Parents Piercing Their Baby Girls Ears.

captainbryce wrote:what exactly is there to "worry" about by NOT doing it?

Impact wrote:It's unnecessary vanity IMO for a parent to pierce a babies ears. Neither of my daughters have their ears pierced, and it will stay that way until they are old enough to

a) decide for themselves they want it done
b) pay for it themselves.

It's a waste of money on my end, it's just not needed right now.

Chris wrote:My daughter's ears were pierced when she was nine as a birthday present. By that point, she was well aware of what earrings were and had been asking to get pierced for years. We went ahead and allowed it. I see nothing wrong with piercing a little girls ears, so long as she's old enough to know what's happening and wants it done. The way I see it, if she's so little that she'll cry at the sting of the puncture, then she's too young for it.

Kral wrote:I think the "activism" over this is very misguided. The majority of females in the world have their ears pierced, and wouldn't have it any other way. You know so good and dog on well that just about every woman you know over the age of 16 wears earrings at least 50% of the time and has a jewelry case full of them. And at some point we ALL buy some lady in our lives a pair of earrings at their request. What I'm saying is that the likelihood of a woman resenting her parents for having her lobes pierced as a baby w/o her consent is overwhelming low! I've never heard of such a thing, actually! It's so low that it makes the whole argument silly. Making like this is some sort of unfair practice or a human rights violation being inflicted on the baby is laughably bleeding heart.

As for the guys who're up in arms about the idea of having a babies ears pierced...I'm sensing some projecting. Some of you are upset that some parents circumcise their infant sons and so you co-opt ANY and EVERY cosmetic alteration done to a baby to create a bigger tree of appall to further hold your anti-circumcision views. This though cannot be compared with circumcision of boys, because piercing isn't a medical procedure and nothing is being permanently altered or "removed". As JM correctly pointed out, if when the girl is older and she decides that she's not fond of earrings, she can take them out and the hole will eventually heal (close). Her choices aren't being taken from her. If anything she's being given another option. To have earrings or to not. Without having to go through the trouble of arranging it herself later on.

Parents of baby girls have the right to accessorize them any way they see fit, so long as what they're doing isn't doing any damage. And a pierced ear is just that, an accessory. In no way is it detrimental.

TrevorToddFan wrote:This whole piercing debate is so stupid! Right now there is so much going on with the world... and your worry about us piercing our daughters ears.

TrevorToddFan wrote:"WE ARE THE PARENTS NOT YOU". I RESPECT your opinions and the way you raise your own, but if we pierce our daughters ears we make the decision not you *RESPECT IT*!!!!!!!!

RedBedroom wrote:Wow, I am blown away at how people are stumbling over this issue. Yet, I am compelled to chime in again.

Dressing a baby up in frou frou clothes is not anywhere close to ear piercing. It can be painful if the piercing is not done well. I, for one, would not want to get my baby's ears done, then wonder every time she cries if it is just baby crabby or pain.

Kral wrote:I think the "activism" over this is very misguided. The majority of females in the world have their ears pierced, and wouldn't have it any other way. You know so good and dog on well that just about every woman you know over the age of 16 wears earrings at least 50% of the time and has a jewelry case full of them.

Kral wrote:And at some point we ALL buy some lady in our lives a pair of earrings at their request. What I'm saying is that the likelihood of a woman resenting her parents for having her lobes pierced as a baby w/o her consent is overwhelming low! I've never heard of such a thing, actually!

Kral wrote:Making like this is some sort of unfair practice or a human rights violation being inflicted on the baby is laughably bleeding heart.

Kral wrote:As for the guys who're up in arms about the idea of having a babies ears pierced...I'm sensing some projecting. Some of you are upset that some parents circumcise their infant sons and so you co-opt ANY and EVERY cosmetic alteration done to a baby to create a bigger tree of appall to further hold your anti-circumcision views.

Kral wrote:This though cannot be compared with circumcision of boys, because piercing isn't a medical procedure and nothing is being permanently altered or "removed". As JM correctly pointed out, if when the girl is older and she decides that she's not fond of earrings, she can take them out and the hole will eventually heal (close). Her choices aren't being taken from her. If anything she's being given another option. To have earrings or to not. Without having to go through the trouble of arranging it herself later on.

