Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«6 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Part of Everything
Feb 1, 2005

He clenched his teeh and walked out of the study

A lot of people insist on getting their babies' ears pierced, but often times can't articulate why this is a good idea. Other forms of piercing require the piercee to be of a certain age of consent. Why not ear piercing?

Cons to infant ear piercing:

-Child cannot consent to a procedure that will permanently alter their body.
-Unexpected pain inflicted, frightening/possibly traumatizing child.
-Risk of infection.
-Risk of injury as baby may tug on piercing.

Pros:
Baby looks pretty.

Is there any instance where piercing is actually of benefit to an infant? I'm having a hard time finding one.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Woozy
Jan 3, 2006
I WAS TOO BUSY SWALLOWING GOVERNMENT COCK TO NOTICE THE IRONY OF CRITICIZING CAPITALISM, WHEN ASKING THE GAMES FORUM ABOUT ORDERING THE GAME, CAPITALISM, WITH MY WELFARE CHECK.

I AM GLAD "SOMEONE ELSE" PAID FOR THIS TITLE. AH WELL, BACK TO WORK. *SLURP**GULP*


Is it finals week already?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

ThirdPartyView
Mar 7, 2005

Always bet on Duke!

Part of Everything posted:

-Child cannot consent to a procedure that will permanently alter their body.

Wouldn't this also be the case in a bris?

Part of Everything
Feb 1, 2005

He clenched his teeh and walked out of the study

Woozy posted:

Is it finals week already?

I'm 33 with a full time job, but nice try. No, an acquaintance got her baby's ears pierced today. And posted a video of the child crying in distress for all to see while cooing, "Don't cry. Look how pretty you are!" I found it distasteful and thought it would make a good topic.

ThirdReichNRoll
Nov 21, 2005



ThirdPartyView posted:

Wouldn't this also be the case in a bris?
Yes, which is why a lot of people oppose that as well.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005



Part of Everything posted:

A lot of people insist on getting their babies' ears pierced, but often times can't articulate why this is a good idea. Other forms of piercing require the piercee to be of a certain age of consent. Why not ear piercing?
...
-Child cannot consent to a procedure that will permanently alter their body.

Is there really a permanent, non-trivial change? Piercings for stud earings close pretty quickly and aren't particularly visible without an earing in.

They seem pretty close to a regularly re-applied henna design in terms of innocuousness.

Part of Everything
Feb 1, 2005

He clenched his teeh and walked out of the study

ThirdPartyView posted:

Wouldn't this also be the case in a bris?

Yes, but there are both medical benefits and drawbacks to circumcision, whereas with ear piercing there don't seem to be medical benefits.

Circumcision benefits:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/i...120827?irpc=932

The only cases of 'benefit' to ear piercing I could find were religious, not medical. Example is Hindu.
http://www.hindu-blog.com/2009/11/e...edh-or.html?m=1

E: unless you specifically mean a traditional (oral procedure) bris, which is a whole nother can of worms.

Part of Everything
Feb 1, 2005

He clenched his teeh and walked out of the study

falcon2424 posted:

Is there really a permanent, non-trivial change? Piercings for stud earings close pretty quickly and aren't particularly visible without an earing in.

They seem pretty close to a regularly re-applied henna design in terms of innocuousness.

I had 2 piercing a in each ear when I was 12. I rarely ended up wearing anything in the second holes, so I stopped and decided to let them close. They never did. After years without anything in them they are still quite visible and I can still get a stud through.

Ireland Sucks
May 16, 2004




With the exception of UTIs (which are a pretty minimal in severity and risk anyway) all of the benefits listed only apply when the person is old enough to decide on circumcision for themselves. I've seen enough people regret having been circumsiced as an infant that I don't think the risk/benefit analysis is for the parents to make.

I don't like piercing infant ears either but the impact is a lot lower when the recipient is old enough to dislike it. Also everything frightens infants, I don't really buy the risk of pain traumatising them.

Thesoro
Dec 6, 2005
SPY please tell us how molle's smegma tastes while you mine it out of llondon's black hole in empire space.

The problem here is that you're basically misunderstanding the issue.

Part of Everything posted:

-Child cannot consent to a procedure that will permanently alter their body.
The child can't give consent--I can't argue with that--but the alteration is very minor, basically invisible, and has no negative side effects.

Part of Everything posted:

-Unexpected pain inflicted, frightening/possibly traumatizing child.
I guess we shouldn't vaccinate children? I find it hard to believe that it could permanently traumatize a child.

Part of Everything posted:

-Risk of infection.
This is a concern, but if the parents are on the ball they can keep it clean pretty easily.

Part of Everything posted:

-Risk of injury as baby may tug on piercing.
It's not like you put a hoop in there--it's just a little stud to keep the hole open. Besides which, the hole will be a bit sore so the baby isn't very likely to pull on it.

