine have to do with providing proof of rights?

The use of the foreskin -

The foreskin protects the glans from harm and infection. This is of particular import in the early years of life, so much so that when first born the foreskin cannot be retracted without damaging both the glans and the foreskin. Meatal ulcers which are almost unheard of in intact children, occur at some point in about a quarter of circumcised boys (see earlier link). Meatal ulcers, like UTI's, are, generally, relatively easy to deal with and, generally, leave no damage to penis. In paticularly grievous cases, they cause scarring resulting in meatal stenosis which requires surgery to correct.

It also contains a lot of nerves which obviously offers more feeling in the penis. It can and has been argued that the glans and rest of the penis have exactly the same feeling in both the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. The foreskin, of course, is more sensitive when intact thus adding to the overal sensitivity of the penis.

Also, it has been argued that the foreskin also protects the women in the case of vaginal dryness due to the rolling motion. Most evidence of this is anecdotal, however. The rolling motion is a unique function of the foreskin.

It is often argued that foreskin is responsible for the higher number of positive UTI tests in young intact boys. However, many argue that this higher number can be explained by the bacteria that is trapped by the foreskin (but not in UT specifically) generating a false positive. There's really no way to test this because in infants the foreskin must be damaged to be retracted and the only ways to test for false positives is to retract the foreskin or allow the UTI to develop to a point of other symptoms. Both possible further tests are considered unethical, so any child that tests positive for a UTI is given antibiotics. The exact number of false positives is, of course, unknowable.

Let's not kid ourselves, you want to make cutting off the entire penis legal. Or, here's an idea... we could argue against each other's arguments instead of making up arguments. How about that?
Oh, so you don't want to outlaw circumcision? You've been arguing for it this entire thread, despite what your proposal says.

The fact that they are doing it for some uneducated reason doesn't mean anything to me. The child loses the part. Whether or not that was their motivation it is a known result. I don't have any problem condemning the practice of cutting healthy, useful, normal parts off children.Some uneducated reason? I could understand the doctor, but are you going to debate with a Rabbi the spiritual benefits? How about the cosmetic benefits? The majority of women (in America, I believe) prefer oral sex with a circumcised man. Given the ambiguity surrounding the overall benefit and cost of circumcision, should we really be excluding these?

I accept that fact. I accept the fact that they are making a choice for the child that can never be undone, a choice that cuts a normal, healthy, useful part off a child. Again, you can pretend that my attempt at education is not to let people know the actual medical facts, the actual use of the foreskin, but it's simply not true. I wish to do this in the hopes that they will realize that the only thing they are doing 'for' their child is putting him through an unnecessary surgery that cuts a useful, normal, healthy part off their body.Right, so when you say "condemns," you mean "wants to educate on the potential costs of circumcision." Is that it?

Why don't they let the child make the decision? There is little or no evidence that the surgery need take place as a baby. If as an adult I decide I don't want my foreskin then I can have it lopped off.Because, as its legal guardian, the parent is the one that makes the choice. If you want the child to make the decision, lower your nation's age of adulthood. Bresnia has that age set at 18 - no non-emergency surgery can be done without the expressed permission of the parent. Also, the operation is more dangerous as an adult, with higher complication rates.

Oh, so you don't want to outlaw circumcision? You've been arguing for it this entire thread, despite what your proposal says.

Actually, I've been arguing for condemnation of it this entire thread. I do not seek to pass an resolution that outlaws it. I truly believe education and condemnation would have the desired effect which is to stop the routine practice. I wish to stop the practice, that is not the same as outlawing it.

Some uneducated reason? I could understand the doctor, but are you going to debate with a Rabbi the spiritual benefits? How about the cosmetic benefits? The majority of women (in America, I believe) prefer oral sex with a circumcised man. Given the ambiguity surrounding the overall benefit and cost of circumcision, should we really be excluding these?

First, source. Second, the majority of women believe the circumcision to be the natural look of the penis in the US. This is because of the widespread practice. It's a question of what they encounter most often. In countries where circumcision is not routine, I think you would not find such a statistic. This makes it a circular argument. Third, who cares what women want, it's not their penis. Would men preferring cirumcised women be an argument for the procedure? Of course not.

Right, so when you say "condemns," you mean "wants to educate on the potential costs of circumcision." Is that it?

Actually, it says both right in the proposal. Did you miss it?

Because, as its legal guardian, the parent is the one that makes the choice. If you want the child to make the decision, lower your nation's age of adulthood. Bresnia has that age set at 18 - no non-emergency surgery can be done without the expressed permission of the parent. Also, the operation is more dangerous as an adult, with higher complication rates.

The parent is not allowed to simply make any choice they want on the basis of being the legal guardian. I can't tattoo my child's face with a nazi symbols, not even for religious reasons. I can't brand my children, not even for religious reasons. Being the guardian does not mean you can permanently mutilate a child's body.

And it is not more dangerous as an adult. That's a wive's tale. Post a statistic. As an adult the penis is larger and thus easier to maneuver during the operation. As an adult the foreskin is no longer attached to the glans and thus the glans is not damaged by the procedure.

Um, what does medicine have to do with providing proof of rights?

A whole lot. The effects of circumcision are medical.


The foreskin protects the glans from harm and infection. This is of particular import in the early years of life, so much so that when first born the foreskin cannot be retracted without damaging both the glans and the foreskin. Meatal ulcers which are almost unheard of in intact children, occur at some point in about a quarter of circumcised boys (see earlier link). Meatal ulcers, like UTI's, are, generally, relatively easy to deal with and, generally, leave no damage to penis. In paticularly grievous cases, they cause scarring resulting in meatal stenosis which requires surgery to correct.
You are citing medical reasons. If there was a medical reason, the AAP and AMA would have let us know about it. You say they won't for political reasons; I say that if it was as serious a problem as you claim, they'd at least mention it.

