Ban Children's Haircuts?
One of the perpetual flame wars of Usenet has reached the blogosphere: There's a fight over circumcision on Samizdata.
The same reasoning that might lead people to ban infant circumcision could also be used to ban children's haircuts. After all, children do not normally consent to haircuts.
It's possible to argue that circumcision is the permanent removal of a body part, whereas hair grows back. On the other hand, I suspect that by the time a child circumcised today reaches puberty, circumcision will be reversible by minor surgery. On the gripping hand, if there is a remote risk of permanent “disfigurement,” we must recall the possibility of barber accidents. (“Never mentioned is the missing piece of his left ear.”—Ben Katchor)
To sum up:
- Haircuts have no proven medical benefit.
- Hair is part of the body so removing it is clearly mutilation.
- Ears are also part of the body and they do not grow back or even have a restoration option currently available.
- Even if one in a million objects to possible ear loss that is sufficient to ban parents from manipulating their children that way.
If it was good enough for Samson it should be good enough for everybody else.