One of my friends posted this on Facebook, and I thought it was an interesting argument about double standards, I had never heard the piercing / circumcision debate discussed this way:
"Now, I've heard this argument time and time again.. how parents won't pierce their daughter's ears until SHE'S ready and responsible to take care of them. Though I respect that, and am in no way, shape or form out to attack anyone for the choices they've made for their children.. I am bewildered why piercing your daughter's ear at such a young age has become more taboo than circumcising your son just days after his birth. Why the double standard? Why is it more ok to sign away your son, without his consent, to a procedure using anesthesia and restraints with an outcome that is irreversible and unnecessary but such a big deal to sign a consent form for a tiny hole that is no more painful than an immunization shot and can heal if later not desired? I just don't get it..."
I know the controversy on CM: those that think neither is Ok, those that think both are fine...but if you are in the middle ground - why? (and please be civil and respectful, this is a great drama-free group for the most part)