Should It Be Legal to Pierce Your Infant Child's Ears?

@ dru sighs no more.
In all honestly, I don't see the point in that law either. Growing up, if I did something wrong, I got a smack. It was that simple. Not really hard, just hard enough for me to realise, and it never really did me any harm. But I do see your point, the laws are put in place to stop kids from being hurt. There are pretty good arguments for both sides, I guess it just depends on how you're brought up. I've grown up with most people around me being pierced at the age of one or younger, and seeing it not affect them has affected the way I in turn look at this topic in the first place. There are more statistics against than for, but I'm just judging it off of personal experience, really.

Personally, I wouldn't pierce my child's ears until they said that they wanted them. I want my child to feel like they can make their own decisions when it comes to their physical appearance

@ everybody dies;
Do you think we should make laws based on personal experience? I'm asking because the title of the thread is 'do you think it should be legal' not 'do you think it is wrong'.

@ dru sighs no more.
No, I don't. However, it's been legal for years, and like I said, I haven't seen anyone become seriously ill over an earring. I don't think it should be something that should be illegal because people have been doing it for centuries and there are rarely complications. And yes, I do get that parents shouldn't be the ones to decide on purely cosmetic decisions regarding their child, but making it illegal does seem rather extreme. I understand and respect all of the points that you have put forward, but my opinion still holds the same as it always has on the matter.

@ everybody dies;
I never have been one to believe that doing something for a long time is a good reason to keep doing it. if that were true, the world be a lot worse off.

@ dru sighs no more.
If it isn't something with a largely negative outcome, then I don't think that it really impacts the world in the way you're explaining, but I get what you're saying.

@ everybody dies;
I think it depends on what your idea of negative outcome is. I think it shows that we don't have to ask girls (those who are primarily pierced) for permission to do things to their body. And I think enforcing that idea from such a young age can lead to a lot of negative things that are far more harmful than an infection down the road.

@ dru sighs no more.
That might only be in extreme cases though. We couldn't possibly say that every girl that gets pierced at a young age is going to grow up thinking that their body is the property of someone else. Sure, it may happen in some cases, and I definitely don't deny that. I just think's something that would be on the extreme end of the scale.

@ everybody dies;
I don't think it's overt. I think it's subconsciously putting that idea forward. They may not think 'oh this guy owns my body' but they may think 'oh yeah I'll get my clit pierced for him 'cause what the hell'.

I'm very against practices that strip individuals of her/his consent.

@ dru sighs no more.
In that process though, the individual would have a specific level of consent. Fair enough, if they are doing it for something else then that is a bit silly, but in the end-up, they are the ones making the decision and are being fully informed of the risks themselves.

I also am, to a certain extent, but I think this is something pretty minimal. It's only a bit of metal, after all.

@ everybody dies;
You're right. The individual would in that situation. As an infant they don't even have the allusion of consent. They just have nothing; they are at the mercy of their parents.

@ dru sighs no more.
Definitely. And that's where we differ. If the parent can look after the piercing, I think they should go ahead. I might be wrong, but that's what I believe.

@ everybody dies;
If the parent wants to look after a piercing, I think it makes more sense to pierce themselves than another human being with no say. A parent can look after nose job healing when a child is 12. Tons of people get rhinoplasty with minimal complications.

I just think people have the right to decide what cosmetic procedures are done on their body. And I think if anyone over the age of 18 were forced to get an ear piercing against their will they'd be pretty damn angry. Why are infants okay to force to do things against their will?

@ dru sighs no more.
I'm not too sure what rhinoplasty has to do with it (a lot of the time, if I kid gets it at such a young age it's to correct a significant issue). But I do see where you're coming from.

i'd like to not rudely, but point out that there is hypocrisy in this - i mean, if you're against an infant having their ears pierced, then shouldn't you be against them being baptized?

but, i believe it's the parent's decision. same as it is the parent's decision to chose to let that child have them pierced when they're older or not.

as someone who has had facial piercings/knows a bit about the world, it'd be wrong to let an infant get a facial piercing, seeing as they're still developing & as their immune system is not yet built, & facial piercings are VERY prone to infection, it'd be a huge health risk.

@ flyingf0xes

I am against getting babies baptised. If there is such thing as God and religion then such decisions about whom to worship has to be in the hands of the child until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

I'm against infants getting their ears pierced because of infection risk and reasons of body autonomy.

@ flyingf0xes
Baptism isn't a cosmetic procedure that involves physical harming an infant. I'm against infant circumcision. That is much more comparable, as it actually causes physical harm to an infant without giving them consent.

I mean, if someone switched the holy water for acid, you might have a problem, but the worst that can come of an infant Baptism is, what, wet hair?

(I do think infant Baptism is silly and prefer christening, which churches in my area did, but I don't think it's the same as infant ear piercing simply because of the lack of physical harm.)

@ miserable dru.
the point i'm trying to make is not the whole "well, one is a physical procedure, one is a spiritual procedure", but if you delve into the topic of babies not being able to get their ears pierced because they are not old enough to consent to choose it, then baptism and christening and anything else that decides your faith for you before you are even old enough to know what it is should be illegal as well.

@ flyingf0xes
It doesn't decide your faith. It doesn't force you to do something or believe something. I should know; I wasn't baptized and was easily enough forced into a religion. That's just a parent thing. You can't control someone's free will and none of that stuff does anything permanent unless you believe it does. Piercing ears does do something permanent.

And christening doesn't decide a faith. All it does is introduce the child to the church and s/he is blessed. Naming the godparents. No 'this child is giving her soul to God against her will' stuff.

@ miserable dru.
well, piercing an infant's ears doesn't decide if that child wears earrings. or if their ears even stay pierced, they can and will heal together. just because you have them pierced does not force you to wear earrings.

in reality - no piercing is actually permanent. i know, as someone who has had 2 healed piercings disappear, it's not completely permanent.