Is piercing a baby's ears "abuse"/violation of NAP?

Let Me Google that for you

Besides, it not a violation of the NAP because apparently children don't own themselves until they do something to emancipate themselves.

If you can kill infants or let them die, surely you can pierce them and trim them?
 
Last edited:
eduardo89 said:
I was actually going to get them pierced right after she was born, but they didn't offer that service at the hospital. We waited till she was 6 months only because we spent the entire summer in Mexico and didn't want to pierce them there.

One of the reasons I wanted to get her ears pierced was because old ladies would always say "oh what a cute boy!" even when she was dressed head to toe in pink!!!

I guess it's also a cultural thing, my mom had hers pierced when she was a few days old, same with my girl cousins.
Click to expand...

Not all cultural traditions are worth the match with which one would set them ablaze. That said, I would say that piercing an infant's ears is in principle no different from circumcision. Does degree count for anything? Perhaps, but IMO it is best to wait until the baby has become a person capable of clearly expressing that sort of a desire. I am far from convinced that such traumas are the best things with which to greet a new soul into this world. I would not advocate prohibition, though.
 
Deborah K said:
uhhh....circumcising a female removes her clitoris which removes her ability to have an orgasm. Circumcising a male does NOT remove his ability to have an orgasm.
Click to expand...
True, but if you read the history of the procedure, it was done to desensitize the glans and prevent pleasure in masturbation. The procedure has always been performed on both genders explicitly to curb or control sexual urges.

In 1845, Edward H Dixon declared that "circumcision cures and prevents masturbation" (A Treatise on Diseases of the SexualOrgans. New York: Burgess, Stringer & Co. 1845. pp 158-65). Myths like this became very popular in the 19th and 20th century, even though science cannot prove them.

At any rate, your point still doesn't disprove that circumcision is mutilation, which was the point of my post which you responded to.
 
idiom said:
Let Me Google that for you

Besides, it not a violation of the NAP because apparently children don't own themselves until they do something to emancipate themselves.

If you can kill infants or let them die, surely you can pierce them and trim them?
Click to expand...
I've seen this argument, but the evidence to support it isn't convincing. Children do own themselves. They are simply subject to guardianship (very distinct from ownership) of parents until an arbitrary legal age or legal emancipation.
 
eduardo89 said:
Health, aesthetics, tradition, and I just don't see much merit to the opposing arguments.
Click to expand...

It was tradition in my family too. I do not see anything wrong with it. I had my daughters ears pierced when she was a week old. When she was christened my grandmother gave her, her first gold earrings she ever had. Tradition is a good thing!!
 
osan said:
Not all cultural traditions are worth the match with which one would set them ablaze. That said, I would say that piercing an infant's ears is in principle no different from circumcision. Does degree count for anything? Perhaps, but IMO it is best to wait until the baby has become a person capable of clearly expressing that sort of a desire. I am far from convinced that such traumas are the best things with which to greet a new soul into this world. I would not advocate prohibition, though.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, this is a sliding scale. Some people go too far with it. After all, your child's hair and nails are part of their person, and it's culturally acceptable to trim these parts of their body. What if your daughter (or son) really prefers long hair? Aren't you taking away their right? Should you wait until they become a person capable of clearly expressing a desire for such things? That is why I agree that prohibition isn't the answer.
 
MelissaWV said:
In all fairness, this is a sliding scale. Some people go too far with it. After all, your child's hair and nails are part of their person, and it's culturally acceptable to trim these parts of their body. What if your daughter (or son) really prefers long hair? Aren't you taking away their right? Should you wait until they become a person capable of clearly expressing a desire for such things? That is why I agree that prohibition isn't the answer.
Click to expand...
Hair grows back. The prepuce does not. Not a very rational comparison there.
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
Hair grows back. The prepuce does not. Not a very rational comparison there.
Click to expand...

The post I was responding to was about pierced ears. Piercings can "grow over" and the argument being made was that decisions altering any part of a child physically should be put off until the child is old enough to express a preference.
 
MelissaWV said:
The post I was responding to was about pierced ears. Piercings can "grow over" and the argument being made was that decisions altering any part of a child physically should be put off until the child is old enough to express a preference.
Click to expand...
sorry :o my bad ~hugs~
 
baby-tattoo.jpg
 
Evidence of the horrible abuse of piercing my daughter's ears. She can barely sleep...too much psychological trauma.

IiQ0Z.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CaptUSA
Alabama Child Abuse Bunker
Replies
2
Views
66
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Stop the US Abuse of Cuba
Replies
9
Views
82
nikcers
nikcers
osan
Dump The NAP And Greet The NTP
Replies
2
Views
394
osan
osan
Snowball
Trump blows 70 Billion on "A.I." electricity in Pittsburgh
2
Replies
23
Views
133
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
“Hate Speech” Isn’t Real and Pam Bondi Is an Enemy of Freedom
Replies
0
Views
560
PAF
PAF
Back
Top