I submit the following draft for consideration:



NOTING that circumcision is widely practiced in many nations;

NOTING that information on circumcision is constantly being updated;

NOTING that there are many opponents to this practice:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "circumcision" as the removal of an infant male's foreskin;

2. CONDEMNS circumcision that has not been approved by the child's primary care or other primary doctor for medical reasons;

3. PRESERVES the right of parents to request circumcision of their child in a medical setting;

4. MANDATES that all parents receive appropriate literature regarding the risks and benefits of circumcision at no cost to them;

5. REQUIRES that each nation choose an effective way to implement Clause 5, and that the state is responsible for carrying it out;

A whole lot. The effects of circumcision are medical.

The denial of rights is medical? I suppose I didn't know that doctors have to okay children's rights.

You are citing medical reasons. If there was a medical reason, the AAP and AMA would have let us know about it. You say they won't for political reasons; I say that if it was as serious a problem as you claim, they'd at least mention it.

No, there is no medical reason to perform the surgery. In the absense of a medical reason the child should not have healthy, normal, useful parts cut off.

I'm not citing medical reasoning. I citing human rights. Medical reasons are what people used to make the practice widespread. I used medical reasons to show they were not only wrong but that there are many complications to the surgery. I'm showing their medical reasons for spreading the practice were flawed and there is no longer any excuse for the routine practice of circumcision.

I submit the following draft for consideration:

Nope. I totally reject that. For one it does not condemn the practice. Also, there are other mutilation practices that should also be condemned.

How many times has it been cited as a reason for continuing the practice the fact that it has not yet been condemned? Shall I quote them? Condemnation is a necessary act to end the routine practice. People need to know that it cutting normal, useful, healthy parts off children is condemnable.

How about branding? Can I brand my child, provided I do so in a sterile environment and with painkillers? Can I tattoo my child's face? Can I remove their nails? Do I have the 'right' to modify my child in whatever way my culture sees fit so long as it has not be condemned by the medical community?

i think this one should be left to individual governments to decide. there is too little info either way to make a solid decision, plus the fact that if it was as serious as you pertain, RL national medical associations would actually say a great deal about it. please let this one die

OOC: i personally have been circumcised, and i have no problems, disfunctions, etc. so i am taking a lot of the so-called facts with a grain of salt, just from personal experience alone

i think this one should be left to individual governments to decide. there is too little info either way to make a solid decision, plus the fact that if it was as serious as you pertain, RL national medical associations would actually say a great deal about it. please let this one die

OOC: i personally have been circumcised, and i have no problems, disfunctions, etc. so i am taking a lot of the so-called facts with a grain of salt, just from personal experience alone

Really? How's your foreskin funtioning? Is it working properly?

Really? How's your foreskin funtioning? Is it working properly?
The issue is not whether the foreskin is functioning; it's whether your body is functioning. If your body is functioning fine, then who cares about the presence or lack therof of a little flap of skin?

I have realized that this discussion is most likely going nowhere. If your sole aim is to condemn circumcision, I'm afraid that this isn't going to become a resolution. If you'd like to come to some sort of compromise between sides, I'll help. If not, good luck.

Really? How's your foreskin funtioning? Is it working properly?
hardy-friggin-har, we have a real comedian in our midst. seriously, with the way you are putting it over, there would be more of a RL call for it to be condemed. dont go spouting any 'goverment cover-up' BS because i dont think all the goverments would join together to cover this up, not to mention not all national medical associations are attatched to their nations goverments.

also, as it stands the draft in post 1 would be illegal, due to the fact that FGM is already covered, and would be repealed, and also lacks imagination due to the fact that except for a few word changes, it is a direct rip-off of FGM.

hardy-friggin-har, we have a real comedian in our midst. seriously, with the way you are putting it over, there would be more of a RL call for it to be condemed. dont go spouting any 'goverment cover-up' BS because i dont think all the goverments would join together to cover this up, not to mention not all national medical associations are attatched to their nations goverments.

also, as it stands the draft in post 1 would be illegal, due to the fact that FGM is already covered, and would be repealed, and also lacks imagination due to the fact that except for a few word changes, it is a direct rip-off of FGM.

Until we can put foreskins back we should not be cutting them off children. You may not want yours, but should you get to decide for others? Should anyone? Again, should we allow branding? Tattoos? Removing the nails? There are rights issues that have nothing to do with the medical issues.

Lacks imagination? I didn't realize I was writing a poem. I thought we were trying to pass legislation that reflect our political beliefs.

The issue is not whether the foreskin is functioning; it's whether your body is functioning. If your body is functioning fine, then who cares about the presence or lack therof of a little flap of skin?

I have realized that this discussion is most likely going nowhere. If your sole aim is to condemn circumcision, I'm afraid that this isn't going to become a resolution. If you'd like to come to some sort of compromise between sides, I'll help. If not, good luck.

The body can function without lots of things. Should we allow parents to just cut them out or cut them off? A child could survive electrolysis? Should parents be allowed to remove all of their children's hair? Remove the nails? Remove the little toe? You never answered - provided there is no severe medical side-effects, can a parent modify a child through surgery however they see fit?

You never answered - provided there is no severe medical side-effects, can a parent modify a child through surgery however they see fit?
Remove medical and yup. Provided there are no severe side effects of any kind, unless I'm forgetting something, I don't see why parents can't "modify" (I wish you wouldn't use that word, it makes it sound like children are machines) their children.

I thought we were trying to pass legislation that reflect our political beliefs.
Of course, it helps when the aforementioned political beliefs are a reflection of a wide range of nations' political beliefs. You haven't answered my question about compromise.

*snip* You may not want yours, but should you get to decide for others? *snip*
right back at you. should you get to decide? should the UN? no, it should be up to individuals. this should be an informed desision, either by the individual, or by the parents. it has been proven for some (in RP) that circumcision is a necessary thing. in the other thread on this, it was pointed out in DLE that foreskins have been proven to be radioactive, thus need to be removed. by the looks of this, you are running a one-man crusade on this. please just get over it and let it die.

oh, and buy the way, this could possibly prevent sex changes too, as you would need to remove or alter the foreskin for that too.