Kral wrote:Parents of baby girls have the right to accessorize them any way they see fit, so long as what they're doing isn't doing any damage.

Kral wrote:And a pierced ear is just that, an accessory. In no way is it detrimental.

captainbryce wrote:

Well, I already answered this in a number of ways in the previous post. You either missed it or you are intentionally ignoring it for the sake of devotion to this tradition. I already said that it was NOT a life threatening thing and something that they will recover from. I also said that's COMPLETELY besides the point and pretending that it isn't is disregarding your responsibility as a parent because your priorities are in the wrong place. Don't take this personally (I am not talking about YOU specifically), but about "people" in general who try to justify this position. As others have already said here, ear piercing HURTS (otherwise they wouldn't cry when it's being done). Ear piercing may also lead to INFECTION in some cases. It's neither benign nor risk free and there is no benefit to the child by doing it. And by that argument ALONE, it is unethical.

Says who? And there is a benefit. Makes her look pretty. It would only lead to infection if it's done improperly. You think I'm just going to let some chick in a garage pierce my daughter's ears?


Dressing up your child in "fru-fru" clothes is also vanity on the part of the parents (which I'm not going to make any attept to defend. But to compare that with something that actually hurts them (punching holes in their ears) or could lead to infection isn't a realistic comparrison. That's when things go from being just vain and ignorant to vain, ignorant and unethical. When some kid starts crying and screaming because their parent put them in funky clothes, or they have to make a trip to the doctors office for some antibiotics because of the fru-fru dress they put them in, then you can come back and use this as an example. Otherwise, the two things aren't really comparable!

I might buy this if I somehow thought you were the grand puba of determining what's "unethical". You seriously gonna sit up and try to put different degrees on the concept of vanity? LOL, that in itself is ridiculous. And oh yeah, I have seen kids screaming and crying over the funky clothes their parents put them in. My mom has done it to me quite a few times.


First of all, while "vanity" may simply be "my opinion", there is no doubt in my mind that ear piercing on babies represents a form of vanity to everyone else on this forum (including you). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong by arguing that it is NOT a form of vanity! It would be different if I was the ONLY one with this opinion, but EVERYONE thinks that this is vanity (including the people who DO IT). So my "opinion" is not only an opinion, but it's a valid FACT according to everyone else on here (unless you'd care to argue that).

I've already said it was vanity. Are you not understand what you just stated? You thinking it's a GROSS display of vanity is only your OPINION. Not that it is or is not vanity in itself. I don't think it's a 'gross' display. I don't see any problem with it.

Secondly, and here is the part you obviously don't understand Nystyle: causing pain to a child for a NECESSARY reason (were the benefit outweights the risks) is ethical. Causing pain to a child for an unnecessary and superficial reason (where there is no benefit to the child) is unethical! Therin lies the difference. Ear piercing cannot be compared to something done for the benefit of the child! And until you can prove that ear piercing a baby improves her life in some way, you can't justify doing it, PERIOD! And that's why the "needle" argument doesn't work here.

Yes it does. Because it's still PAIN. Since YOU want to argue that. Your ethics (opinion) don't come into play here because it's still the fact of the matter. "We can only cause them pain for their benefit". That's exactly what your statement is saying. LOL, that shit is totally ludicrous.



That's funny, because that is exactly what YOU are doing by digging to find a defense to this "tradition". But rather than answer this pretty ridiculous line of reasoning you've presented here, let me just ask you a simple question here. You want to use the notion of "tradition" as a defense for this right. So let me ask you: "What justifies any painful tradition?"

Umm, nope. I didn't bring up tradition. You did. I'm not piercing her ears because it's tradition. I'm doing it because I want them pierced. You have no say in that matter.



No it's NOT. That's why it was a rhetorical question (that I went on to answer and explain why myself).

And I answered it anyway.



You're still not getting this are you? IT IS HURTING THE BABY, and that is the point!

Yeah, that's it. In the seconds it takes to get her ears pierced, poor thing is just suffering through unthinkable, unbearable pain that will continue for hours on end. My bad.

Have you ever taken an ethics class before? Judging by your responses I'm going to guess no, and if not it's something you should probably consider if you have the time. It's really an interesting class that I found often makes people think in a way that they haven't considered before.

