first off, mutilation is too strong a word, because it implies permanent damage or disfigurement. as a girl who had her ears pierced as a child, I really can't say this term is accurate. the holes in my ears have long ago closed over and compared to other scars are as nothing.

you may as well address circumcision and tattoos since the same arguments can be made here. aren't some vaccines a form of damage, since they are given without a child's consent and tend to have more lasting physical effects? how about any operation the child needs that they cannot consent to?

if its 'mutilation' at 6 months is it any better at 6 years or 16? at what age is it ok for the child to agree to this or any procedure? and who is to say that it isn't peer or parental pressure that makes up their mind?

since ear piercings rarely give any lasting injury (unless the parent is negligent), i really fail to see this as "mutilation". if you give society the right to determine the ethics of this then you open the door to giving society a say in deciding on abortion for teens. im being dramatic, but maybe you see where i'm going.

not saying im in the camp of the ear piercing parents, but if we take away the parents right to decide on something so petty as ear piercing, and give it to the government, we may end up giving away parental control about other things, because we set a precedent. do you really want to go down that path?