Of course, it helps when the aforementioned political beliefs are a reflection of a wide range of nations' political beliefs. You haven't answered my question about compromise.

I'm not willing to compromise on the protecting children from having parts cut off of them. It's a condemnable practice. This thread has proven that people will have this circular argument that if nobody condemns it, then it must not be condemnable. It's cutting parts off of babies, for crissakes, but they need you to provide a medical reason why you shouldn't mutilate them. It's disheartening. So if the practice was widespread enough we should see nothing wrong with cutting the finger or toenails off children. If the practice is widespread enough let's go ahead and brand them. If the practice is widespread enough let's go ahead and cut a toe off, cuz they don't really need them anyway. If they're aren't critical for them to live then there is nothing wrong with cutting it off. We've learned that from this thread, no?

right back at you. should you get to decide? should the UN? no, it should be up to individuals.

I agree. And when those individuals are old enough to make the choice I encourage them to do so. I'm not the one who wishes to take the choice away from the penis-owner. I think there is nothing wrong with branding yourself, cutting your own foreskin, nails, toes, whatever off, but I do have a problem when you start doing it to others, particularly when those others cannot protect themselves or even express their will yet. As evidenced by this thread, some people are happy for having the surgery and some wish they hadn't had it. We can give the surgery to an adult, but the surgery can't be undone. Since it's not reversible, it should be left to the choice of the individual (not a surrogate) unless there is a compelling medical need to cut that part off. If we err one way an individual can excercise their choice upon adulthood. If we err the other way, they never get a choice. Forgive me if I wish to err on the side of the child. I'm silly that way.

Remove medical and yup. Provided there are no severe side effects of any kind, unless I'm forgetting something, I don't see why parents can't "modify" (I wish you wouldn't use that word, it makes it sound like children are machines) their children.

Seriously? Parents should be permitted to cut toes off children. Cut off their nails? Anything so long as the part isn't essential, huh? Disgusting. If there is any role the government should take seriously, it's protecting children. The role of the parent is to protect and raise the child, not to mold them physically however they see fit.

right oh, and buy the way, this could possibly prevent sex changes too, as you would need to remove or alter the foreskin for that too.

Um, one, sex changes should not performed on someone without their consent (this resolution fully supports the right of an individual to make a decision about their body). Also, this doesn't prevent anything. It only condemns the practice of performing unnecessary surgeries on people without their express consent and suggests education. It bans nothing and it certainly does not subjugate the person's ability to modify themselves. Are you suggesting parents should be permitted to give children sex-changes without the consent of the child?

Since your struggling to remember my amendment, here you go -

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.

Seriously? Parents should be permitted to cut toes off children.
Nope. That has a severe risk of infection.

Cut off their nails?
Nope. That has a severe consequence of extended pain.

Anything so long as the part isn't essential, huh?
Don't put words into our ambassador's mouth. He never said you can cut stuff off if it's not essential, he said that you can if there are no severe consequences.

Nope. That has a severe risk of infection.

We are assuming they have the same likelihood of complications and I guarantee you can show no evidence that it has any more of a risk of infection than removal of the foreskin.

provided there is no severe medical side-effects

Nope. That has a severe consequence of extended pain.

Same.

Don't put words into our ambassador's mouth. He never said you can cut stuff off if it's not essential, he said that you can if there are no severe consequences.
So if there are no severe medical consequences as I said initially (words you seem to have forgotten), you think it is perfectly acceptable to cut parts off of baby, useful, healthy, normal parts so long as it doesn't severely affect their quality of life (and, of course, severely affect is a matter of opinion. It is possible to die from the complications of circumcision). That's sick and wrong. Children have rights and I would think one of them is the right to grow up with a whole body.

Actually, I've been arguing for condemnation of it this entire thread. I do not seek to pass an resolution that outlaws it. I truly believe education and condemnation would have the desired effect which is to stop the routine practice. I wish to stop the practice, that is not the same as outlawing it. Then don't attach the "condemnation" bit. Here's the thing. Either this resolution forces people to stop practicing circumcision, or it forces them to look into it. Hell, it doesn't do either. It says the UN condemns it. It says that they should, but it doesn't force anything. By the way, there's no difference between "wishing to stop the practice" and "outlawing the practice."

First, source. Second, the majority of women believe the circumcision to be the natural look of the penis in the US. This is because of the widespread practice. It's a question of what they encounter most often. In countries where circumcision is not routine, I think you would not find such a statistic. This makes it a circular argument. Third, who cares what women want, it's not their penis. Would men preferring cirumcised women be an argument for the procedure? Of course not.Why should I bother sourcing it when you've shown your inability to listen when people tell you that it's a religious matter? It doesn't matter what social reason is behind a common belief, the belief is what matters. Again, coupled with the ambiguity around the benefits and costs of circumcision, cosmetic appearance is a fine enough reason.

Actually, it says both right in the proposal. Did you miss it? It says that the UN condemns, and it says that the UN "urges" nations to educate. If there is education to be done, wouldn't condemnation be getting a bit ahead of ourselves? Assuming we're educating for the sake of educating and learning, rather than educating for the sake of achieving some political goal. You have made no attempt to hide that it is the latter you want.

The parent is not allowed to simply make any choice they want on the basis of being the legal guardian. I can't tattoo my child's face with a nazi symbols, not even for religious reasons. I can't brand my children, not even for religious reasons. Being the guardian does not mean you can permanently mutilate a child's body.I absolutely agree with your sentiment, except I don't believe it applies here. Which is why I added the disclaimer "except in cases of severe mistreatment" to most of my previous statements. Apparently, I can't trust you to understand my previous posts. Regardless, if my child is born with a tail (through chance and no fault of anyone involved), I'm perfectly within my right as a parent to ask for surgery to remove it. This is a purely cosmetic procedure.

