The Kingdom of Spain
Councillor, I am not so sure how you can state that all burns and rashes would be considered heavy injuries with such conviction and certainty. Especially as far as rashes on some children may go, they can be considered very benign and still result in considerable scarring. However, those were just two examples I gave, and there are many, many conditions which may be benign, or may just be considered an 'injury' but not damaging enough to constitute a heavy injury or a life threatening issue which may need surgeries that result in bodily modifications.
I've read Section II(II) and it does not state what you're implying. In fact, it very clearly states no modifications are allowed whatsoever "if there is no risk of death or heavy injuries". The fact that children with minor or mild injuries cannot get certain treatments because they're too young to give consent is a very grave concern.
Now onto the second part of that clause, as you alluded to: "If the body modification in question is explicitly done to increase the quality of life for the child, explicit parental consent shall be taken before the procedure. Each procedure shall carry its own explicit parental consent." Again, this clause does not state what you're implying it does. This clause merely states that in procedures which would improve the quality of the life of the child, that parental consent shall be taken before the procedure. Sure. But it doesn't state that procedures which improve the quality of a child's life are allowed in the cases that are considered mild or less. It merely states that consent shall be taken before the procedure. Again, the very sentence before that makes it clear that those cases I'm refering to aren't allowed at all.
I get what you're saying about bodily autonomy. I hear you. However, parents and guardians shouldn't be treated as villains under EU law who can't even have their children undergo certain procedures for minor and mild medical conditions because we fear that some might want to circumcise their children.
I also said I won't debate you on the topic of circumsition, because there is no point. So instead I'll focus on the topic of religiosity and cultural customs. Our Union is quite the diverse one, full of many different religions and many different cultures. The member states of the European Union are quite religious in most cases. I'm not sure why you "cannot believe" that cultural and religious practices are being defended in this chamber, since it is way of life for many Europeans. I think the first two sections of this Act are an affront to certain religious and cultural communities, and it would essentially mandate that every state adopts a stance that would prevents parents or guardians from practicing aspects of their religion or culture.
Bottom line is that this is an extremely divisive social issue, and it is absolutely not the place for the European Union to intervene in such issues, and it is not the European Union's place to decide that our Union is becoming more "irreligious" and that the EU is now kicking religious freedoms to the kerb. If this is the direction of the EU, then every member state with a state religion will begin to look upon their membership to our Union with great scepticism.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista