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

Kurtni Manson:

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

Dramatic, yes, but understandable.

Doing something to someone when they're incapable of saying no, or you just don't hear it, is wrong, in my opinion.

Yes, you're the parent, it's up to you to say yes or no, but it's not up to you to completely disregard your child's bodily autonomy. If they want something, and ask you for it, because you'd be the one providing it, it's completely different. But if it's something they're not given a choice about, why is it okay? Why is it okay to pierce the ears of a screaming infant, but not a screaming 7 year old?

Kurtni Manson:

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

When you look at it with just the basics it makes sense. You're inflicting pain on a child for no real reason.

dru's in the dark.:

^
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.

But when you're 6 or 8 you can't give consent for anything. The state doesn't think you're capable of making informed decisions for yourself without being influenced by others, why would ear piercings not require the same degree of reasoning/independent decision making?

dru's in the dark.:

When you look at it with just the basics it makes sense. You're inflicting pain on a child for no real reason.

The pain is the equivalent of a tiny pin poke really. When you're young parents do occasionally give the child a small smack on the wrists for bad behaviour, is that child abuse?

I think it's actually quite rude to imply that parents who pierce their child's ears when young are being abusive.

Plus child abuse is with intention to cause pain. You could argue that a piercing is 'pain for no real reason', but it isn't intentionally to harm the child.

sunflowers.:

The pain is the equivalent of a tiny pin poke really. When you're young parents do occasionally give the child a small smack on the wrists for bad behaviour, is that child abuse?
I think it's actually quite rude to imply that parents who pierce their childs ears when young are being abusive.

Even canning children in schools isn't considered child abuse in 20 US states.

Yes, you should be able to.

The the child doesn't want to have piercings they should just not wear them and, if i remember correctly, the hole will just go away (healing?) or is that only the first few months of being pierced?

sunflowers.:

I think it's actually quite rude to imply that parents who pierce their child's ears when young are being abusive.

I'm saying when you look at it in the simplest form it is. And it could be made into an argument in court or something. I'm not saying the parents are abusive. I'm saying I could argue it's an abusive action.

Quote

Plus child abuse is with intention to cause pain. You could argue that a piercing is 'pain for no real reason', but it isn't intentionally to harm the child.

My parents spanked me with a 2x4 that left bruises but their intention was to make me behave. Was that not child abuse?

Mr W. H.:

But when you're 6 or 8 you can't give consent for anything. The state doesn't think you're capable of making informed decisions for yourself without being influenced by others, why would ear piercings not require the same degree of reasoning/independent decision making?

Because the parents still have final say. If a six year old wants their ears pierced and the parent doesn't want them to be pierced, the child doesn't get to overrule their parents.

Eizu:

The the child doesn't want to have piercings they should just not wear them and, if i remember correctly, the hole will just go away (healing?) or is that only the first few months of being pierced?

The hole goes away, but it can take years. And a mark may remain on the ears permanently. Not to mention that if something goes wrong during the ear piercing, the child may have a disfigured ear.

dru's in the dark.:

I'm not saying the parents are abusive. I'm saying I could argue it's an abusive action..

Surely if someone takes abusive action, that makes them abusive?

dru's in the dark.:

My parents spanked me with a 2x4 that left bruises but their intention was to make me behave. Was that not child abuse?

Their intention was that the pain/punishment would make you behave. So directly, the intention was to cause you pain so the result would be good behaviour.

When it comes to ear piercing, not only is it very unlike spanks that bruise (much less painful), it is not with any intent to hurt, the slight pain is just an unfortunate result.

sunflowers.:

When it comes to ear piercing, not only is it very unlike spanks that bruise (much less painful), it is not with any intent to hurt, the slight pain is just an unfortunate result.

So it's okay to do something painful to your child without their consent for no reason so long as the reason isn't to inflict pain?

Quote

Surely if someone takes abusive action, that makes them abusive?

I think abusive has to do with repeated actions. Like an abusive boyfriend repeatedly abuses his girlfriend.

dru's in the dark.:

I think abusive has to do with repeated actions. Like an abusive boyfriend repeatedly abuses his girlfriend.

So if my boyfriend punched me even just once in the face, he's not been abusive?

dru's in the dark.:

So it's okay to do something painful to your child without their consent for no reason so long as the reason isn't to inflict pain?

No, but I was simply pointing out that you comparing it with child abuse doesn't really work because I think child abuse usually involves malicious intent to hurt the child.

sunflowers.:

No, but I was simply pointing out that you comparing it with child abuse doesn't really work because I think child abuse usually involves malicious intent to hurt the child.

I disagree. I think it's actions more than intent.

Quote

So if my boyfriend punched me even just once in the face once, he's not been abusive?

I think he committed an abusive action, but I don't think that he's "an abuser". I'm not saying it's excusable, by any means, but I don't think that, for example, my mom slapping me once makes her an abusive parent. Shit happens.

dru's in the dark.:

I disagree. I think it's actions more than intent..

So do you have a problem with parents using 'abusive behaviour' i.e. one smack for being naughty (as opposed to what you see as abuse - consistent smacking)?

While I can understand why people have such strong arguments against piercing your child's ears, at the same time I can't help but think it's kind of silly to think this much on a subject like that. If you think it's wrong the simple answer is don't do it. There have been plenty of children who have gotten their ears pierced and the holes stayed perfectly fine. I'm sure every once in a while one of them gets a infection but I'm also sure a parents who gets them done know to watch for them because infections are usually noticeable.