And it is not more dangerous as an adult. That's a wive's tale. Post a statistic. As an adult the penis is larger and thus easier to maneuver during the operation. As an adult the foreskin is no longer attached to the glans and thus the glans is not damaged by the procedure.There are no statistics that show either way. The "Wive's Tale" is all we have to go on.

Then don't attach the "condemnation" bit. Here's the thing. Either this resolution forces people to stop practicing circumcision, or it forces them to look into it. Hell, it doesn't do either. It says the UN condemns it. It says that they should, but it doesn't force anything. By the way, there's no difference between "wishing to stop the practice" and "outlawing the practice."

Really? I thought one was attempting to bring about a change and the other was forcing one. Oh, wait, they are. There is a significant difference. Take your strawmen elsewhere.

And condemnation is necessary as evidence by your own arguments that since it isn't condemned it should continue to be practiced.

Why should I bother sourcing it when you've shown your inability to listen when people tell you that it's a religious matter? It doesn't matter what social reason is behind a common belief, the belief is what matters. Again, coupled with the ambiguity around the benefits and costs of circumcision, cosmetic appearance is a fine enough reason.

My inability to listen or my refusal to accept religion as an acceptable reason for chopping parts off babies? Obviously, it's the latter, but keeping throwing up those strawmen, I've got a torch. Your right that it doesn't matter what social reason, if a social practice violates rights, it violates rights and should be stopped.

I'll take your refusal to source as what it is, an inability to source.

It says that the UN condemns, and it says that the UN "urges" nations to educate. If there is education to be done, wouldn't condemnation be getting a bit ahead of ourselves? Assuming we're educating for the sake of educating and learning, rather than educating for the sake of achieving some political goal. You have made no attempt to hide that it is the latter you want.

Duh? I've said openly that I wish to stop the practice. The fact that I wish to condemn the practice makes that clear. Who claimed otherwise?

And needing to educate others in not the same as saying we need to do research, so condemnation is not getting ahead of ourselves. If research is required to establish the benefits and complications then that would be a reason to stop the practice until enough research is completed. I'm not calling for research, I'm calling for educating people on the available research and letting them know that there is no medical benefit to this practice and that it is widely condemned as a breach of the child's rights. That's called a deterrent. Detering a practice and outlawing them again are not the same.

I absolutely agree with your sentiment, except I don't believe it applies here. Which is why I added the disclaimer "except in cases of severe mistreatment" to most of my previous statements. Apparently, I can't trust you to understand my previous posts. Regardless, if my child is born with a tail (through chance and no fault of anyone involved), I'm perfectly within my right as a parent to ask for surgery to remove it. This is a purely cosmetic procedure.

No, actually, it's not. The tail offers many potential problems and no known potential benefits. Also, because of the fact that it is an abnormality there is no guarantee that it will remain benign. Given it has no use, has many potential, problems, is not a normal or useful part and whether or not it is healthy is in question, it cannot even remotely be compared to circumcision.

Now, cutting off fingernails certainly could be, now couldn't. That's a useful, healthy, normal part. Your attempts to compare with the foreskin to an abnormality is an attempt to treat the foreskin as such. A much closer comparison is the fingernail which unarguably can and has been survived without and without major complications. Again, does this allow us to cut them off as desired? Where does child modification end?

There are no statistics that show either way. The "Wive's Tale" is all we have to go on.

What is that? A joke? Are you actually suggesting that adult men never have circumcisions? There is no evidence there are increased complications and tons of logic that says it would actually be the opposite. Do you think a doctor would find it easier to operate on a baby's heart or an adult's? The answer is obvious. Smaller means that the room for error is much less.

"I can't trust you to understand", "your refusal to listen", etc. Debate on points or don't debate at all. Take that other crap home. Your attempts to suggest I'm somehow less capable of understanding or listening than you merely discredits your own argument.

Then don't attach the "condemnation" bit. Here's the thing. Either this resolution forces people to stop practicing circumcision, or it forces them to look into it. Hell, it doesn't do either. It says the UN condemns it. It says that they should, but it doesn't force anything. By the way, there's no difference between "wishing to stop the practice" and "outlawing the practice."
i agree with Bresnia here. there is a lot of urging, but not enough actuall doing things in the resolution. it is pretty much 'it is bad, but you can do it'

i agree with Bresnia here. there is a lot of urging, but not enough actuall doing things in the resolution. it is pretty much 'it is bad, but you can do it'

Because I believe exactly the reasoning in the FGM proposal and the reasoning I copied from the FGM proposal. That education and condemnation will have a much better effect than a ban. I'd like to discourage the practice in hopes that it diminishes to the point of being an unusual practice. It still wouldn't be right at that point, but if I have a choice between billions of babies and thousands, guess which one I'll choose.

Because I believe exactly the reasoning in the FGM proposal and the reasoning I copied from the FGM proposal. That education and condemnation will have a much better effect than a ban. I'd like to discourage the practice in hopes that it diminishes to the point of being an unusual practice. It still wouldn't be right at that point, but if I have a choice between billions of babies and thousands, guess which one I'll choose.
i agree with giving a choice, but saying 'Condems' pretty much means you want to outlaw it. also, as it stands, it is illegal. you would have to either change it back to being about males, or you have to repeal FGM, the latter of which would be hard to do (trust me, i am planing on it for various other reasons). if you did the latter, it would allow for FGM to occur because this one is as toothless as a new-born child

i agree with giving a choice, but saying 'Condems' pretty much means you want to outlaw it. also, as it stands, it is illegal. you would have to either change it back to being about males, or you have to repeal FGM, the latter of which would be hard to do (trust me, i am planing on it for various other reasons). if you did the latter, it would allow for FGM to occur because this one is as toothless as a new-born child

I still don't agree. Saying 'condemns' says we find the practice abhorrent. If no law is passed or attempted to get passed outlawing it, I think it's clear, I'm not trying to do so. Also, as stated, I don't think outlawing it would be as effective.