Part of Everything posted:

Pros:
Baby looks pretty.
This is where you're really the furthest off the mark. It's not so the baby can wear earrings and look pretty. It's so the piercings will never heal over when the child grows up. My girlfriend is an infrequent earring wearer and has often told me how glad she is that her parents had her ears pierced as an baby. She doesn't have to worry about healing over, no matter when she wears earrings.

Millsy
Dec 28, 2004
All's fair in love and bouncy bouncy.

Part of Everything posted:

I'm 33 with a full time job, but nice try. No, an acquaintance got her baby's ears pierced today. And posted a video of the child crying in distress for all to see while cooing, "Don't cry. Look how pretty you are!" I found it distasteful and thought it would make a good topic.

Babies cry all the time. They cry because they have to fart. They cry because they're babies. It may be for the mother's benefit but that doesn't mean the child's life will be affected in any way at all, except that she won't have to get her ears pierced at an age where she'll know what's coming.

OAquinas
Jan 27, 2008
Ye Olde Newb

Its very prevalent with Hispanic families. Wha-hey, Venezuelan wife!
We had our daughter's ears pierced when she was 5 months old. Distracted her with a bottle and she was upset for all of 5 minutes. After that she's never messed with them or seemed bothered by them.

Way I look at it, she's pre-cognizant and its much easier to keep sterile and clean than if we did it when she was 8 ("stop picking at it!").

Done properly (read: not at Claire's) its really not that big of a deal.

John McCain
Jan 28, 2009


Thesoro posted:

It's not so the baby can wear earrings and look pretty. It's so the piercings will never heal over when the child grows up. My girlfriend is an infrequent earring wearer and has often told me how glad she is that her parents had her ears pierced as an baby. She doesn't have to worry about healing over, no matter when she wears earrings.

What if the child grows up and doesn't actually want a permanent set of holes in their ears?

Khanstant
Apr 5, 2007


John McCain posted:

What if the child grows up and doesn't actually want a permanent set of holes in their ears?

They deal with it? What if the child grows up and doesn't want a set of ugly face on it's shoulders? Sometimes your parents make decisions and you are a child and have to live with it. It's going to be okay.

Pierre
Jan 9, 2011



John McCain posted:

What if the child grows up and doesn't actually want a permanent set of holes in their ears?

It's not that easy to notice ear piercings and if anybody does they're unlikely to care. Assuming it's still a problem the child can seal up the ear holes with a silicone gun.

John McCain
Jan 28, 2009


Khanstant posted:

They deal with it? What if the child grows up and doesn't want a set of ugly face on it's shoulders? Sometimes your parents make decisions and you are a child and have to live with it. It's going to be okay.

"Ugly face" which is presumably fundamentally unchangeable (and, in any case, is not something a parent opts to do to their child) is different from "permanent results of cosmetic body modification".

Bottom line, there's no reason to allow parents to unilaterally subject their children to cosmetic surgery.

Crane Fist
Jun 5, 2012

We are the dogs
Beaten without any remorse


John McCain posted:

Bottom line, there's no reason to allow parents to unilaterally subject their children to cosmetic surgery.

You're right, there really isn't, but that's completely irrelevant to the current discussion which is about ear piercing.

John McCain
Jan 28, 2009


Crane Fist posted:

You're right, there really isn't, but that's completely irrelevant to the current discussion which is about ear piercing.

Ear piercing is cosmetic surgery.

Let me ask you this: if piercing the ears of infants is acceptable, then what about gauging their ears? What about labret, nipple, tongue, navel, or genital piercings? If not, what distinguishes these practices from ear piercing?

Crane Fist
Jun 5, 2012

We are the dogs
Beaten without any remorse


John McCain posted:

Ear piercing is cosmetic surgery.

Let me ask you this: if piercing the ears of infants is acceptable, then what about gauging their ears? What about labret, nipple, tongue, navel, or genital piercings? If not, what distinguishes these practices from ear piercing?

Uh... Just about everything? You're being disingenuous as hell here. Ear piercings are so widespread they're not even noteworthy and something that just about everyone gets sooner or later, I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have one. Provided the parents aren't idiots there's basically no risk of causing any permenent damage, unlike with the other things you listed. This is a complete non-issue and the only way to turn it into one is to do what you've done and jump headfirst down the slippery slope shrieking hysterically

rudatron
May 31, 2011



A child is not property of the parents, a parent is simply a carer for a child until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. A parent is therefore not in a position to decide on ear piercings or other cosmetic modifications because the child is their own person, even if they are not in the position to make them decision for themselves just yet.

It's incredibly arrogant to project your own personal preference onto someone who cannot actually fight back, and then say 'well you'll never notice' if they grow up and happen not to like it.

