Infant Ear Piercing

[Giliell]

It is the right of the child to have their body as intact as possible until they can make an informed decission to ruin it themselves

I do not condone or support the word "ruin", it implies judgment against body modification by informed adults to other informed consenting adults. Personally I generally don't find it attractive, but to say that means they've "ruined" their bodies seems a bit judgmental.

Sorry, I think I didn't convey what I meant as well as I should have.
It was not meant to imply that piercings, tatoos and such ruin a body. It was meant to be said jokingly, I obviously failed.
Let me put it more elaborately and hopefully clearly.
We make a lot of decissions that are unwise or risky or just plain stupid.
A lot of things are not very good for our bodies.
But, well, they are our bodies and therefore it is, to a certain extend, none of anybody elses business.
With children, it's a different thing. As a parent I don't feel allowed to make some choices that are perfectly right for myself to make. I don't take them bungee-jumping. I don't feed them pizza and fast food all the time driving their BMI over the top. I am totally opposed to smoking in their presence. Because I think it's their right to arrive at the point when they can make those decissions themselves with as many options as possible. They should be able to choose to eat healthily and keep a normal body weight, or to eat too fat and gain weight. To go bungee jumping, drive without their seatbelts, smoke. Or not to do it. I don't want them to arrive at that point overweight, with asthma because of permanent secondary smoke and a fear of heights because I took them bungee jumping as toddlers.
More clear?

 

[tangoen]

It sounds like if you do not allow people to do these things you might infringe on their rights. like the topic of circumcision comes to mind and has already been discussed here. you wouldn't make a south american tribal person refrain from body modification as it might be very important to their religous beliefs. (however i doudt the apply this to infants) (and circumcision is sometimes a sanitary issue as well as just a religious stipulation)

on the other hand however doing anything to children who have no voice of their own should always represent the childs' well being above all else. yes a piercing does no harm but what good does it do them.Piercing your child so the parent gets to have a "cuter" child. not really a good enough reason in my books. it seems to me that a lot of parents these days belive that they have some kind of ownership to their children . This is unfair because children like this are always born with a role to fill to appease their parents. it's very rare that people parent children for anything other than selfish reasons so this doesn't suprise me at all. oh and have you seen the baby booties shaped like high heel shoes ugh disgusting

 

[tangoen]

Also as a member of the body mod community, and a person who holds strong opinions about gender issues, I'm also against infant circumcision because it is 1) a permanent body modification 2) involuntary 3) unnecessary 4) actually increases risk to health and well being - and for what? For the myth that it's "sanitary and healthful"? Or who about the gynocrentric "women like it better" - really? What would society do if men said "we liked our women without clitori" and campaigned to have a form of female circumcision introduced? Just imagine.

I

I think the sanatary issue was very real when people began doing it keep in mind that not everyone bathed everyday back then or in every part of the world today. oh and for some reason the word clitori just makes me smile

 

[freedom0f5peech]

I think the sanatary issue was very real when people began doing it keep in mind that not everyone bathed everyday back then or in every part of the world today. oh and for some reason the word clitori just makes me smile

This opinion about a (fictional) history of circumcision to remain sanitary seems to be slowly growing in North America, little by little, decade after decade. But is there any justification in this hypothesized history of days long passed?

To this day, there is not a single historical record ever found of circumcision being performed for medical or hygienic reasons before the Victorian era. It's only in the last few decades that some have begun to assume (parrot the idea, that) it must have been for sanitary purposes. That's a bold assertion when lacking any evidence. It's even stranger to think this could have been the reason when real historical purposes are clearly recorded (namely; sacrificial, ceremonial and rite-of-passage). How one jumps from a blood sacrificial ritual into the blind assumption (while rewriting history to claim) that it was for sanitation is quite extraordinary, and shows just how far people are willing to jump through hoops in order to rationalize a new purpose (a "historical revision") for circumcision.

Just for the fun of it, let's do 2 back flip's over Occam's Razor and irrationally assume it could have been for sanitation reasons for a moment, and see what happens (1 back flip for making an assumption without evidence, and another to ignore the contrary reasons clearly cited throughout history).

How often do men (not circumcised) get infections and other problems? How often do women (not circumcised) get infections and other problems? Let's first take a look at UTI's. About 40% of women will have a UTI at some point in her life, while only 12% of men(ref). 75 percent of all women are likely to have at least one yeast infection, and about 45 percent have 2 or more(ref), while yeast infections are extraordinarily rare in men. UTI's alone are almost 4 times as common among women than men, and I estimate that yeast infections are likely more than 8 times as common among women than men.

With infection rates 4-8 times higher in women than men, you would assume we would have started cutting women first if circumcision truly began as a sanitary measure against infection. Not only is infection more common among women, but curing male infection is much easier than female infection (considering that the site to cleanse is clearly visible, not so for the female anatomy).