You guessed wrong. And I don't know what ethics class you took, but I was taught that opinions aren't facts. Ethics deal with morality. This is not an issue that deals with morals. It's an issue that deals with preference. Point blank.

In any case, I don't understand your logic here. Whether or not something is being done to ME or to MY BABY doesn't mean that I should ignore the ethics of it (because that would make me unethical). If you saw someone abusing their child, should you NOT care because it's not you or your child? Bouding up the feet of Chinese girls for years was a "tradition" too. It was also a ridiculous tradition and a form of abuse by most people's standards today! Should you not care that children are being abused because it's "someone else's" tradition?

That would be sad.

You keep trying to use tradition as if it's a defense but what you need to realize is that tradition alone does not justify causing harm to someone else against their will (regardless of HOW MUCH harm is being done to them), unless you can demonstrate in some way how such a tradition is beneficial to that child. This is simple ethics!

Right. (Yawn)

Negative. That's not what I'm doing at all because my only "preference" is that it's the child's preference that should matter, not the parent's. It is YOU who are trying to justify your PREFERENCE at the expense of the child (which is unethical because your preference should be irrelevant, particularly when it doesn't benefit the child).

And besides, she'll like it. Trust me.

Nystyle709 wrote:You'd be up in arms if someone decided and try to dictate to you that not circumcising your sons is "unethical" because it's been proven that it's easier and healthier to be circumcised. Which is the main reason people feel the need to have their boys circumcised. You'd be mad if someone told you uncircumcised dicks looks like anteaters because it's your 'gross display of vanity'. However, who is dogging you for not wanting to do that?

Nystyle709 wrote:I'm still getting her ears pierced. Better to do it now so I (and she) won't have to worry about it.

Supernova wrote:


Exactly, but apparently this idea escapes some 'parents'. 'It's pretty, so I can accessorize her however I want because I'm the parent'. So a baby is just property and not an actual person? Does that also work once an old person reaches a certain age? I meant at some point do kids have the right to 'accessorize' their parents or grandparents however they want because the younger ones are the ones in charge and the old ones aren't or don't count or whatever? People need to wake up, this isn't a doll they're talking about that you can just do whatever you want with it because 'oh, pretty!', it's a REAL person. if you're so obsessed over pierced ears, do it to yourself, for your child, it needs to be THEIR decision. Would you tattoo your baby becuase it's neat? Would you completely change the color of their hair because YOU don't like it? How about the eyes? Would you make them wear colored lenses because their real eyes aren't 'pretty' enough for YOUR liking? Guess what? SOMEBODY else has to live with what YOU want, you don't, you see how that's ass backwards?

Kral wrote:I think the "activism" over this is very misguided. The majority of females in the world have their ears pierced, and wouldn't have it any other way. You know so good and dog on well that just about every woman you know over the age of 16 wears earrings at least 50% of the time and has a jewelry case full of them. And at some point we ALL buy some lady in our lives a pair of earrings at their request. What I'm saying is that the likelihood of a woman resenting her parents for having her lobes pierced as a baby w/o her consent is overwhelming low! I've never heard of such a thing, actually! It's so low that it makes the whole argument silly. Making like this is some sort of unfair practice or a human rights violation being inflicted on the baby is laughably bleeding heart.

As for the guys who're up in arms about the idea of having a babies ears pierced...I'm sensing some projecting. Some of you are upset that some parents circumcise their infant sons and so you co-opt ANY and EVERY cosmetic alteration done to a baby to create a bigger tree of appall to further hold your anti-circumcision views. This though cannot be compared with circumcision of boys, because piercing isn't a medical procedure and nothing is being permanently altered or "removed". As JM correctly pointed out, if when the girl is older and she decides that she's not fond of earrings, she can take them out and the hole will eventually heal (close). Her choices aren't being taken from her. If anything she's being given another option. To have earrings or to not. Without having to go through the trouble of arranging it herself later on.

Parents of baby girls have the right to accessorize them any way they see fit, so long as what they're doing isn't doing any damage. And a pierced ear is just that, an accessory. In no way is it detrimental.

Nystyle709 wrote:It's neither benign nor risk free and there is no benefit to the child by doing it. And by that argument ALONE, it is unethical.

Says who?