FGM has no more teeth than this one. It is modeled directly off of the FGM one, and it is not illegal for resolutions to overlap, it's merely a reason to repeal one or the other. It was the specific reason for repealing some of the recent proposals.

I still don't agree.
we will agree to disagree on that one

It is modeled directly off of the FGM one, and it is not illegal for resolutions to overlap, it's merely a reason to repeal one or the other. It was the specific reason for repealing some of the recent proposals.
whilst repealing previously passed resolutions on the basis of overlap is usually ignored, creating a new one, which you are doing, and having overlap, is by my understanding illegal. check the mods on that one though.

I still don't agree. Saying 'condemns' says we find the practice abhorrent. If no law is passed or attempted to get passed outlawing it, I think it's clear, I'm not trying to do so. Also, as stated, I don't think outlawing it would be as effective.
Finding the symbol of a covenent of a religion "abhorrent" is not going to win a lot of votes. Perhaps, instead of "condemns", "discourages in most cases"? Face it, you win more flies with honey than with vinegar, and this proposal alienates every single nation and person who supports circumcision.


FGM has no more teeth than this one. It is modeled directly off of the FGM one, and it is not illegal for resolutions to overlap, it's merely a reason to repeal one or the other. It was the specific reason for repealing some of the recent proposals.
It is illegal if it's the majority of your proposal; I'm not certain that this applies, but:
Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

Finding the symbol of a covenent of a religion "abhorrent" is not going to win a lot of votes.

Now it's a covenent? Pfft. Besides I don't care what the reasoning is, if it's abhorrent it's abhorrent. Religion is not an excuse for violation of rights. I can find justification for slavery in the Bible, but I don't agree that means it's okay.

People use religious reasons for not allowing gay marriage, does that make it right? All human beings have rights. Simply because you are younger than eighteen does not mean your rights should not be protected. If your parents aren't doing then someone else should.

Perhaps, instead of "condemns", "discourages in most cases"? Face it, you win more flies with honey than with vinegar, and this proposal alienates every single nation and person who supports circumcision.

Nope. Cutting the genitals of women, condemnable. Cutting the genitals of men, condemnable. I'm not going to dance around the issue of cutting children because we feel like. Children aren't our own personal paintings. They have rights and they deserve to reach adulthood with all their parts intact. I'm going to be PC about the action of cutting parts off children. Anyone who suggests otherwise, clearly doesn't see cutting parts off of children as a problem. Oh, wait.... Am I shocked that someone that sees nothing wrong with the practice does not want to condemn it? Uh, nope.

I also condemn genocide, slavery, sexism, racism, deadbeat parents, murder, denying rights to gay people, etc. CONDEMN. I'm not going to pretend like violating the rights of others is acceptable to me. In this case, parents are violating the rights of their children. Their children are not their property. We have an obligation to protect children from harm. If cutting parts off useful, healthy, normal parts off children does not qualify, what does?

It is illegal if it's the majority of your proposal; I'm not certain that this applies, but:

Yeah, the point is actually to make a more sweeping resolution and then repeal the first.

You still have yet to answer... is the only place you would limit parents modifying their children is if there was severe medical complications?

Now it's a covenent?
You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the convenant between me and you(God speaking to Abraham)
Pfft. Besides I don't care what the reasoning is, if it's abhorrent it's abhorrent. Religion is not an excuse for violation of rights. I can find justification for slavery in the Bible, but I don't agree that means it's okay.
Read my post more carefully. I wasn't personally disagreeing with you (although I must admit that I do), I was saying that this is never going to pass if you use such harsh language.

People use religious reasons for not allowing gay marriage, does that make it right? All human beings have rights. Simply because you are younger than eighteen does not mean your rights should not be protected. If your parents aren't doing then someone else should.



Nope. Cutting the genitals of women, condemnable. Cutting the genitals of men, condemnable. I'm not going to dance around the issue of cutting children because we feel like. Children aren't our own personal paintings. They have rights and they deserve to reach adulthood with all their parts intact. I'm going to be PC about the action of cutting parts off children. Anyone who suggests otherwise, clearly doesn't see cutting parts off of children as a problem. Oh, wait.... Am I shocked that someone that sees nothing wrong with the practice does not want to condemn it? Uh, nope.
Go ahead and submit it. Ceorana doubts that it would reach the floor in its present state.

I also condemn genocide, slavery, sexism, racism, deadbeat parents, murder, denying rights to gay people, etc. CONDEMN. I'm not going to pretend like violating the rights of others is acceptable to me. In this case, parents are violating the rights of their children. Their children are not their property. We have an obligation to protect children from harm. If cutting parts off useful, healthy, normal parts off children does not qualify, what does?
Thank you for stating your opinion on genocide, slavery, sexism, racism, deadbeat parents, murder, denying rights to gay people, etc. Because you firmly believe something doesn't mean the rest of us are going to vote for it.



Yeah, the point is actually to make a more sweeping resolution and then repeal the first.
In that case, you'll have to repeal the first one first.

You still have yet to answer... is the only place you would limit parents modifying their children is if there was severe medical complications?
Unless it had severe consequences of any kind, I believe so, although I may have missed something. For example, tattooing a child's face with Nazi symbols has severe social and possible medical concerns, due to the large amount of pigment in a sensitive area.

Yeah, the point is actually to make a more sweeping resolution and then repeal the first.
you cant do that. you have to repeal FGM before you can get anywhere near submitting this, not to mention the original author would want to say a few words about it.

you cant do that. you have to repeal FGM before you can get anywhere near submitting this, not to mention the original author would want to say a few words about it.
Yes, and:
The greater the majority by which a NationStates UN resolution passes, the safer is the resolution from repealing attempts. The table below is sorted by resolution safety (the percentage of votes supporting the resolution), with repealed resolutions marked as such.

