Babies ear piercing.

[francypants]

No it's not. Child abuse is pretty well defined, and is considerably more serious than a mild body mod which is both totally legal and reversible.

 

Personally, I think these things should not be done till the child is old enough to make their own choice, and, personally I think that using ear piercing guns is a shoddy way to carry out the procedure (a needle is the profesional and better way); but trying to attach a label of 'child abuse' is hysterical, irrational and wrong.

 

As for why those who've had their babies ears pierced 'keeping quiet'- what do you expect? If you want rational productive debate, don't drive away those you want to talk with by labeling them as 'child abusers' when they're clearly not.

 

The procedure may be legal but as for being reversible, it's not.

I had my ears pierced when I was 13 years old. I'm now 57 and although I haven't worn earrings for over 20 years the holes are still there in my ears !!

Everyone to their own opinions, but I still think it's a form of child abuse.

Deliberately hurting a child for no other reason than fashion.

[pottedplant]

No it's not. Child abuse is pretty well defined, and is considerably more serious than a mild body mod which is both totally legal and reversible.

 

Personally, I think these things should not be done till the child is old enough to make their own choice, and, personally I think that using ear piercing guns is a shoddy way to carry out the procedure (a needle is the profesional and better way); but trying to attach a label of 'child abuse' is hysterical, irrational and wrong.

 

As for why those who've had their babies ears pierced 'keeping quiet'- what do you expect? If you want rational productive debate, don't drive away those you want to talk with by labeling them as 'child abusers' when they're clearly not.

 

 

But for some parents that seems to be about the age of 5 going on previous threads there have been on this.

 

My kids were 13 for ears and the one who was silly enough to have navel done was 17 (but took it out after a month or so).

[Bypassblade]

Just a side thought almost everyone on here has condemned parents for piercing babies/small children's ears, but also don't people in shops who do the piercing should also be condemned?

 

Surely they should say "I'm not doing it as child is too young", or "I never pierce babies ears", or is a few pounds too much of a temptation for them, sad but that's how it seems.

[ronthenekred]

No it's not. Child abuse is pretty well defined, and is considerably more serious than a mild body mod which is both totally legal and reversible.

 

Personally, I think these things should not be done till the child is old enough to make their own choice, and, personally I think that using ear piercing guns is a shoddy way to carry out the procedure (a needle is the profesional and better way); but trying to attach a label of 'child abuse' is hysterical, irrational and wrong.

 

As for why those who've had their babies ears pierced 'keeping quiet'- what do you expect? If you want rational productive debate, don't drive away those you want to talk with by labeling them as 'child abusers' when they're clearly not.

 

I disagree. You are the keeper, the guardian of the infant, not the owner, it isn't property in the same way a Christmas tree is. Your 1st role is to protect the child for the benefit of the child not the child to benefit you, that's a natural progression. The child has no concept of adornments, fashion etc..in fact its only requirement is to feed.

 

If someone was to hold you down and and stick a needle in your nose you would have the full weight of the law in your favour, a child should expect nothing less through the protection of adults by proxy.

 

If you feel the term "child abuse" isn't adequate then at least argue with some intrinsic value why you believe the term isn't instead of quoting present law without qualifying the reasoning behind present law.

 

I agree "francypants" whole post would be enough to scare me off from debate because it's already come to it's condemning conclusion but the term "child abuse" IMO isn't far removed from the reality.

[onewheeldave]

I disagree. You are the keeper, the guardian of the infant, not the owner, it isn't property in the same way a Christmas tree is.

 

Bit of a strawman as I don't think anyone's claiming that a child is property?

 

Certainly the piercing of a babies ears doesn't indicate that the parent sees the child as property.

 

 

 

If someone was to hold you down and and stick a needle in your nose you would have the full weight of the law in your favour, a child should expect nothing less through the protection of adults by proxy.

If someone tried to hold me down and stick a needle in my nose, that would be a self-defence situation and yes, I would have them charged with assault. But the thread isn't about restraining people and forcing needles through their noses- it's about ear piercing for babies, a very different scenario.

 

 

 

 

If you feel the term "child abuse" isn't adequate then at least argue with some intrinsic value why you believe the term isn't instead of quoting present law without qualifying the reasoning behind present law.

 

 

OK. Here's the wiki definition of 'child abuse'-

 

Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional mistreatment or neglect of a child or children

 

Sexual doesn't apply here. Neither does emotional, as a baby will encounter no more pain/distress from an ear piercing than it does from it's daily dose of other things that cause distress/crying.

 

That leaves physical abuse, and, again from wiki-

 

Physical abuse is an act of another party involving contact intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.

 

Piercing of your babies ears carries no intention to cause pain/distress etc.

 

So, as requested, there's my intial argument- now it's your turn to back up your point of view with some rational argument of your own. (I'd recommend looking at some other definitions of 'child abuse', as wiki is far from definitive in these kinds of things.)

[butterball]

I would never pierce any of my children's ears. It's not my body so it's not my decision. If they'd like them doing when they're of an age they can be responsible for them then that's fine - I'm thinking 12/13.

[onewheeldave]

I would never pierce any of my children's ears. It's not my body so it's not my decision. If they'd like them doing when they're of an age they can be responsible for them then that's fine - I'm thinking 12/13.

 

I agree completely.

 

All I'm pointing out with my above posts, is that parents who think differently to you and me, and who pierce their babies ears, are not guilty of anything approaching 'child abuse'.

 

To me, the main issue with the piercing of babies ears, is the risk of infection. Another good reason to not have it done at an hairdressers with a piercing 'gun'. Then again, I'm guessing it might be a challenge to find a piercing professional (who all use the far superior needle method) who'd be willing to pierce a babies ears.

 

However, even with that point in mind, 'child abuse' is a ridiculous misuse of the term in that context, especially in a society where far, far worse things are inflicted upon children, such as circumcision of male babies for non-medical reasons, a procedure which, unlike ear piercing, is irreversible.

[francypants]

That leaves physical abuse, and, again from wiki-

 

Physical abuse is an act of another party involving contact intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.

 

Piercing of your babies ears carries no intention to cause pain/distress etc.

 

 

 

PIERCING OF YOUR BABIES EARS CARRIES NO INTENTION TO CAUSE PAIN/ DISTRESS.

 

What utter drivel.

 

 

 

 

Onewheeldave, Ear piercing is not reversible.

[ronthenekred]

That leaves physical abuse, and, again from wiki-

 

Physical abuse is an act of another party involving contact intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.

 

Piercing of your babies ears carries no intention to cause pain/distress etc.

 

 

 

PIERCING OF YOUR BABIES EARS CARRIES NO INTENTION TO CAUSE PAIN/ DISTRESS.

 

What utter drivel.

 

 

 

 

Onewheeldave, Ear piercing is not reversible.

 

I think what Dave is suggesting (ready to be corrected) is that if you lack any empathy or understanding then pain isn't an issue..so the question is if empathy is non existent how do you apply the term abuse? Also if pain empathy is non existent is that because your pain receptors are also?

 

I think everyone understands pain, the issue seems to be..If I can handle it so can my child? Rather than why would I inflict pain regardless of my own reaction to pain.

[sand_dollars]

It looks vile.

So tacky and chavvy.

It says so much about the parents too,

 

So everyone that has there childs ears done are chavy :hihi: