Why is it legal for parents to consent to breast implant surgery in children under eighteen? It doesn't matter that the FDA recommends no one under eighteen have the surgery (which, 18 is still to young, things are still developing) but we don't let parents buy alcohol for their kids; we don't let parents give their kids cigarettes. But they can buy their kid a surgery which will screw up their body, or at least require corrective measures more often than not, in five to ten years. Someone please explain to how this is acceptable?

Obviously I am against breast implants in general. The technology is fantastic for patients of mastectomies but breasts that are too small, saggy, old? What are we doing to ourselves? What are we allowing to be done to our children? Is a mother's first job not the protection of her children? Perhaps not. Perhaps her first job is actually raising the daughter she always wished she could be. Beautiful, popular, perfect.

Cosmetic surgery not revolving around the implant is a different matter; I understand the need to rectify a birth defect. What qualifies as defective thought? Different sized breasts? Many people have different sized breasts, so how much of a difference? One cup size? Two? What about nipples that aren't perfectly symmetrical? Does that qualify as necessary for surgery? I honestly want to know--at what point am I doing something to fix my body, and at what point am I doing something to make others happy?

I love women who talk about breast implants as if it were a new lease on life. They are so much more happy. So much more self-confident. On the one hand I understand that feeling, often patients of dental surgery feel the same thing if they are able to smile unselfconsciously for the first time in years, but what qualifies as okay, teeth, and not okay, breasts?

I think for me it would have to depend on the severity of the situation. If you had one breast that was a DD and hung down to your waist, and another that was a B and perky, well that might be worth mending. But what if you are a B cup, or an A? Or a DD that has started to sag at thirty five or forty five? Are those things worthy of making you self conscious? Are they worthy of ruining your life and requiring surgery, possibly dangerous surgery, to allow you to be happy? Why must your breasts be perfect for you to be happy? Why must your body? Why is happiness impossible for imperfect people?

I don't think it is (obviously). But I think we are all taught to believe that way. If I had the time or the inclination I would go Marxist on you and explain why most of this drive stems from capitalism. My point here is, though, that this is not okay. It is unethical and immoral to allow a parent to agree to the mutilation of their child's body. Naturally we could argue what constitutes mutilation but rather than be sidetracked into a discussion on drugs, alcohol, tattoos, and piercings I am going to attempt to stay on point. For our purposes right now, I think breast augmentation--specifically in girls under eighteen--qualifies as mutilation.

It is bad for her. It is unhealthy. What else is all of our health/nutrition news about if not better ways to be healthy and, therefore, good? And yet we support surgery that is neither good nor necessary. Oh, let the hypocrisy rule!

I'm not judging people who have received breast implants, I'm judging the society that endorses them. I am absolutely, however, judging mothers that allow their daughters to receive breast implants. You're a bad mother. I'm not normally so outspoken about my judgments of people, especially since I try so very hard not to judge people, but in this case I honestly feel it is bad parenting. I'm having a very difficult time conceiving of it as anything else. Feel free to correct me.

But don't argue that "if a person wants to it's okay." Where kids are concerned that is a whole different ballgame than adults. And breast implants are not about tattoos and piercings. You aren't fighting the establishment or declaring your individuality. Exactly the opposite. So I guess the question is, is it more reprehensible to fight the establishment without any grander purpose, or to give in to it?