Is it moral to..........

[Athene]

I don't like it, it makes the kids ears look huge and it looks tacky, and it takes away the childs right to choose and forces a cosmetic change on her body which as an adult she may not have chosen.

(I'm also against the circumcision of baby boys for non-medical reasons)

 

[cantata]

I don't like it, it makes the kids ears look huge and it looks tacky, and it takes away the childs right to choose and forces a cosmetic change on her body which as an adult she may not have chosen.

Agree! I also think it makes children look older than they are - and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that. Although I think there's an unnecessary denial of child sexuality, I don't think the best way to accept and embrace it is to dress children up as young adults.

(I'm also against the circumcision of baby boys for non-medical reasons)

Random circumcision is a weird idea. If anyone in the West suggested removing other bits of babies for purely cosmetic reasons (earlobes, clitoral hood), or even for the avoidance of future possible medical reasons (appendices, tonsils), there'd be an outcry.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Personally, I think it is unethical to do any unnecessary procedures on infants. I think that their right to make decisions about their own body should be respected until they are able to make such decisions for themselves.

So, I would never pierce an infants ears. I would rather wait, and allow a child to make that choice for themself when they are older.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think deliberately putting a child through pain, no matter how short it may be, just to satisfy a mother's need to decorate her child is unconscionably inhumane.

What about if it is done so that the daughter will not need to go though the experience of getting her ears pierced when she is older?

 

[yasic]

What about if it is done so that the daughter will not need to go though the experience of getting her ears pierced when she is older?

But that is assuming that the daughter WILL want it later in life.

Personally I would rather give her the option to do it later in life if she chooses rather than choose for her.

I mean, should we circumcise someone so that they will not have to go through the experience later in life?

 

[Washington]

What about if it is done so that the daughter will not need to go though the experience of getting her ears pierced when she is older?

What "need"? I know of no requirement to get one's ears pierced. If, in later years, a person chooses to go through the pain then that's their choice, and hopefully an informed one.

 

[lawtonfogle]

But that is assuming that the daughter WILL want it later in life.

Personally I would rather give her the option to do it later in life if she chooses rather than choose for her.

I mean, should we circumcise someone so that they will not have to go through the experience later in life?

But at the same time, you have better than half chance she will, and also (I'm assuming this, I personally haven't had anything pierced) it will hurt more and she will remember it longer (3 month olds have very short memories compared to 14 year olds), it can be said to be worth the 'risk' (though there isn't any actual risk).

 

[keith99]

As long as a general, or at least a topical, anesthetic is used, and it is done for medical or perhaps religious reasons---not absolutely convinced religious reasons are justification---I see no problem.

If a general is used I see a big problem. There is a risk of complications from a general, any physician who would use a general for circumsision is neglegent.

 

[keith99]

I don't like it, it makes the kids ears look huge and it looks tacky, and it takes away the childs right to choose and forces a cosmetic change on her body which as an adult she may not have chosen.

(I'm also against the circumcision of baby boys for non-medical reasons)

A piercing is not permanent. If the earring or post is removed it will close back up. Thought I'd point this out refering to a post I basically agree with.

Actually in light of what I just posted it is worth considering that to keep the piercing the baby has to have an object stuck on their ear that includes parts that normally would be kept away from small children. E.g. objects that can be swallowed and cause problems. Also this can be somethign the child will pick at or fool with. (Heck that is often enough a problem with problem with children or even adults that actively desire a piercing).

 

[IzzyPop]

A piercing is not permanent. If the earring or post is removed it will close back up. Thought I'd point this out refering to a post I basically agree with.

To some degree. I have not worn earrings for 10 years. I still have holes. The two 'newest' ones closed completely, one closed up at the back, but I still have a visible hole in the front, and the 2 oldest ones can still fit posts or hoops.

 

[yasic]

But at the same time, you have better than half chance she will, and also (I'm assuming this, I personally haven't had anything pierced) it will hurt more and she will remember it longer (3 month olds have very short memories compared to 14 year olds), it can be said to be worth the 'risk' (though there isn't any actual risk).

It could be easily mistaken, but there is a popular theory (I will try to find the link if you ask, but I can't make promises that I will find it) that a child's experiences of pain play more impact than those of when they are older.

So in other words, yes the pain may be a bit less, but the pain could potentially cause serious issues for the child but not for the teen.

 

[selfinflikted]

If you're wondering about getting toddlers' ears pierced, ask yourself this:

Would you mind if someone sneaked up behind you and shot needles through your ears without asking permission?

