Ear piercing and circumcision in childhood: is it ethical?
Yes
No
0voters
It is common in a lot of cultures to mutilate the body in a young age, without any consent from the “victim”. In the case of circumcision it is obviously forever altering a part of the body. In the case of ear piercing the place of the hole will forever remain and in the majority of the cases the hole itself won’t close.
Is it ethical? Why is it going on? The instinct of submission is greater than the instinct of self-determination?
Circumcizing is done for religious and now primarily as health reasons. We had our son circumcized for health reasons.
Ear pearcing on little ones is hardly painful. 99% of kids hurt themselves worse everyday, bumping falling stumbling into onto things. They get worse cuts and contusions then a tiny hole in a lobe that doesn’t even bleed.
The only ethical question is vanity or culture? Are you doing it to follow tradition and health or is the child a plaything to decorate as you choose.
that is the ethical part.
I don’t think Kriswest, that ear piercing or circumcision is about the amount of the actual hurting or the scale of the wound. These are marks which can be significant later in life. Piercing the ears of girls can be a way to force them to be submissive, force them to be a sex object. It is a ritual and unconscious way to declare that they are just living objects waiting to be penetrated. A woman with pierced ears unconsciously shows herself as a desired object waiting to be admired and penetrated. It is good for the majority of women, so they won’t see any problem in getting pierced earrings as a child. But what about those who don’t wish to be admired this way? What about those who don’t like the submissive undertones of ear piercing, because it makes them more “submissively” feminine and presumably more weak in the eyes of their male colleagues and competitors?
Is teaching a religion and making the child to follow the religion all without the consent of the child is ethical? I think it is not easy to answer your question. You have to see it in a cultural relativistic perspective. You are juding those cultures from the Western point of view which is not fair.
robo_sapien: these practices are not symbolic or intellectual practices. Once you are marked by this way, you practically cannot reverse it. Ear piercing is clearly visible because it is almost part of your face and circumcision will become obvious in every sexual relationship. What if this causes trauma to the modified person? Which culture says that suffering is good?
While we’re at it, is giving an infant a vaccination equally unethical?
There is a scar left on the body that lasts into adulthood. However, the function of the body part doesn’t change, and the benefits for health are clearly understood.
I’ve just described both a vaccination, as well as a circumcision.
By the way, you should really reconsider your choice of words. “Victim.” “Mutilate.”
Ezrach: I didn’t want to offend anybody. But the fact that these general questions can offend someone shows that there is a conflict of moral judgement. In my opinion ear piercing and circumcision in childhood is an attempt by society to form and to regulate a child by marking it forever. The institution of marking a child is an unconscious attempt to determine the child’s place in life and in society irreversibly. Anyway I am not against body modification. I have several modifications myself, but this is my decision only: I decide where and how to modify my body. Everybody should have this choice.
Having any kind of scarring is not equal with ear piercing or circumcision. These are wounds of the erogenous zones and can be highly visible (well in certain situations). They are intimate sexually important and sensible wounds, not simple wounds.
A study by the WHO has concluded that uncircumcized men have an 18X greater risk of contracting AIDS. Assuming that study is valid, that’s a pretty enormous risk vs being circumcized.
Castration would hinder reproductive abilities, thus it would wreck the future of the individual.
Contracting AIDS is the result of a choice to have insecure sex.
Infection is the result of non-sexual, everyday activity, and thus poses a threat to an uncircumcised child.
“Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [397].”
my ears were pearced now they are not, you can’t even see a scar.
I prefered helping my son by getting him circumcised because, I did not want him to suffer infections, sores and disease on that particular sensitive area. A common enough problem for young boys that are not. I believe life is rough enough without having to add sores that can be prevented. I asked him if he remembers any pain or any one teasing him about it. he does not. I asked my brothers and husband as are my husband’s 3 brothers and their sons. They are quite content. No mental scarring in this family perhaps we are all oddballs.
Culture is important, it ties generations together, it bonds. Some traditions may seem harmful because a few have had bad experinces does not condemn the whole practice. Now a family that follws the tradition of beating kids, molesting kids, general all around disgusting violent abuse, that is immoral.
Ah so so that caste system applies to the world? No don’t think so. ear pearcing in most western cultures is vanity not caste. There are remote cultures that do it still as caste. But then again there are huge moral objections to forcing tribes and cultures into the mainstream . So what do you want?
No, Zunya, castration would not prevent sexually transmitted disease. Half the population of our planet lacks penises, yet they can still contract STDs via other orifices. However, you could practice castrating yourself until you’ve got it perfected.
I’m not sure how effective circumcision is as an identifier of social groups. When I’m asked for ID I whip out my drivers liscence, not my cock. Things may be different where you live.
Perhaps not typical. What does that matter? Perhaps it should be, perhaps not. Certainly removal of some body parts as prevention is warranted. But this is clearly beyond the scope of the original question.
Never rely on logic when common sense can handle the job!
Any body part can be reduced to having zero risk of infection via its removal. But, that doesn’t mean that there is no other, more serious problem that would come about as the result of removing any other body part.
If you remove the eyes, they won’t be infected but you can’t see. If you remove the legs, they won’t be infected but you can’t walk.
If you remove the excess foreskin, the chance of infection is highly reduced, but you can still use the penis.
The human appendix is not removed unless trouble hits because it requires doctors to open a human body to get at it which is a dangerous procedure with a lot more risks.
Evolution is not perfect, and it can include useless traits, such as the mammalian diving reflex, which a mammal that lives life on dry land does not need, yet still has.
Furthermore, we can flip the original argument around on itself. It is an overly conservative culture that resents the alteration of the human body in order to serve as a benefit for health. It can be analyzed that the belief that the human body is perfect as the result of the blessing of some god, or some concept of omnipotent nature, is a hinderance in the modern medical world.
And, on the basis that circumcision was created in the belief that it was required by a mythical god, that’s not saying that there was not a deeper reason behind the writing of that particular scripture. It is also notable that consuming pig was forbidden according to the scriptures, pig being a filthy creature with a high risk food poisoning, in an age where disease was not understood. You can think of the original authors of the Tanakh as the ancient version of the WHO of our day.
95 % of the men I know are circumcised none had it done for religious reasons. They all have the ability to ejaculate or so they guffaw and brag and since most do have kids, I guess the proof is in the pudding. they seem to have a good time with their spouses or girlfriends or boyfriends.
As of about 25 to 22 yrs ago they stopped doing full circumcisions. Hospitals , when babies are born only do half circumcisions now unless otherwise requested for a full or none when the surgery discussion is brought to the parents. Drs reccomend halfs I believe. I think I will take the word of doctors over a portent.
Caste jewelery as far as that goes has little bearing outside of a few tribes or cliques. Is it wrong? By my standards yes, but will I force them to change that tradition? No, that is up to them.
you do realize that girls get circumcised too in certain parts of the world?
I got the “boys regular” cut as a wee lad. I just don’t miss the hood. What can I say? Is this important? Why such a big flap over such a little flap? Have I been cheated and don’t even know it? Can we make a list over everything we can possibly blame our parents for?
As for ear-piercing - who the fuck cares? I have a little hole in one lobe, I guess. Haven’t used it in a while. So what? It’s a little hole in my earlobe.
#1 on that blame your parents list. I am not an heiress to a disgustlingly wealthy fortune or wealthy fortune or fortune. my folks intend to spend it all (for that I am glad they deserve it =D> ) I blame my parents for not having extreme wealth.