The way I read it, it was the former, which happens to accord with how I feel about it as well.
I don't know how to multi-quote btu I agree with this statement by Gothchick:
" I feel extremely passionate about piercing babies ears, just as strongly as I do about circing. I'm not trivializing anything when I say I find them both the same, what I mean is I find them both absolutely (insert stuff I will probably get infracted for here). They should both be illegal imo."
A friend of mine pierced her baby girl's ears when she was a couple of months old. It stressed me out every time I looked at the poor litle mite.
Last edited by Artful; 29-04-2012 at 13:47.
They are similar in that are both injuries inflicted on the child. They are very different in that removing flesh is permanent while the hole in the ear is reversible. Also its a question of degree, a circumcision is more than 1,000 times more damaging than piercing an ear.Then her exact words were "it's absolutely no different to getting your daughter's ears pierced".
For a medical person to say this in the original context is completely unprofessional and thoroughly dishonest. I would love to know their basis for that remark. However that remark serves several purposes. It serves to establish an air of authority. It serves to trivalize and thus support circumcision. If the person performs circs it helps them to remain in denial about the harm they are doing.
I rank it with other silly statements sometimes said by crooked doctors such as:
There are no nerves in the penis at that age.
At that age its not really surgery.
At that age they cannot feel anything.
The plastibell doesn't involve any cutting.
And many other lies some doctors seem to make up on the spot.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!