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

curious acorna:

What about a six year old boy?
Piercing his ears is pretty much the same. If you're doing it without his consent, because, clearly, you have no respect for the bodily autonomy of children, what does it matter that he may very well get teased for it?

What about parents who spank/hit their children? They're parenting the way they believe they should. In cases where it's a punishment for acting out, it's certainly effective discipline (when not taken to extremes. Anything taken to extremes is bad, I know.) Is it not violating their right to parent as they see fit by making spanking illegal?

Why, in your opinion, do children have no rights to their own body?

As far as the teasing goes, they will get teased anyway. Kids get teased for haircuts, clothing, and everything else under the sun. Does that mean a parent shouldn't keep their child's hair cut a certain way or buy them certain clothes? What about the child getting teased for an uncommon name? Or what about the little girl that gets teased because she doesn't have her ears pierced? Because I've personally witnessed that too.

Unless they beat their child then yes I believe it is. Earlier generations were spanked for misbehaving and when they were not abused it didn't cause emotional harm. But there is a difference between disciple, of any kind which includes vocal scoldings, and abuse. Personally I would have rather received a spanking during my childhood, which I actually didn't, than the emotional abuse my "father" subjected both my mother and I to.

Because they do not possess the maturity level to deal with those rights. No one has a problem with a parent making sure their child eats their vegetables but is that not violating the right of control over the child's body? Most people have no issue with children getting vaccinations but that is the same issue about a child's "right" over their body.

Children do not care about having rights. They just want to be a kid. When you start expecting them to understand their "rights" and have them considering the consequences of every action they make, which comes along with the right to make decisions, it makes them grow up too fast.

And if you want to make the argument about their rights then what about when they get older? What if a teenager's parents tell her she can't wear a really low-cut top and a mini-skirt out of the house? What if they tell their teenage son or daughter that he or she cannot get a piercing they want? Does that not violate the teenager's rights?

Like I said before, you have your opinion and I respect that. But I do not agree, nor will I ever agree. I've explained my opinion and reasons for that opinion enough. I'm done now because I don't feel I have to explain it any further than I already have.

km23:

Does that not violate the teenager's rights?

No, it doesn't. Teens have the right to food, water, education, shelter, and clothing. They do not have the right to pierce their body, tattoo their body, wear miniskirts, have a curfew as late as their friends, have a cell phone, keep the money they make at their job, etc.

dru's in the dark.:

No, it doesn't. Teens have the right to food, water, education, shelter, and clothing. They do not have the right to pierce their body, tattoo their body, wear miniskirts, have a curfew as late as their friends, have a cell phone, keep the money they make at their job, etc.

That was my point. If at that age they don't have those rights, then why does an infant or young child have the right to reject to something they most likely don't care even about?

km23:

That was my point. If at that age they don't have those rights, then why does an infant or young child have the right to reject to something they most likely don't care even about?

Because you're inflicting pain on a child to make them more aesthetically pleasing without their consent.

Vaguely sounds like abuse.

dru's in the dark.:

Because you're inflicting pain on a child to make them more aesthetically pleasing without their consent.

Vaguely sounds like abuse.

I have a friend who got her ears pierced when she was a baby.

Her parents had her ears pierced then so that she wouldn't have to be worried about the pain when she was older.

Question-
A parent is obliged to provide for their child, what they need to live. Food, shelter, clothing- the necessities.
A parent also has the power to approve or deny what a child wants. All well and good.

Who has the power, and right, to deny what a parent wants? Do you think someone piercing a screaming 5 year olds ears, wouldn't be a little uncomfortable with it? Would it not seem like a bad thing, for a child to have something done to them that they do not want?

Why is it okay, just because they're an infant, and can't speak?

km23:

That was my point. If at that age they don't have those rights, then why does an infant or young child have the right to reject to something they most likely don't care even about?

Because getting something you want is completely different than having your body mutilated when you have no say in the matter.

I repeat, you have your opinion and I have mine. I am tired of having to explain my opinion repeatedly. Obviously we both have our minds made up and that isn't going to change. I think it should be legal and I always will. Now, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop asking me questions because I will no longer reply.

^
You don't get to turn off a debate. You can leave and that's perfectly fine, but you don't get to decide when others stop debating.

I'm not saying to stop debating. I was just asking that no more questions are directed at me. I've never been a fan of leaving a debate without having some closure on my end. I don't like having a question that is directed at me left unanswered with no explaination why. I'm not sure how my comment gave off the impression that I was trying to turn it off though...