But let's put that aside and assume we didn't notice the women getting infected and that we only focused on the men (making yet a 3rd extraordinary back flip and mental jump over Occam's Razor).

You're living in the desert, 2-3 thousand years ago. There is an extraordinarily slim chance that you could die of a genital related infection. What do you think is more likely to kill you? The very slim chance of getting a penile infection? Or the highly probable infection due to cutting into healthy tissue with a sharp stone in the middle of the desert?

 

[tangoen]

I think the sanatary issue was very real when people began doing it keep in mind that not everyone bathed everyday back then or in every part of the world today. oh and for some reason the word clitori just makes me smile

This opinion about a (fictional) history of circumcision to remain sanitary seems to be slowly growing in North America, little by little, decade after decade. But is there any justification in this hypothesized history of days long passed?

To this day, there is not a single historical record ever found of circumcision being performed for medical or hygienic reasons before the Victorian era. It's only in the last few decades that some have begun to assume (parrot the idea, that) it must have been for sanitary purposes. That's a bold assertion when lacking any evidence. It's even stranger to think this could have been the reason when real historical purposes are clearly recorded (namely; sacrificial, ceremonial and rite-of-passage). How one jumps from a blood sacrificial ritual into the blind assumption (while rewriting history to claim) that it was for sanitation is quite extraordinary, and shows just how far people are willing to jump through hoops in order to rationalize a new purpose (a "historical revision") for circumcision.

Just for the fun of it, let's do 2 back flip's over Occam's Razor and irrationally assume it could have been for sanitation reasons for a moment, and see what happens (1 back flip for making an assumption without evidence, and another to ignore the contrary reasons clearly cited throughout history).

How often do men (not circumcised) get infections and other problems? How often do women (not circumcised) get infections and other problems? Let's first take a look at UTI's. About 40% of women will have a UTI at some point in her life, while only 12% of men (ref). 75 percent of all women are likely to have at least one yeast infection, and about 45 percent have 2 or more (ref), while yeast infections are extraordinarily rare in men. UTI's alone are almost 4 times as common among women than men, and I estimate that yeast infections are likely more than 8 times as common among women than men.

With infection rates 4-8 times higher in women than men, you would assume we would have started cutting women first if circumcision truly began as a sanitary measure against infection. Not only is infection more common among women, but curing male infection is much easier than female infection (considering that the site to cleanse is clearly visible, not so for the female anatomy).

But let's put that aside and assume we didn't notice the women getting infected and that we only focused on the men (making yet a 3rd extraordinary back flip and mental loop over Occam's Razor).

You're living in the desert, 2-3 thousand years ago. There is an extraordinarily slim chance that you could die of a genital related infection. What do you think is more likely to kill you? The very slim chance of getting a penile infection? Or the highly probable infection due to cutting into healthy tissue with a sharp stone in the middle of the dessert?

your right i'm wrong enjoy it. but as for the snide remark that lumps me in with every north american. I'm not sure you should be so general if i said the comment address your answer to me not all of north america.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

your right i'm wrong enjoy it. but as for the snide remark that lumps me in with every north american. I'm not sure you should be so general if i said the comment address your answer to me not all of north america.

The response is for anyone reading, and not necessarily directed at you, but for anyone who has thought (or wondered if) circumcision was performed for sanitary reasons thousands of years ago. I'm sure you likely read (or heard) this elsewhere, and to the originator goes the blame (wherever that chain originates).

 

[tangoen]

Just thinking about this and it occured to me that maybe "sanitary" implies health when the proper word might be "cleanliness" I actually made the decision to have one as an adult and without unnecessary details It is a cleaner option. Yes I'm probably not at any less of risk of Infection (And shortly afterward I was certainly at a greater risk) But nevertheless it did me no harm and only provided benefits as I can see it. Everyone should have the right to choose. There is no reason why people should force people to do it when they are children as it is purely possible to have one as an adult nowadays especially with modern painkillers it was a harmless procedure. As for your point about health reasons though I certainly agree it isn't as sound as I may have previously thought

 

[Giliell]

Just thinking about this and it occured to me that maybe "sanitary" implies health when the proper word might be "cleanliness" I actually made the decision to have one as an adult and without unnecessary details It is a cleaner option. Yes I'm probably not at any less of risk of Infection (And shortly afterward I was certainly at a greater risk) But nevertheless it did me no harm and only provided benefits as I can see it. Everyone should have the right to choose. There is no reason why people should force people to do it when they are children as it is purely possible to have one as an adult nowadays especially with modern painkillers it was a harmless procedure. As for your point about health reasons though I certainly agree it isn't as sound as I may have previously thought

Which is a position I think all of us who argue against any such thing done to infants are totally fine with. That's all we're asking for: Let them make the decission themselves