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004
I hate tarsiformes

rudatron posted:

A child is not property of the parents, a parent is simply a carer for a child until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. A parent is therefore not in a position to decide on ear piercings or other cosmetic modifications because the child is their own person, even if they are not in the position to make them decision for themselves just yet.
Children are their own person, and that person is not competent to make decisions. Which is why parents make decisions for them. How far would you take your ban on "cosmetic modifications"? There are a number of medically beneficial but not medically necessary cosmetic procedures that are best performed in early childhood.

Teddles
Sep 2, 2011


Rent-A-Cop posted:

Children are their own person, and that person is not competent to make decisions. Which is why parents make decisions for them.

Parents should only make necessary decisions for their children. Ear-piercings are not one of these.

Miguel Angel Face
Apr 1, 2012
I AM THE GHOST OF DON BRASH FROM 2005, IF YOU DON'T SAY "ONE LAW FOR ALL" FIVE TIMES IN THE MIRROR I'LL COME INTO YOUR THREAD TONIGHT AND SPOUT RACIST DOGWHISTLES FOR TWENTY PAGES


John McCain posted:

Ear piercing is cosmetic surgery.

Not in any meaningful sense.

Hint: Cosmetic surgery can only be provided by a licensed medical practitioner.

Mimetic
May 10, 2012

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because fuck you.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

There are a number of medically beneficial but not medically necessary cosmetic procedures that are best performed in early childhood.

Are you trying to draw a link between ear piercing and procedures like surgery to repair a cleft palate? Because they're not really comparable on any level.

Stottie Kyek
Apr 26, 2008

fuckin egg in a bun

Pretty much all the reputable, clean, well-run piercing and tattoo places I've seen have strict age limits and ask for ID. Most of them say you have to be at least 12-14 for ear piercing, 16 (or 14 with parental consent) for other piercings and 18 for tattoos. If a shop's willing to pierce small children I'd be really worried about its staff's professionalism and standards of care, particularly since babies have much worse immune systems than adults and can't fight off infections as easily.

That might be a cultural thing, though, in the UK piercing babies is seen as a bit creepy, pretty much for the reasons in the OP. Also because it's considered terribly chav. Maybe in other countries where it's more mainstream, otherwise responsible piercers are willing to do it, which makes it a bit safer, but it's still body modification without consent, which is not very nice.

I can understand people doing it in ancient times when they thought some kinds of jewellery warded off evil spirits, but when no one believes that now there's not much point.

oxsnard
Oct 8, 2003

Big XII Doormat

Stottie Kyek posted:

Pretty much all the reputable, clean, well-run piercing and tattoo places I've seen have strict age limits and ask for ID. Most of them say you have to be at least 12-14 for ear piercing, 16 (or 14 with parental consent) for other piercings and 18 for tattoos. If a shop's willing to pierce small children I'd be really worried about its staff's professionalism and standards of care, particularly since babies have much worse immune systems than adults and can't fight off infections as easily.

That might be a cultural thing, though, in the UK piercing babies is seen as a bit creepy, pretty much for the reasons in the OP. Also because it's considered terribly chav. Maybe in other countries where it's more mainstream, otherwise responsible piercers are willing to do it, which makes it a bit safer, but it's still body modification without consent, which is not very nice.



It's accepted as normal in many Latino families in America. Some Italian Americans do it too. I think it looks completely silly, but there's no child welfare reason to ban it.

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


According to a random CNN article, about 20% of infants given ear piercings suffer minor complications (infection, etc.) while 3% suffer major complications which can include death. I'd assume that is the child welfare reason to not do it.

- Aside from the argument that you're punching wholly unnecessary permanent holes in the child, without consent, which they may find to be an irritation.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

A homeless person was out on the street, looked up at me and said, "Draft Manziel." Just like that.

And that convinced me, that the Cleveland Browns' fans wanted Manziel.

Warbadger posted:

According to a random CNN article, about 20% of infants given ear piercings suffer minor complications (infection, etc.) while 3% suffer major complications which can include death. I'd assume that is the child welfare reason to not do it.

- Aside from the argument that you're punching wholly unnecessary permanent holes in the child, without consent, which they may find to be an irritation.

How common is the practice though? I've literally never heard of it before.

oxsnard
Oct 8, 2003

Big XII Doormat

You deliberately mis-cited the article in question

quote:

About 20% of baby girls suffer minor complications from ear piercing; about 3% suffer major ones. Complications include swelling, drainage, infection, bleeding, cyst formation, large scars and trauma.

There is no definition of what "major" is in that article. And for the record, babies who are prone to skin infections get them regardless of what you do. My 7 month old has already had a few infections from scratching herself. I mean I would never pierce my infant's ears but I'm highly doubtful that it's some sort of high risk procedure

computer parts posted:

How common is the practice though? I've literally never heard of it before.

