Mothers are entering a heated debate as to whether piercing a baby's ears can be considered "child abuse" and "mutilation."
While it's rather difficult to find reliable information about how many babies have their ears pierced, it's safe to estimate that about eight out of 10 girls under the age of three-years-old get ear piercing.
Piercing statistics at the Statistic Brain website claims that 83 percent of Americans have had their earlobes pierced, but since ear piercing is not something that needs to be registered or monitored, a lot relies on guesswork. Other statistics say that only about 10 to 20 percent of U.S. women have opted not to have their ears pierced.
But it's the fact that piercing a child's ears is most of the times done without the consent of the child that has concerned mothers all fired up on social media.
Mothers are weighing in whether piercing a baby's ears is "cute" and harmless or if it's comparable to "child abuse" and "mutilation," considering that the same statistics by Statistic Brain suggests that nearly a third of all piercings have complications.
When piercing a child's ears, there are quite a few health concerns that must be taken into account, including scarring, bleeding, allergies, and infections that require treatment with so-harmful-for-a-young-body antibiotics.
The Facebook debate, sparked by an article about how moms feel about ear piercing that had been done when they were children, has hundreds of concerned mothers throwing diapers and milk bottles at one another, with some claiming that piercing a baby's ears is harmless, and others saying it's "awful" and "wrong" to be hurting a child.
While the debate is rather useless – like pretty much any Facebook debate – and it will still be down to moms whether or not to pierce their children's ears, many users have called to make it illegal to be piercing a child's ears without the child's consent.
One outraged mother wrote that pierced ears at an early age should be made illegal, arguing that "punching holes in an infant's body just because they aren't old enough to contest it" is wrong, according to the Daily Mail.
Dozens of moms flooded the discussion arguing that piercing a child's ears is a "harmless" way to make their daughters "prettier." The moms supporting ear piercing argued that their children can take the jewelry out if they don't like it later on.
Those calling ear piercing a "mutilation" of a child's body hit back, reminding other concerned moms out there that piercing a baby's ears bears a number of health risks for a baby, which include allergies, infections, swelling, pain, redness, keloid scar formation, and tearing, according to Romper.
An outraged mom named Sally Saunders argued that piercing a baby's ears is a "legalized" form of "child abuse," writing, "think about it, you're hurting a baby and your reasoning is that they won't remember it later and it's cute."
Another concerned mom revealed that Claire's, one of the most popular clinics in the U.K. that offers ear piercing, is "super unsanitary," claiming that she had worked there. "They only clean those guns with an alcohol swab," the mom wrote.
There's also the risk of a baby pulling at the earrings and tearing piercings, which was the case experienced by one of the moms in the comment section.
"I had my daughters ears pierced at 2 months old. When she was about 2 she decided she didn't want them in and started pulling at them."While the debate whether piercing a baby's ears is safe and harmless or it's "child abuse" and "mutilation" rages on, millions of girls have pierced ears before they even learn to talk.
[Featured Image by Stock-Studio/Shutterstock]