<snip headers>

62. Female Genital Mutilation 91.6% Active
Top of the list. Not likely.

(God speaking to Abraham)

Yeah, except it was a different procedure at the time and only applied to him. A one point in Judaism, circumcision was unheard of. But of course you knew both of those things, yes?

Read my post more carefully. I wasn't personally disagreeing with you (although I must admit that I do), I was saying that this is never going to pass if you use such harsh language.

It already has no teeth. Condemning is the point. If it doesn't condemn it might as well not pass.

Go ahead and submit it. Ceorana doubts that it would reach the floor in its present state.

Thank you for stating your opinion on genocide, slavery, sexism, racism, deadbeat parents, murder, denying rights to gay people, etc. Because you firmly believe something doesn't mean the rest of us are going to vote for it.

And? It's still a condemnable practice. I find it sad that others don't see it as such, but hey, they're just babies, it's not like they can complain.

In that case, you'll have to repeal the first one first.

Unless it had severe consequences of any kind, I believe so, although I may have missed something. For example, tattooing a child's face with Nazi symbols has severe social and possible medical concerns, due to the large amount of pigment in a sensitive area.
Well, I hold people, even *gasp* children, to have rights. Religion is not an excuse to violate those rights nor is "It's my kid". The right to cut parts off their children is not a right that parents hold.

It already has no teeth.
It's got teeth to alienate and offend, which is more than enough to sink a proposal.

And? It's still a condemnable practice. I find it sad that others don't see it as such, but hey, they're just babies, it's not like they can complain.
Of course they can complain! They have just as much of a vote as you do.

It's got teeth to alienate and offend, which is more than enough to sink a proposal.

Of course they can complain! They have just as much of a vote as you do.

Really? Babies can complain? They can vote? We are charged with protecting their rights because they can't organize and stand up for their own. Simply because they happen to be babies doesn't mean we can treat them like slaves. Their bodies are their own and we have no right to cut and modify it to whatever disgusting vision we have for perfect. Circumcision, plastic surgery, tattooing, branding of babies are all disgusting acts that infants deserve to be defended from.

Really? Babies can complain? They can vote? We are charged with protecting their rights because they can't organize and stand up for their own. Simply because they happen to be babies doesn't mean we can treat them like slaves. Their bodies are their own and we have no right to cut and modify it to whatever disgusting vision we have for perfect. Circumcision, plastic surgery, tattooing, branding of babies are all disgusting acts that infants deserve to be defended from.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the people who would be offended couldn't complain.

As well, you misunderstand me. I am not arguing that circumcision is good (although I do believe that people have the right to do it), but trying to convince you that this is never going to pass and needs amendments. Yet you keep going on about how it's wrong. We've heard both sides' arguments. Now you should either try to work on it, submit it, or give up. The argument has become pointless.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the people who would be offended couldn't complain.

As well, you misunderstand me. I am not arguing that circumcision is good (although I do believe that people have the right to do it), but trying to convince you that this is never going to pass and needs amendments. Yet you keep going on about how it's wrong. We've heard both sides' arguments. Now you should either try to work on it, submit it, or give up. The argument has become pointless.

I'd rather it didn't pass rather than become another weak compromise regarding circumcision.

OOC: Why do you think the AMA and AAP have such weak statements about it. Because someone stood up and said we have to change things and people said to them like you've said to me that it's a violation of freedom of religion and parents have the right to do whatever they like. So they put out a policy that sadly pretends as if cutting parts off babies should be an option for parents.

And people continue their circular arguments that it shouldn't be condemned until some other major organization condemns it first. Problem is that everyone uses that circular argument. No one wants to be first.

Great Plains cannot support it just on the general ew factor.

OOC: Why do you think the AMA and AAP have such weak statements about it.
OOC: okay, could you please shup up about this line of argument. how many nations are there in real life? that is the minimum number of medical aurthoritive bodies there are. if this was as bad as you are saying it is, you would hear it from quite a number of them. stop your 'government conspiracy' bs. stop your 'popular opinion/backlash' bs. there is more to medical bodies in the world than the AMA and AAP.

I'm just about done with a new totally reworked version of my old MGM proposal. This time dealing with all forms of male genital mutilation. (I.E. Posthectomy, Frenectomy and especially genital bisection, Castration, Penectomy, Subincision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subincision), just to name a few.)

So expect another debate on this issue really soon. (A few days probably.)

OOC: okay, could you please shup up about this line of argument. how many nations are there in real life? that is the minimum number of medical aurthoritive bodies there are. if this was as bad as you are saying it is, you would hear it from quite a number of them. stop your 'government conspiracy' bs. stop your 'popular opinion/backlash' bs. there is more to medical bodies in the world than the AMA and AAP.

Yes and in most western countries the routine procedure has stopped because doctors there are no longer of the mindset of the US doctors who have been indoctrinated in the "circumcision is okay" mindset. Some countries of the world have virtually no circumcision at all. Perhaps you should check the policy statements of all these other countries you're referencing because they don't reflect your claims.

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-convention/

The UN recognizes many of the rights I have been espousing.

The Australian Association of Pediatric Surgeons suggested that circumcision may very well be an abuse of human rights and should be reviewed in a court of law.

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law."

They said there is no medical indication for circumcision. They called "a traumatic procedure... to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."

How about Canada?

"The degree of benefit is small, however, and does not support a recommendation to circumcise neonates.

The Following Conditions Are Not An Indication For Circumcision:

Single urinary tract infection
Difficulty retracting the foreskin (the foreskin is not normally retractable in the neonate)
Prevention of balanitis "
College of physicians and surgeons of Manitoba.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/sask2002/

"(2) In any dialogue you have with the patients about potential circumcision of newborn male infants, be sure that you accurately and effectively convey the message that this is not a recommended procedure.

(3) If parents remain adamant in their preference that circumcision be performed, notwithstanding their awareness of the research on the subject, remember that you are under no obligation to perform any surgical procedure for which there are not valid medical indications. You can, and should respectfully decline to perform the procedure just as you respectfully decline to carry out other requested medical acts that you regard to be inappropriate."