Come to the American southwest and go to a walmart

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


oxsnard posted:

You deliberately mis-cited the article in question


There is no definition of what "major" is in that article. And for the record, babies who are prone to skin infections get them regardless of what you do. My 7 month old has already had a few infections from scratching herself. I mean I would never pierce my infant's ears but I'm highly doubtful that it's some sort of high risk procedure


Please elaborate.

As for complications: "Complications include swelling, drainage, infection, bleeding, cyst formation, large scars and trauma."

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

FLAVA FLAV!!!!!

The thing about this is that for many people, even if you were to make it illegal, people are still going to have it done anyways.

But there is medical research that says that keloids occur much more often in those after age 11 than before age 11 (Lane, Waller, & Davis, 2005). I guess a 11 year old is not an infant, but they aren't perfectly rational either.

oxsnard
Oct 8, 2003

Big XII Doormat

That article says nothing about death yet you decided to add it to your argument. Also, the definition of "major" and "minor" is not defined. It very well could be that the minor complications require bandaging and or topical cream and the major complications include all infections that require oral antibiotics. There's no way to know without digging up the study referenced.

That article is not sufficient to make a child welfare argument

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


blackguy32 posted:

The thing about this is that for many people, even if you were to make it illegal, people are still going to have it done anyways.

But there is medical research that says that keloids occur much more often in those after age 11 than before age 11 (Lane, Waller, & Davis, 2005). I guess a 11 year old is not an infant, but they aren't perfectly rational either.

The health concern is simply that you are risking the kid's health without consent for a purely cosmetic procedure.

oxsnard posted:

That article says nothing about death yet you decided to add it to your argument. Also, the definition of "major" and "minor" is not defined. It very well could be that the minor complications require bandaging and or topical cream and the major complications include all infections that require oral antibiotics. There's no way to know without digging up the study referenced.

That article is not sufficient to make a child welfare argument

Infections in infants are a major health concern due to underdeveloped immune systems and infections from piercings have caused death even in adults. The definition of major and minor is unnecessary given that the provided list includes serious health issues.

Elaborate on how risking infection/scarring/etc. for an unnecessary cosmetic procedure in an infant is NOT a child welfare argument?

Narciss
Nov 29, 2004

by angerbeet


I can't imagine many things trashier than giving an infant a big set of hoop earrings.

Pochoclo
Feb 4, 2008
I like bread

I live in Argentina and ear piercing girl infants is the norm over here. In the provincial areas, this means a lot of infections because the hospitals are rarely clean places, and to top it all off, many people do it themselves at their homes, which makes it even worse.
It is seen as a normal thing, but I despise the practice - it may not be as damaging as circumcision (which gladly only the jewish people do over here) and religious indoctrination, but it's almost as bad.

Korak
Nov 29, 2007
TV FACIST

Thesoro posted:

It's not like you put a hoop in there--it's just a little stud to keep the hole open. Besides which, the hole will be a bit sore so the baby isn't very likely to pull on it.
Friend's baby caught it on something and it ripped her little ear completely open. It does and can happen.

There are no logical reasons to pierce a baby's ears. It shouldn't be allowed.

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


Part of Everything posted:

A lot of people insist on getting their babies' ears pierced
Man, sometimes I read these forums and think, "There is literally no issue too stupid for the developed world." Not to belittle the discussion, we might as well discuss anything. Still, it's just like every time I think, "Yeah, we've finally hit the bar on the first world's trivial self-absorbed nonsense," something new pops up.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

FLAVA FLAV!!!!!

What boggles my mind is that we are still promoting baby formula as a nation. If there is anything I have learned from my clinical rotation, it's that 1)Breastfeeding is pretty drat important 2) Hospitals get all kinds of free poo poo from formula companies to give to new mothers to get them to use formula instead.

So I think that the formula commercials and the hawking formula to maternity wards should be made illegal. You would probably have much much more luck with that than trying to rid something that is culturally ingrained in many people's minds.

Nevvy Z
Jan 3, 2004

This is a pretty dumb contest.

Korak posted:

There are no logical reasons to xxxx. It shouldn't be allowed.

I can't think of anything. Because there are literally trillions. This is the dumbest argument you could ever use for anything.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Farmer Crack-Ass
Jan 2, 2001

this is me posting irl


Part of Everything posted:

Cons to infant ear piercing:

-Unexpected pain inflicted, frightening/possibly traumatizing child.

Pros:
Baby looks pretty.

To me, this is the deal-killer right here. Leaving aside the issue of body-modification, piercing an infant's ears is inflicting pain without consent or benefit to the child, and that's wrong.

  • Post
  • Reply
«6 »