Baby Piercing

[Timbuk2]

A petition in the UK has started up calling for the Children's Minister to make it illegal to pierce the ears of babies and toddlers.

Though the online petition is at around 33,000 signatures, I suspect nothing will come of it.

The petition, started by Susan Ingram, calls for a minimum legal age requirement for ear piercing.
It reads: “Make it illegal for babies/toddlers to get their ears pierced.
“It is a form of child cruelty. Severe pain and fear is inflicted upon infants unnecessarily.
“It serves no purpose other than to satisfy the parent's vanity. Other forms of physically harming children are illegal - this should be no different.”
______________________________________
From a Telegraph article on this;

One woman Claire M wrote: “Smacking a child is abuse, so how come sticking metal rods through their ears is not abuse?”
Another, Sandra, wrote: “It IS child abuse, pure and simple. If anyone put a piercing implement in any other part of a baby's body, arrest and prosecution should follow.
“It beggars belief the mums at immunisation clinics who hate the fact that their child needs an injection for good reason, when said child's ears are pierced.”

But not everyone agrees. On the site’s comments section, a woman called Dana C wrote:
“As someone who had their ears pierced as a baby (a month old), I find this campaign absolutely and utterly pointless. I am pleased that my parents got it done for me when I was a child and I have no regrets that they did.
“I suppose a lot of parents also don't like the idea of piercings, which is perhaps why they supported this campaign – that's fine, apply it to your own children, but the fact remains that it isn't a serious issue. And it's also not solely for cosmetic purposes – it can be a cultural tradition, too, as was the reason for me getting them.”

Another, JG, wrote: “Ear-piercing is a widely-accepted beautifying practice in the Western world and many other parts of the world.
“And MOST parents don't pierce their children's ears with malicious intent. They just want their children, usually daughters, to look pretty. The pain is fleeting and usually there are no complications.”
_______________________________________

Storm in a tea-cup?
A form of abuse?

Myself, I don't have kids, so this doesn't raise big hackles in me either way.
If I did have daughter/s it certainly isn't something I would do, but I would be uncomfortable with an enforced minimum age. There are cultures for whom it is a norm, too.

[Flixy]

I'm pretty much with you on this. Over here tattoos and piercings have a minimum age of 18, or 12 with parent's consent, but weirdly that applies to all piercings except in the ears.

Btw I think the whole 'I got it as a baby and am happy' argument stinks. The point is that not every kid would have wanted it later, and those that do can get it later. The point is about the ones that do regret it later but can't reverse it (not that it leaves massive scars though).

[Steely Glint]

The baby is too young to consent to piercings, ergo you shouldn't do it. Wait till they're old enough to decide whether they want or don't want themselves.

It's a tiny person, not your personal art project.

[wiggin]

I'm pretty much with you on this. Over here tattoos and piercings have a minimum age of 18, or 12 with parent's consent, but weirdly that applies to all piercings except in the ears.

Btw I think the whole 'I got it as a baby and am happy' argument stinks. The point is that not every kid would have wanted it later, and those that do can get it later. The point is about the ones that do regret it later but can't reverse it (not that it leaves massive scars though).

I don't think the argument, though, is about the perceived irreversibility of ear piercing. I think the argument is that since you're causing pain to your child for no good reason, it's abusive. I personally find this a bit ridiculous. Yes, inflicting pain just to inflict pain is abusive and parents should be prosecuted (and certainly should not retain rights to care for their children)

But there are all sorts of times that parents inflict pain and discomfort (physical and emotional) on their children, and the reasons aren't always as good as immunization. We dress them up for special events, even if they scream while we're getting all the fiddly buttons attached. We practice sleep deprivation sometimes just so we can have a social life. We (used to) intentionally expose them to diseases just so we can get chicken pox 'out of the way' conveniently. We spank them or practice (mild) sensory deprivation for behavior modification. Etc.

I personally agree that piercing a baby's ears is distasteful, and have no interest of doing it to my own children. But I see no reason to make it illegal.

[Veldan Rath]

The baby is too young to consent to piercings, ergo you shouldn't do it. Wait till they're old enough to decide whether they want or don't want themselves.

It's a tiny person, not your personal art project.

I agree. How vain are you if you need to pierce a baby's ears?

[Timbuk2]

I'm pretty much with you on this. Over here tattoos and piercings have a minimum age of 18, or 12 with parent's consent, but weirdly that applies to all piercings except in the ears.

Interesting, that.

I was typing out a response that the ear lobe is nothing but soft flesh, so is less damaged, or less scarred, by a piercing. As opposed to, say, the upper ear, which is cartilage, and is much more damaged by a piercing. I had an upper ear piercing 20 years ago, and it has left a permanent lump there.

But then if you consider the nostril, that's just flesh. Or the eyebrow ... or the belly-button .... or the lip.

Sooo ... not sure what that's about.

The baby is too young to consent to piercings, ergo you shouldn't do it. Wait till they're old enough to decide whether they want or don't want themselves.

It's a tiny person, not your personal art project.

Agreed.

The question is though, would you support legislation banning the practice until a specific age is reached?

[Steely Glint]

Yeah.

[Lewkowski]

Tempest in a teapot.

[GGT]

I don't like to see jewelry piercings on babies, toddlers, or even pre-pubescent tweens. I wouldn't like to see permanent tattoos or intentional scarring on children, either.

And yet, I consented to the penile circumcision of my sons when they were infants....and foreskin is definitely more "important", as tissue value goes, than earlobes or nostrils, or any other skin surface the public "sees". Right?

For that matter, how can I oppose female circumcision/infibulation without being called a hypocrite?