Nystyle709 wrote:And there is a benefit. Makes her look pretty.

Nystyle709 wrote:It would only lead to infection if it's done improperly. You think I'm just going to let some chick in a garage pierce my daughter's ears?

Nystyle709 wrote:
I might buy this if I somehow thought you were the grand puba of determining what's "unethical". You seriously gonna sit up and try to put different degrees on the concept of vanity? LOL, that in itself is ridiculous.

Nystyle709 wrote:And oh yeah, I have seen kids screaming and crying over the funky clothes their parents put them in. My mom has done it to me quite a few times.

Nystyle709 wrote:
I've already said it was vanity. Are you not understand what you just stated? You thinking it's a GROSS display of vanity is only your OPINION. Not that it is or is not vanity in itself. I don't think it's a 'gross' display. I don't see any problem with it.

Nystyle709 wrote:
Yes it does. Because it's still PAIN. Since YOU want to argue that. Your ethics (opinion) don't come into play here because it's still the fact of the matter. "We can only cause them pain for their benefit". That's exactly what your statement is saying. LOL, that shit is totally ludicrous.

Nystyle709 wrote:You want to use the notion of "tradition" as a defense for this right. So let me ask you: "What justifies any painful tradition?"

Umm, nope. I didn't bring up tradition. You did.

Nystyle709 wrote:I'm not piercing her ears because it's tradition. I'm doing it because I want them pierced. You have no say in that matter.

Nystyle709 wrote:No it's NOT. That's why it was a rhetorical question (that I went on to answer and explain why myself).

And I answered it anyway.

Nystyle709 wrote:You're still not getting this are you? IT IS HURTING THE BABY, and that is the point!

Yeah, that's it. In the seconds it takes to get her ears pierced, poor thing is just suffering through unthinkable, unbearable pain that will continue for hours on end. My bad.

Nystyle709 wrote:Have you ever taken an ethics class before? Judging by your responses I'm going to guess no, and if not it's something you should probably consider if you have the time. It's really an interesting class that I found often makes people think in a way that they haven't considered before.

You guessed wrong. And I don't know what ethics class you took, but I was taught that opinions aren't facts. Ethics deal with morality. This is not an issue that deals with morals. It's an issue that deals with preference. Point blank.

Nystyle709 wrote:If you saw someone abusing their child, should you NOT care because it's not you or your child? Should you not care that children are being abused because it's "someone else's" tradition?

That would be sad.

Nystyle709 wrote:You keep trying to use tradition as if it's a defense but what you need to realize is that tradition alone does not justify causing harm to someone else against their will (regardless of HOW MUCH harm is being done to them), unless you can demonstrate in some way how such a tradition is beneficial to that child. This is simple ethics!

Right. (Yawn)

Nystyle709 wrote:
Mmmkay. Well, I'm going to be the the head honcho in my house. This ain't no democracy. I want my baby's ears pierced, she's getting them pierced. I mean, goddamn, I didn't think it got this real over an ear piercing. And besides, she'll like it. Trust me.

Nystyle709 wrote:

You'd be mad if someone tried to dictate to you that not circumcising a male would be unethical.

Nystyle709 wrote:I'll simply add this (and you don't have to answer this if you don't want to), but what exactly is there to "worry" about by NOT doing it?

Absolutely nothing. See, I'm not on here grandstanding and huffing over the fact that someone would PREFER not to have their baby's ears pierced.

Nystyle709 wrote:I don't give a shit if you decide not to do it. You are getting mad at the fact if someone does. Which I find totally unreasonable.

captainbryce wrote:
I just did.

Forgetting the fact that "pretty" is subjective, pierced ears is not a benefit to HER. That is something superficial that cators only to your preference.

And I'm sure every little girl that's ever got an infection in such a case is the result of their parents letting "some chick in a garage" pierce their daughters ears. Because clearly, those parents didn't care what happened to their daughter and wanted them to get an infection when they did that!

I didn't put different degrees on the concept of vanity. I said they were both vain. I simply added (in the case of ear piercing) that it was both vain and unethical.

And in your mind that somehow justifies ear piercing?

And that is just your opinion. So....why are you jumping down my throat because my opinion is different than yours ?