^
Because we can continue to address your arguments after you leave. It's perfectly acceptable and telling us not to gives off the impression that you just want us to stop because we're debating with you right now.

Alright then, I edited the comment so it only says about asking me questions. I don't care if my arguments are addressed because I will continue to stand beside them. I just don't want anymore questions addressed to me because it will make me uncomfortable if I don't answer them. I didn't know anyone would get the impression that I was trying to stop the debate.

belikov.:

I have a friend who got her ears pierced when she was a baby.

Her parents had her ears pierced then so that she wouldn't have to be worried about the pain when she was older.

And I agree with this. I believe most parents do get their child's ears pierced at a young age for this reason. That is why my mom pierced mine when I was two. And she was right, I had a harder time with any sort of pain at 12 than I did at 2. In fact it took me 8 months to build up the courage to get my second piercing done because I was so scared it would hurt.

km23:

And I agree with this. I believe most parents do get their child's ears pierced at a young age for this reason. That is why my mom pierced mine when I was two. And she was right, I had a harder time with any sort of pain at 12 than I did at 2. In fact it took me 8 months to build up the courage to get my second piercing done because I was so scared it would hurt.

Yeah same. I've got a friend who's scared of needles, and she wishes her parents had pierced her ears when she was younger because she can't do it now.

Mine pierced mine, because most Indian girls have pierced ears as a baby, just out of tradition and habit. There's no real symbolism, they just assumed I'd want it done, and they were right. Apparently, 73-83% of women in the US have their ear pierced, so I'd say that's a fair assumption to make (I couldn't find stats for the UK).

km23:

And she was right, I had a harder time with any sort of pain at 12 than I did at 2. In fact it took me 8 months to build up the courage to get my second piercing done because I was so scared it would hurt.

Piercing my ears felt like getting pinched when I was 8. The same when I was 14. The same when my friend was doing it herself on her kitchen table when I was a teenager.

A baby feels pain. You just don't have to hear them talk about it. They also can't tell you if it continues to hurt (which would be a sign of infection), whereas a child could tell you that.

I just think it's pretty backwards thinking that a baby can't talk so it's okay to mess with their body, but it's not cool to pierce the ears of a seven year old who is screaming and saying 'no'. Does that mean if someone is mute their consent isn't necessary?

dru's in the dark.:

A baby feels pain. You just don't have to hear them talk about it. They also can't tell you if it continues to hurt (which would be a sign of infection), whereas a child could tell you that.

Babies don't know how to speak, but they're not mute. If it continues to hurt, they'll cry and you'll realize there's something wrong. Not that the chance of infection aren't practically null if you follow the doctor's advice.
Tbh, I'm a bit baffled by the idea that a 6 or 8 year old can take responsible decision regarding their body - if you should be the one giving consent for your ears being pierced the law should wait until you're able to give consent. If a 6 or 8 year old can't consent to invasive plastic surgery, then they can't consent to having their ears pierced either.

^
I think we've all discussed and agreed there's a difference between invasive plastic surgery and getting your ears pierced. If the parent is okay with the child's decision to pierce their ears, it should be okay. I just think the child deserves a say.

dru's in the dark.:

^
I think we've all discussed and agreed there's a difference between invasive plastic surgery and getting your ears pierced. If the parent is okay with the child's decision to pierce their ears, it should be okay. I just think the child deserves a say.

But can they have a say if they're that young? In most places you're not deemed mature enough to take the decision to get tattoos or piercings before you're 16, why would ear piercings be that much different? I thought they had an immense impact on your life and that's why parents shouldn't be allowed to decide for their children.

^
I never said it was an immense impact. I said the child should have a say.

dru's in the dark.:

^
I never said it was an immense impact. I said the child should have a say.

What did you mean by this post:

dru's in the dark.:

^
Hair grows back and dye grows out. A child may always have marks on their ears. Not to mention if something goes wrong . . .

if not the fact that getting your ears pierced can have a big impact on your life?

^
I don't think the marks are a big impact, but I think they're one that shouldn't be forced onto someone without their permission.

dru's in the dark.:

^
I think we've all discussed and agreed there's a difference between invasive plastic surgery and getting your ears pierced.

And you're drawing a parallel between piercing ears and abuse? That's just as dramatic.