Hypocritical or Uncorrelated?

Question

I hate to call attention to something somewhat unimportant but I've seen so many posts about circumcision and piercing babies ears. Do you guys feel as though it's fair to draw a parallel? For example, is it ok to be against circumcision and for getting a babies ears pierced? Or are they uncorrleated because one involves genitals and one involves external accessories? I'd love to hear your opinions 💗

Accepted Answer

They are unrelated, but, do still follow the same logic of "not your body, not your choice". As in, neither are necessary, and neither should be forced on a child when they can't consent.

Answer

You can't compare them because one is completely reversible. The other is not.

Answer

They cannot be compared. Causing a child pain for cosmetic reasons is disgusting no matter which it is. However... circumcision is a private thing that will affect them for the rest of their lives. You are taking a newborn, strapping them to the table, and cutting off their foreskin. Cutting off thousands of nerve endings, causing substantial pain, and starting a longer healing process. Getting a babies ears pierced is a second long sting, which may feel hot for a few minutes, and they can opt out of earrings.

Answer

I think they both fall under bodily autonomy. Both are unnecessary and should never be forced on infants or children that cannot consent and understand what is being done to them.

Answer

a parallel can be drawn. they are both unecessary and cosmetic. the difference is that ear piercing is only for vanity and no medical reason can be given, and they can close up one day. for circ. there are some "medical" reasons, and that will never be reversed. still not cool to do either

Answer

I think that hypocritical is definitely by the word you mean to use there lol.

I also think that they can be compared in some instances and not others. They are not the same. But they are also not completely and entirely different, either.

Answer

Unrelated for many reasons.

Answer

I don't think it's a fair comparison. While it can be argued that neither are necessary. One is done for vanity and the other is often done for religious or health reasons. So not the same at all in my opinion.

Answer

I do think they can be compared, altho one could argue that they vary greatly in degree. Earlobes and penises are worlds apart but both customs have some religious and or cultural significance. although arguments about religion or culture are common for both of these, however, the great majority of both procedures are done for cosmetic reasons. Even the American academy of pediatrics doesn't think it necessary, just not that risky so the parents can decide. I personally think any permanent alterations to one's body should be authorized only in emergency or the person themselves. I'm not going to tell others how to parent, but I would never make either choice for my children. I'm leaving it to them :-)

Answer

They are only slightly comparable. I can say I'd much rather have my ears unwittingly pierced than my genitals tampered with without my consent. However, both are definitely a violation of an individual's right to choose what happens to their person.

Hypocritical or Uncorrelated?

The Top Baby Tracker App: Embrace New Beginnings with Tender Care

The Top Fertility Tracker App: Your Path to Achieving Pregnancy

The Top Pregnancy App: Nurturing Your Journey to Motherhood

The Top Period Tracker for Empowering Your Menstrual Health Journey