Why is that ludicrous? That's totally consistent with the code of medical ethics (first do no harm) and it's exactly what doctors agree to when they take the hippocratic oath! So why is it ludicrous when the same concept is applied outside of medicine?


Um, actually, (and let me refresh your memory here) I DIDN'T bring up tradition, the OP did when she stated: "Keep in mind that this is tradition in many cultures." When I commented on why that was a nonsensical reason for ear piercing, you then defended the practice by using "tradition" when you said: "It's unethical" Says who if it's a tradition? Who are you to dictate tradition and determine if it's wrong or right? And quite frankly, this tradition is so tame." So regardless over WHO brought it up, it was part of your defense and be that as it may the question remains: "What justifies a painful tradition?" The truth is, you can't answer this question (actually nobody can) and that's what makes it unethicl, not just because "I say so".

I never said I had a say in the matter. When did that become part of the discussion? I simply said that I disagree with it and gave all of my reasons. You keep trying to make this a "me vs you" argument and it's not. I'm simply giving my opinion. The fact that you are being so defensive about this and getting so upset that I disagree with you indicates how weak your justification of it is. If ear piercing babies was really justifiable ethically, then you wouldn't be getting so upset with me for suggesting otherwise. This is simply a difference of opinion.

Yes, and your answer was wrong for the reasons that I indicated!

Well, sarcasm notwithstanding, it is what it is! And until you can reconcile the fact that you have caused pain to an infant for no beneficial reason to them (superficial reasons based on the parents vanity does not count as a benefit to the child), then my point still stands. It's unethical!

You're right, ethics does deal with morality and you can't use an argument of "preference" to justify pain (unless the preference is the person who is the recipiant of the pain). It is YOUR preference, but you are not the one who pain is being inflicted on and that's how it becomes a MORAL issue, because it's NOT the preference of the baby!

I agree, that WOULD be sad and that's exactly why I'm against piercing ears of baby girls. Because I find it to be a form of abuse, and the fact that it is happening to someone else doesn't lead me to believe that it suddenly becomes "okay" based on that or that it's something that I shouldn't have an opinion on.

I'll take that as a concession and rest my case (otherwise you would have actually had a rebuttle for it).

And that is typically how these sorts of arguments end when a parent "who has the legal right to do something" can no longer justify it ethically beyond what rights the law gives them. "Because I said so". But apparently, I've made my point pretty clearly (which was my only intent), even though you disagree.

No I wouldn't because I actually would agree with that 100%. It's not ethical. The vast majority of pediatricians say it's not ethical and even a lot of doctors who at one time did it (or who still do) say its unethical. So there is really no doubt about that anymore!

Yes you are! You jumped down my throat because I gave an opinion that was contrary to your "preference". I have neither grandstanded nor huffed, I've simply disagreed.

I'm not getting mad, I simply said that I find it to be unethical. That was my opinion and then YOU got mad at Supernova when the question was brought up (why would you do it). Then YOU got offended when I said I believed that "superficial decisions based on vanity that cause pain to a baby for no benefit makes someone an irresponsible parent". Again, that was only my opinion which you attacked. The first (and so far only) person to "get mad" in this discussion was you. But like I said, there is no reason to get mad because it's a fundamental disagreement that would should probably agree to disagree about.

CatEyes10736 wrote:I would get my daughters ears pierced, but not as a baby. Probably later on, when she's post toddler stage. By then she'll want it.

thepossiblepolice wrote:I would never do it. I think all body modifications should be the choice of the person whose body is being modified, unless the risks of not doing it outweigh the risks of doing it.

Piercing pros and cons IMO:
pros: it's cute

cons: it hurts, it could get infected, it could get pulled out of her ear, she could develop a metal allergy from it, she could get scar tissue, she could choke on it, she could hate it and it could be bothering her and she wouldn't be able to tell me...

Supernova wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:I would never do it. I think all body modifications should be the choice of the person whose body is being modified, unless the risks of not doing it outweigh the risks of doing it.

Piercing pros and cons IMO:
pros: it's cute

cons: it hurts, it could get infected, it could get pulled out of her ear, she could develop a metal allergy from it, she could get scar tissue, she could choke on it, she could hate it and it could be bothering her and she wouldn't be able to tell me...

^This is what people need to think about before they play Customize Me Barbie with their kids.