 

[cantata]

It could be easily mistaken, but there is a popular theory (I will try to find the link if you ask, but I can't make promises that I will find it) that a child's experiences of pain play more impact than those of when they are older.

So in other words, yes the pain may be a bit less, but the pain could potentially cause serious issues for the child but not for the teen.

True.

Circumcision, for example, is thought by some people to be highly traumatic and of course it also interrupts the feeding routine and the bonding of parents and baby. Frankly I think after the rather hectic experience of being born, the last thing you'd want is to have your nether parts hacked about (there is a lot of tugging involved, it is not just a quick snip).

I dare say ear piercing has a lesser effect, but it's still unnecessary pain.

 

[Skaloop]

It could be easily mistaken, but there is a popular theory (I will try to find the link if you ask, but I can't make promises that I will find it) that a child's experiences of pain play more impact than those of when they are older.

So in other words, yes the pain may be a bit less, but the pain could potentially cause serious issues for the child but not for the teen.

I was going to bring up the same sort of thing. A 14-year old is conscious and aware of what is going to happen. She knows what pain feels like, how to deal with it, and that it will stop. She can prepare herself to deal with it.

A baby, on the other hand, has no idea what is going on, and depending on her age, may not yet have suffered any intense, acute pain. Having never dealt with pain, and lacking the cognitive abilities to understand pain, the impact is much more instinctual, and potentially much more lasting. It can be a strong conditioning event that could last years, even if she isn't aware of it, and even if she doesn't remember it.

 

[Washington]

If a general is used I see a big problem. There is a risk of complications from a general, any physician who would use a general for circumsision is neglegent.

I presume that either you're a practicing MD or have evidence to back up your claim. Which is it?

 

[stan1980]

To some degree. I have not worn earrings for 10 years. I still have holes. The two 'newest' ones closed completely, one closed up at the back, but I still have a visible hole in the front, and the 2 oldest ones can still fit posts or hoops.

Same here, my holes haven't healed either, 6 years since I stopped wearing ear rings. I tried to push a stud through just now, and it went through with relative ease, although I had to break the skin slightly at the back.

Interestingly, 6 years later, I can still get a stud through my tongue, and I was told your tongue heals up in days if you don't keep a stud in. Weird.

 

[Athene]

A piercing is not permanent. If the earring or post is removed it will close back up. Thought I'd point this out refering to a post I basically agree with.

I've never had my ears pierced but at one point I had my tongue pierced - I had the stud in for about 2 years, and for all the tongue is very good at healing itself there is still an indent where it used to be, I would imagine the same would be true for ear piercings that even though the piercing is removed there will always be visible evidence that the ear lobe was once pierced.

 

[Bombila]

I'd have to ask why one would bother getting a toddler's ears pierced in the first place. It isn't that painful, but there is risk of infection, risk of catching the jewelry on things and tearing the lobe, risk of the child choking on small jewelry bits.

I worked with young kids for many years, and lots of them had pierced ears. Many of them experienced infections, not just soon after, but throughout, because of the general wear and tear young kids go through at play and their tendency to fiddle with the jewelry with dirty fingers. I saw lots of kids get their hair caught in earrings, or catch jewelry on other things, often with bloody results. I had a child accidentally rip one of my own earrings right through the lobe of my ear - there's a permanent slit there now; I had the lobe re-pierced above it.

It's a minor thing, in my opinion, but I don't think it is a practical move with young kids: wait until they are older and ask for it themselves.

 

[LittleNipper]

have your infant's ears pierced? I had my daughter's ears pierced at 3 months of age. She cried for about 45 seconds, then settled down with her soother. She of course has no memory of this.

What do you say?

My only thoughts are that they might get inflamed/infected. Babies cannot take care of earrings. They might accidentally pull one out and rip the earlobe. They might not wish to wear ornaments in their ears when they grow up.

 

[SallyNow]

have your infant's ears pierced? I had my daughter's ears pierced at 3 months of age. She cried for about 45 seconds, then settled down with her soother. She of course has no memory of this.

What do you say?

I think it's a pretty irresponsible thing to do. I personally have to be very careful with my piercings, and I know many others who have sensitivities to the metals and plastics used in earrings.

A person who has sensitivities to other things, or who has allergies that manifest in rashes, may also end up with painful piercings.

Not to mention that little kids should be kids, and that means they can sometimes be careless. They should be playing in the sand, playing in parks, playing on fields, playing wherever they can and they shouldn't have to worry about their earrings catching or about things getting stuck in the holes.

Is it immoral? Well, no, unless a parent uses it as a way to hurt a child or as an excuse to restrict a child's healthy amount of playing.