...to believe that piercing a baby's ears is abusive

[TheAlphaParent]

1. It causes unnecessary pain.
2. It removes choice and respect for bodily autonomy.
3. It puts the infant at risk of infection.
4. It provides no benefit to the infant.

I'd be interested in hearing from any pro-piercing parents; However if you're anti-piercing, I urge you to sign this recently approved Government petition:

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20646

P.S. I know this is an old school debate, but the Government are yet to act, so the piercing of babies debate is still hugely relevant.

agree wholeheartedly with winnybella!

don't sweat the small stuff

sort out the major problems first.

too many debates, not enough solutions

meetings about fucking meetings, pisses me right off.

If parliament takes time out to discuss this when the world economy is in meltdown and essential services across the UK are being slashed and burned I will be majorly hacked off .

YANBU, cruel and unnecessary, but agree that there are more pressing matters to deal with.

I think Cervix might have been being a little bit tongue in cheek

You think?

fuck me this is boring the 4 billionth time around.

And I call Bingo.

End

When my dd was 3m my SIL asked me when I was going to get her ears pierced. I just looked at her like WTF? When I replied I wasn't she said in shocked manner, "Aren't you? Why not?" I made up some excuse about not really seeing the point as I didn't want to upset her, as both my nieces had pierced ears. BUT -

It's horrid.
It's trampy.
It's horrid.
It upsets your baby
It's horrid.
It's only something chavs do
It's horrid.

SIL is mad as a box of ferrets.

Babies with pierced ears is just WRONG. If you've done it to your baby - you tramps.

It's nasty.
It's unnecessary.
It's ugly.
It's vile.
It's (dare I say) incredibly 'chavvy'.
It looks common.
It looks rough.
It's revolting.
It's unnecessarily painful.

Can't think of any other reasons why people shouldn't get it done though

I am an adult and I have a pierced nose, pierced lip, 6 piercings in one ear and 5 in the other so I'm not against piercings by any stretch of the imagination, but on young children it's vile and there is nothing anyone could ever say that could challenge that because I am completely reasonable in thinking this. HTH.

Oh, right. Woops, sorry AYC

Ha ha Kytti, thought I'd posted twice when I saw yours!

God I was worried for a second there atyourcervix! Fwiw I dot agree with it but I wouldn't say it's abuse. Abuse is a whole different ballgame.

Do you know what happened to Baby P?

Piercing a Baby's ear may not be to your taste - but it is not "abuse".

Me too! (oooh - bad memory of Granny Murray there for a sec!) lol

I am so sick of the 'cultural' argument used to justify harm done to women and children. Fuck your primitive barbarian culture (whichever one it is) if it involves genital mutilation, ear-piercing or ritualised domestic violence, the sooner it dies out the better.

Funny how few 'cultural reasons' there are for inflicting permanent bodily harm on adult men against their will, isn't it?

HOUSE!

sgb, many people would say a man that converts to islam needs to do this....

anyway when my dds ears were pierced, i did it because it was normal for me, i didnt ponder to long over it, and i didnt have to hold her down screaming, she cried a lot less then injections etc, she was around 4 mnths old, they are closed now though, as i saw the impracticality of them, and i didnt pierce dd2s.

this image of a baby being held down crying is not a realistic picture of what happens.

OP, of course YANBU. No argument for this disgusting practice stands up. You can't defend it under the whole 'cultural' argument, because foot binding and female circumcision are cultural practices and they are certainly indefensible (yes, they are a more extreme abuse, but the principle is the same).

It does look horrible and I do judge parents that do this to their babies. I'm sure I'm judged for some of my parenting, but I do not and will not mutilate my babies in the pursuit of decoration.

I don't think anyone has the right to do something to another person's body without that person's consent, unless it is a medical requirement and the person is not capable of giving consent but it must be done or they will suffer and it can be reasonably assumed that, should they be capable of giving consent, they would do so

I think it comes down to feeling 'ownership' of your child's body, tbh. My child, I made them, so I can put holes in their ears / chop off their foreskin/whatever.

You wouldn't make that decision for a stranger in the street, or for someone else's child, so I can only think it is because people think their baby's body belongs to them.

I disagree.

Applauds Hecate

That's absolutely how I feel about it.

Also agrees with Hecate, second time today too.

Why are some posters jumping on the term 'abuse'? Just because they don't like the term because it likens this practice to other forms of abuse, doesn't mean that it isn't... it's just not as 'palatable', I guess?

I think it looks ridiculous and quite horrid on babies.

"Funny how few 'cultural reasons' there are for inflicting permanent bodily harm on adult men against their will, isn't it?"

Strange that. I concur.

Lying - I think it is because people often don't understand what 'abuse' is, and there is a mistaken belief that many people have that 'abuse' means kicking your baby round the back yard like a football.

There are so many forms of abuse
physical abuse
neglect
emotional abuse
sexual abuse
financial abuse
abuse of personal rights
etc etc

And they don't have to be major major devastating things to still be an abuse of a person.

If you do something to another person, that they have not consented to and have no control over, and which is not done in their best interests - eg a medical need or otherwise for their benefit, that is an abuse of them and a lack of respect for their right of ownership of their own body/life.

This includes such things as putting holes in their ears because everyone else does it to their babies or you think it's pretty. It isn't beating them or turning the hose on them, but it is a lack of respect for their body as their property and not yours.

Instead of thinking oh, it's only ears, perhaps it's best to flip it round to 'Do I have the right to do this to another person's body without their consent?"

If the answer is yes - why?

Must be a sense of ownership over that person's body.

I think you're right, Hecate. It's strange though how it's usually the woman who thinks its their right to do what they want with a child's ears. You'd think that a woman just wouldn't somehow... people are very strange.

"it is very dangerous to weaken the concept of "abuse" "

That's an interesting idea. In my day it was perfectly acceptable to beat your child with a wooden spoon. I'm quite thankful that the concept of abuse has been weakened to include this.

Piercing babies' ears is fucking nasty and chavvy but (just) falls short of abusive imo.

YANBU but this is one of those arguments that will go around and around and around. I'm just of the mind that if my children want to get their ears pierced then they can get it done and pay for it themselves out of pocket money once they are 11.

FWIW, I don't think it qualifies as "abuse" in my books...