Now what were you saying?

I'm just about done with a new totally reworked version of my old MGM proposal. This time dealing with all forms of male genital mutilation. (I.E. Posthectomy, Frenectomy and especially genital bisection, Castration, Penectomy, Subincision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subincision), just to name a few.)

So expect another debate on this issue really soon. (A few days probably.)

Glad to endorse it.

I'm just about done with a new totally reworked version of my old MGM proposal. This time dealing with all forms of male genital mutilation. (I.E. Posthectomy, Frenectomy and especially genital bisection, Castration, Penectomy, Subincision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subincision), just to name a few.)

So expect another debate on this issue really soon. (A few days probably.)
to me, that kind of stuff is genital mutilation. as a suggestion, allow for choice when older of circumcision, and also allow for sex changes, and i might actually support it.

to me, that kind of stuff is genital mutilation. as a suggestion, allow for choice when older of circumcision, and also allow for sex changes, and i might actually support it.

Nobody is taking away choice. Nowhere do any of these proposals take away choice. They support choice, but delaying these procedures until the age of consent. Nothing about any proposal you've seen has said or done anything to discourage sex changes or circumcision of adults.

Here's some more policy statements from major medical associations outside of America.

British Columbia -


http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/cpsbc2004/

Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.

Now, since it has been claimed that the evidence swings both ways, I would like to see any state, national or territorial medical agency that RECOMMENDS circumcision. So far I have only seen medical groups that range from finding no medical reason to perform the procedure routinely to broadly against the routine practice, some even suggesting that a doctor should ethically refuse to perform the surgery.

Where's your evidence?

Here's some more policy statements from major medical associations outside of America.

British Columbia -


http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/cpsbc2004/

Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.

Now, since it has been claimed that the evidence swings both ways, I would like to see any state, national or territorial medical agency that RECOMMENDS circumcision. So far I have only seen medical groups that range from finding no medical reason to perform the procedure routinely to broadly against the routine practice, some even suggesting that a doctor should ethically refuse to perform the surgery.

Where's your evidence?
the point i was making is that you were making allergations of conspiricy or shouting down, and that you are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is. as i have stated, if it was as big a deal as you are making it out to be, there would be a lot more outcry and condemnation from these organisations. putting a small piece on a website is one thing. openly condemming it through news outlets and current affairs shows is another. it is the latter that they havent been doing which is making me wonder if there is such a big deal. personally, i am waiting for james_xenoland's new proposal. at least it will cover real genital mutilation, isnt illegal, and would show more imagination than just ripping off a passed resolution.

the point i was making is that you were making allergations of conspiricy or shouting down, and that you are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is. as i have stated, if it was as big a deal as you are making it out to be, there would be a lot more outcry and condemnation from these organisations. putting a small piece on a website is one thing. openly condemming it through news outlets and current affairs shows is another. it is the latter that they havent been doing which is making me wonder if there is such a big deal. personally, i am waiting for james_xenoland's new proposal. at least it will cover real genital mutilation, isnt illegal, and would show more imagination than just ripping off a passed resolution.

Medical organization are not in a position to do such things. They discuss medical issues and as a medical issue they say there is no basis for the routine practice. That is as far as they need to go. No one is talking about conspiracy. I'm talking about being pragmatic. Large organizations have to be cognizant of their membership and the countries they represent. That's not a conspiracy. That's a fact.

You have yet to show any evidence that counters my point that circumcision is a violation of human rights and that there is no medical indication for its use. Countries where the practice is no longer widespread have put out policies discouraging the practice and suggesting that a court of law should analyze the human rights issue. Those countries have suggested doctors should refuse to perform the surgery as it has no medical purpose.

Your response to my provided evidence is rather than provide any of your own is to insult me.

The proposal was meant to prevent genital mutilation of all types to boys. Like the FGM proposal, it should not be required that the proposal mention the specific practices as unnecessary surgery on the genitals of infants should be condemned. The FGM proposal gets it done and I agree with its premise so I followed suit. You call this unimaginative. I call this effective. I don't waste time trying to reinvent the wheel. It's not poetry. It's not art. It's an imitation of law. Law should have standard verbiage and this is the direction the UN has been going for some time. I support that direction and as such used what is already established law to form my proposal.

I'll take your lack of evidence to mean that you concede the point that other coutries do IN FACT come out more harshly against circumcision.

EDIT: and by the way, the only thing making my original proposal illegal is the crappily written rights of minorities and women resolution, that says that no religious practice can be condemned or outlawed. That resolution also makes the FGM resolution illegal.

Is there a record for number of posts in a debate thread? Just curious (can't be bothered to look up a ping pong card).

Is there a record for number of posts in a debate thread? Just curious (can't be bothered to look up a ping pong card).

I don't see any reason to continue with this debate. Jocabia has stated that he will refuse to compromise in the proposal, and we are just debating something that we know no one's going to switch sides on anyway. Submit it if you will, or don't.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad42gw.png

Medical organization are not in a position to do such things.
that is exactly the position that they are in. they are the medical authorities for individual nations. i have know the australian medical association to come out against things and publicly state their position

The proposal was meant to prevent genital mutilation of all types to boys.
and that is the reason that a lot of your argument has been based around circumcision?
Like the FGM proposal, it should not be required that the proposal mention the specific practices
first: resolution, not proposal. that one has already passed
secondthis is the basis for my repeal of FGM, since it effectivly bans legitimat proceedures. FGM itself needs to be cleared up, and by copying that means you are on the back foot already.

I'll take your lack of evidence to mean that you concede the point that other coutries do IN FACT come out more harshly against circumcision.
how can i paste what doesnt exist? a lack of out-cry means i have nothing to paste


[edit]

i have found 2 quotes:

The AMA will discourage circumcision of baby boys in line with the Australian College of Paediatrics' Position Statement on Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and Boys.