My point is, I think turning it into a legal matter is taking it way too far. So many people do it that it would definitely upset those who do it for culture reasons and probably people who just want it done just because they feel like it. Something like this isn't up to the government to decide, in my opinion, it would be giving a little too much power over our bodies to the government. I'm sure if it truly were unhealthy or scarring for a child there would have been more government involvement. As long as you don't try and get your kid's ear pierced within the first year or two of it being born, then it should be totally up to you and there's no reason to judge a mother (or father) for making that choice. The only problem I have with it is that people go to places like Claire's and Justice to get it done when that's a health risk for anybody getting their ears pierced because they sanitize everything so poorly and aren't trained properly.

dru's in the dark.:

Because the parents still have final say. If a six year old wants their ears pierced and the parent doesn't want them to be pierced, the child doesn't get to overrule their parents.

So children don't actually get to consent because the parent'll do whatever they want anyway. Waiting until the children is older simply gives parents the feeling that they're doing what the child wants.

^There is a difference between consenting to something you don't want and having something done to you that you have no choice about.

Let's say I'm 5. I don't want my ears pierced, or I just don't care. My parents take me to get them done, and I'm screaming in protest because I'm scared. Why is that an unacceptable situation, but piercing the ears of a screaming infant is just fine?

Further, if it's one piercing, why not two? Five? Ten? Facial piercings? Piercings in the upper ear? Where is the line between a random act because you want to, and going too far, and pretty much decorating your child to your tastes?

save acorna:

^There is a difference between consenting to something you don't want and having something done to you that you have no choice about.

Let's say I'm 5. I don't want my ears pierced, or I just don't care. My parents take me to get them done, and I'm screaming in protest because I'm scared. Why is that an unacceptable situation, but piercing the ears of a screaming infant is just fine?

Further, if it's one piercing, why not two? Five? Ten? Facial piercings? Piercings in the upper ear? Where is the line between a random act because you want to, and going too far, and pretty much decorating your child to your tastes?

I would think as a five year old you would have more of a grasp on what is happening around you as opposed to a baby who just cries all of the time. You see a piercing gun at age five, you'd probably be able to understand it's use and how it'll hurt you more than if you were like around age two.

You say that last part like giving people the freedom to pierce their child's ears means they'll just decorate their face. Sure, I don't have the most faith in the intelligence of society, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who do this know when the draw the line. Maybe a few people have gone too far on the piercing thing with their kid, but that'd have to be like one out of a hundred, hell probably even more than a hundred. Or maybe I just want to have the faith in my fellow man that at least the majority know when to stop when it comes to piercing their baby.

save acorna:

^There is a difference between consenting to something you don't want and having something done to you that you have no choice about.

Let's say I'm 5. I don't want my ears pierced, or I just don't care. My parents take me to get them done, and I'm screaming in protest because I'm scared. Why is that an unacceptable situation, but piercing the ears of a screaming infant is just fine?

Further, if it's one piercing, why not two? Five? Ten? Facial piercings? Piercings in the upper ear? Where is the line between a random act because you want to, and going too far, and pretty much decorating your child to your tastes?

I'm not saying that it's more acceptable to get a 5 year old pierced than to get an infant, on the contrary I think they're completely the same - it's absolutely illogical to think that a 5 year old could give an informed consent for something which could affect their whole entire life in a negative way - as getting your ears pierced apparently does - any more than an infant could.

Mr W. H.:

I'm not saying that it's more acceptable to get a 5 year old pierced than to get an infant, on the contrary I think they're completely the same - it's absolutely illogical to think that a 5 year old could give an informed consent for something which could affect their whole entire life in a negative way - as getting your ears pierced apparently does - any more than an infant could.

What I'm getting at, is people would be more inclined to point/stare/disapprove if they saw a screaming 5 year old getting their ears pierced vs a screaming infant.

Who are you to say that the infant is screaming for no reason? Maybe it's screaming, because, I don't know, it's in pain?

Ear piercing has no benefit. It's decoration. Why do parents have the right to decorate their child, damaging them in the process?

save acorna:

What I'm getting at, is people would be more inclined to point/stare/disapprove if they saw a screaming 5 year old getting their ears pierced vs a screaming infant.

I personally am not. I'm generally unimpressed by both instances and I think you should get your children's ears' pierced at a medical facility where there are no people to point/stare/disapprove.

Quote

Who are you to say that the infant is screaming for no reason? Maybe it's screaming, because, I don't know, it's in pain?

The pain really isn't significantly worse than that of getting a vaccine or having blood drawn - which we don't think of as excruciatingly painful experiences from which we should shelter children at any cost.

Quote

Ear piercing has no benefit. It's decoration. Why do parents have the right to decorate their child, damaging them in the process?

Oh I didn't know that because I have my ears pierced I'm "damaged", good thing I don't have any tattoos then I'd be completely malfunctioned.

Mr W. H.:

The pain really isn't significantly worse than that of getting a vaccine or having blood drawn - which we don't think of as excruciatingly painful experiences from which we should shelter children at any cost.

Perhaps because a vaccine has a benefit, whereas ear piercing does not.