The situations are analogous to a certain extent in terms of bioethical principles - bodily autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence etc. Both involve what is technically mutilation (no matter how attractive either is considered by the perpetrators) on healthy body parts; and both are painful procedures performed on non-consenting minors for cultural/aesthetic reasons.
Debating-wise, whether or not it's a good card to play depends on the company you're in. A lot of people don't think ear piercing is an issue at all, so comparing the two could cause circ to be downplayed in their minds. Tattooing is perhaps a better example, as most people would balk at the thought of doing that to a baby (perhaps because more people seem to regret their tattoos than their pierced ears? Or perhaps just because of cultural unfamiliarity, or the very strong connotations of permanence tattooing has.) And of course, circumcision is a far more severe procedure with sexual and functional consequences, whereas in theory a pierced ear will usually heal right up leaving only a small, barely-visible scar. Yes, complications can happen, which is another reason I'm against ear-piercing; but circ routinely causes significant functional and cosmetic damage to the body part involved, whereas ear piercing very rarely does. In that sense, it's as inappropriate to compare ear piercing to circ as it is to compare circ to the really extreme forms of FGM (more so, even) - the ethical issues may be similar, but the level and repercussions of the physical damage is not.
So while there are real analogies, I think the argument more likely to convince an intactivist parent not to pierce his baby girl's ears, than likely to convince a mainstream parent that circ is evil. You know?
Debating-wise, whether or not it's a good card to play depends on the company you're in. A lot of people don't think ear piercing is an issue at all, so comparing the two could cause circ to be downplayed in their minds. Tattooing is perhaps a better example, as most people would balk at the thought of doing that to a baby (perhaps because more people seem to regret their tattoos than their pierced ears? Or perhaps just because of cultural unfamiliarity, or the very strong connotations of permanence tattooing has.) And of course, circumcision is a far more severe procedure with sexual and functional consequences, whereas in theory a pierced ear will usually heal right up leaving only a small, barely-visible scar. Yes, complications can happen, which is another reason I'm against ear-piercing; but circ routinely causes significant functional and cosmetic damage to the body part involved, whereas ear piercing very rarely does. In that sense, it's as inappropriate to compare ear piercing to circ as it is to compare circ to the really extreme forms of FGM (more so, even) - the ethical issues may be similar, but the level and repercussions of the physical damage is not.
So while there are real analogies, I think the argument more likely to convince an intactivist parent not to pierce his baby girl's ears, than likely to convince a mainstream parent that circ is evil. You know?