The statement, released in June and supported by the AMA's November Federal Council meeting, includes:

The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.


Educational material should be available to parents before the birth of their baby and in maternity hospitals.


Some parents after considering medical, social, religious and family factors will opt for circumcision. It is then the responsibility of the doctor to recommend this is performed at an age and under circumstances which reduce hazards to a minimum.
A M A

The College has recently reviewed evidence in relation to risks and benefits and has concluded that it is not possible to be dogmatic on the exact risk/benefit ratio.

to me, these two parts, especially the latter, says to me that even medical associations are unsure. this issue (male circumcision) is best left to individual nations. as i said, i am looking forward to seeing what james_xenoland has got

that is exactly the position that they are in. they are the medical authorities for individual nations. i have know the australian medical association to come out against things and publicly state their position

Yes and they suggested that the courts should review the practice as a human rights violtaion.

By the way, in the US female circumcision is legal and practiced by doctors.

and that is the reason that a lot of your argument has been based around circumcision?

first: resolution, not proposal. that one has already passed
secondthis is the basis for my repeal of FGM, since it effectivly bans legitimat proceedures. FGM itself needs to be cleared up, and by copying that means you are on the back foot already.

I didn't make it about circumcision. I am replying to the arguments of others. Read the beginning of the thread. I am against all kinds of mutilation, circumcision is just the most common.

And FGM does not ban anything and it doesn't condemn any legitimate procedures. FGM is the unnecessary practice of mutilating the genitals against without consent of the subject. You keep mentioning practices that are not mentioned or touched by the proposal, unless your suggesting children are having sex changes and that adults can't consent.

how can i paste what doesnt exist? a lack of out-cry means i have nothing to paste

[edit]

i have found 2 quotes:





to me, these two parts, especially the latter, says to me that even medical associations are unsure. this issue (male circumcision) is best left to individual nations. as i said, i am looking forward to seeing what james_xenoland has got

Really? Same college of pediatrics -

The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law.

They suggest the matter be reviewed in a court of law and state exactly contrary to your claim that they would speak out against the rights violation, that it is a matter for the courts. However, they indicate that it is an issue.

In the same statement they quote the college of pediatric surgeons as saying - "Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication."

The best you can come up with is a source that indicates the procedure may violate human rights and suggests there is no evidence that the procedure has a medical purpose. I came up with sources that state that it should bbe avoided. Again, you can't come up with a single association that endorses the practice. Hmmmm... I wonder why. Maybe because the practice is not a medical practice and is a practice that is unnecessary? Of course, that's what it is. If there were actually medical benefits don't you think some agency would endorse it. But there are medical concerns which is why some agencies discourage the practice and encourage doctors to turn parents away that are asking for the procedure to be performed on their children.

From British Columbia on their list of things to consider when performing circumcision -

Non-maleficence (do no harm)

Item 33. Refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.

For Consideration: Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue.

i am not going to continue the argument, agreeing witc Ceorana in that this has gone on long enough. as far as TLA sees it, hung jury, leave to personal individual choice, and with this lacking clarity, leave it to individual nations to legislate. i will however point out one thing:

By the way, in the US female circumcision is legal and practiced by doctors.
do you know what FC is? and did you know it is a perfectly normal medical proceedure, that does have benefits? the proceedure is the partial or complete removal of the hood to expose the clitoris to help increase sexual pleasure

i am not going to continue the argument, agreeing witc Ceorana in that this has gone on long enough. as far as TLA sees it, hung jury, leave to personal individual choice, and with this lacking clarity, leave it to individual nations to legislate. i will however point out one thing:


do you know what FC is? and did you know it is a perfectly normal medical proceedure, that does have benefits? the proceedure is the partial or complete removal of the hood to expose the clitoris to help increase sexual pleasure

We're not talking about adults making their own decisions. There is nothing wrong with adults doing whatever they want to their bodies. There is nothing wrong with performing a corrective surgery. However, FC is performed on children and it's not to improve sexual pleasure, I assure you. It is not done for medical benefit, it's done for religious reasons, and it is also spoken out against in most other countries of the world.

This practice must be allowed. Not doing so would infringe and tradition and culture.

This practice must be allowed. Not doing so would infringe and tradition and culture.

So? So did outlawing slavery?

This practice must be allowed. Not doing so would infringe and tradition and culture.
I'd just like to point out that banning FGM does so as well. But that doesn't matter if you're talking about something that goes against human rights. Which is at the very base of this debate. :headbang:

You see, we're not arguing whether or not this goes against some "traditions or cultures!"

No, you're only concerned with forcing your opinions on everyone through international law.

No, you're only concerned with forcing your opinions on everyone through international law.

Crazy, radilcal opinions, like childrin shouldn't have normal, healthy, useful parts cut of them because there parents feel like it. Radical opinions like parents don't have the right to physically change their children through surgery to fit some cultural view of perfect. It's crazy. Stupid kids should be left to fend for themselves. If they didn't want the surgeries they shouldn't have been born kids.

Enough already. This is turning into a General debate.

Jacobia, if you're going to submit this, do so; continued 'debate' in this thread isn't going to help anything. Also, should it hit quorum, please make a new thread for it; nobody's going to read through this thing to discuss it.

No, you're only concerned with forcing your opinions on everyone through international law.
If you're going to post, please post something of use to the debate.. :|

Anyway this UN is way, WAY past the point where we should care or have to worry about doing that...
Further more, using that line of thought. I don't see how any of the international UN laws can be justified. I mean who are we to force people to not sacrifice their children as mandated in the name of their religion? :rolleyes:

Sorry but that argument still fails!


Oh and I didn't have a lot of free time in the last few days, but my proposal should still be ready in the next two to three days.

Yeah, we're really talking about sacrificing babies here... :rolleyes:

Oh and I didn't have a lot of free time in the last few days, but my proposal should still be ready in the next two to three days.
I can hardly wait.[/scarcasm]

Bob Flibble
UN Representative