Since there is no test to become a parent you cannot assume that everyone who has a kid has the skill to raise that kid. So it is not so much that parents need to be allowed to make this type of decision for the kid because the parents are not always capable of good decision in their own lives. I am not saying this lady was that way but I do not agree with letting a 10 year old get a tattoo. The idea of putting something on your body that will be their forever is beyond them. I also disagree with girls and boys getting their ears pierced at a young age.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Messing with Greeny.[/quote]
Figured as much and I hope I didn’t come across like a dick. It’s just that when I see the posts about how it’s OK for a 10 year old to get a tattoo because it’s in honor of his dead brother I seriously question the reasoning skills of people.
And there’s going to be some people who take your idea of a brand seriously…
james
[/quote]
Honestly James having a serious discussion about this topic seems hard to do. I have a lot of Ink and a lot of kids. I have my own opinions, about the topic but its a moot point.
You have to remember its the net, there is no accountability. So a lot of posts are just to have an argument.
[/quote]
Cereally dum post.
Sitation? [/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
One point you need to consider about society is that it is always changing. I have seen many medical assistants with tattoos in visible areas…whereas, 30 years ago those people probably never would have been hired. What would his classmates say? Considering they grew up in a society that is slowly accepting “stigmas” that were avoided before (you probably saw very few lawyers with dreadlocks but there are some now)…probably not much.
Mind you, I agree with you for the most part which is why I keep focusing on the location of the tat.
I don’t care that a ten year old got one.
I care that he got one in such a visible area which like you said can have an affect at this time.[/quote]
Fair enough. But we could also slide back the opposite way to where tattoos are no longer considered socially acceptable. So out of rebellion to thier parents (who have tattoos) the younger generation might refuse to get them. To some extent they are fashion so they go in and out of vogue.
You’re right about placement. We wouldn’t even be having this discussion had the tattoo been in a more concealed place. If he had it done on his back or somewhere covered then nobody would have known and this would have been a non-issue. It’s illegal but the only way to get caught is to have it visible. So the answer is to have it somewhere it can’t be seen. I’m not saying that would be right still but I am saying that nobody would have known.
james
How big of a deal is a tattoo compared to people skills, work ethic, intelligence, lack of addiction, and physical health in terms of determining a person’s ability to succeed in life?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
How big of a deal is a tattoo compared to people skills, work ethic, intelligence, lack of addiction, and physical health in terms of determining a person’s ability to succeed in life?
[/quote]
For adults they don’t matter at all aside from a few isloated senarios.
In a way the tatoo is unimportant. I think most of the people who have an issue in this case care more about how a child who is most likely not responsible enough to set his own bed time was allowed to “decide” something that beyond his capacity, most likely, to understand.
[quote]okage wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]okage wrote:
Haha,
Your kid is pissed at life. These things are external. An earing, a tattoo, a mohawk, these things in no way mold a child the way a parent does. Please believe that children are smarter and more morally intelligent than your giving them credit for.[/quote]
Please dont.
Children are flat out stupid with the moral compass of a rabid baboon.
There is a reason why they want to be all in Mad Max gear, because that is the kind of society they would build if they could. [/quote]
Hahahhaha,
Have you so much proof that adults have any better of a moral compass. your a joke if you think a tattoo or a mohawk is something that is a moral issue. No its a conservative issue. Might I remind you that tribes tattoo kids all the time. Its a social norm for you to think its bad dude. Its funny you think that a tribute tattoo to a lost brother is morally wrong. your just a prude loser who thinks that everyone should be controlled until they become brainwashed by society like your sorry ass. hahahhaha
ahahhaa
[/quote]
Was that English?
Even the bastardized American version?
Apparently, structured arguments, punctuation and reading comprehension are lost arts…
… as they would be in a Mohawk infused post apocalyptic future…
I am afraid that my point still stands…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and I forgot the obvious; you’re exposing the kid to possible infection and allergic reaction.
[/quote]
The risk of infection/ complications extends to body piercing as well. There is definitely a double standard when parents are allowed to pay someone to puncture an infant’s ears then insert metal in the holes (yet nobody gets arrested for abuse then), but there are stronger regulations in place for nose piercings, when they are more or less the same procedure except one has been in our culture longer and is therefore more acceptable.
The simplest solution would be to treat all form of body modification for kids equally, just on the risk of complications .
[quote]Oleena wrote:
How big of a deal is a tattoo compared to people skills, work ethic, intelligence, lack of addiction, and physical health in terms of determining a person’s ability to succeed in life?
[/quote]
Two kids. One kid has average work ethic, decent people skills, and average intelligence. Kid two has “fuck the police” permanently engraved on his forearm. Who is more likely to go farther?
The average Joe’s daughter brings home a boy who’s got a prison tattoo on his arm. What’s the likelyhood of that young woman being allowed to date that guy?
Sure, it would be nice to say that having visible tattoos, dreadlocks, or other body modifications doesn’t matter but that’s not reality. As much as we love our kids and know them to all be angels and of above average intelligence that’s not what everyone thinks of them.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Sure, it would be nice to say that having visible tattoos, dreadlocks, or other body modifications doesn’t matter but that’s not reality. As much as we love our kids and know them to all be angels and of above average intelligence that’s not what everyone thinks of them.
james[/quote]
It only matters because some people make it matter…and hopefully many of those will soon die off.
I don’t know about you, but I have way too many friends with those evil “tattoos, dreadlocks and body modifications” to see those things as blights on society. I wouldn’t leap to thinking someone like that is a “thug” because of those issues alone…while it seems some here need only see a faux mohawk before calling the cops.
Sure, but you’re talking to an open minded group of people. That’s not always the case and there are a LOT of people who don’t share those views. Someone who is 10 hasn’t even gotten started in life yet. If they go outside of their little circle there’s a lot of people who view having tattoos like that as “bad” or will label you for it.
Frankly, I don’t think that’s ever going to change. Tattoos are quite common now but there’s always going to be a section of society who doesn’t view piercings, tattoos, and other body mods with such open minds.
james
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think this conversation is slightly confusing because it went from: “Is this child abuse?” To “Should she have done it.” That’s a pretty big difference.
Do those that think she shouldn’t have done it also think that it’s child abuse that she did?[/quote]
Is it child abuse?
Here’s the GA definition:
‘Child abuse’ means:
Physical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means; provided, however, physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child;
Neglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof;
Sexual abuse of a child; or
Sexual exploitation of a child.
Is getting tatted a “physical injury”. Given that it takes some time to get one (unlike the fallacious piercing analogy which is over in a second), and it is definitely uncomfortable, it’s a tough question I think. Can a 10 year old “consent” to this? No. That much is clear. Can the child’s mother consent on his behalf? I doubt it. And I cannot think of a good analogy for this situation. Piercing certainly isn’t it. A piercing happens in a second. A tattoo like that was likely an hour or more.
Does the State belong in this affair? I’m not sure. The pain and permanent nature of this event aside, this is not much different than naming your kid some stupid fucking name he’s going to have to “wear” the rest of his/her life. It’s fucking stupid, but is it “criminal”. Is it abuse? He wanted it, he sat for the tat, but he’s 10. Tough question.
In any event, she’s not the mother of the year. That’s for sure. But we need to protect children from themselves, because at some point, it WILL be a spongebob tattoo. It doesn’t matter that the tat was to honor his brother, the issue is the tat. [/quote]
I think your second paragraph raises an interesting point and I tend to hope that she is convicted for the maximum penalty and then appeals all the way to the Supreme Court to see how the Justices might look at things.
I’m not totally familiar with SC case law in this area, but I suspect you’d see some sort of 14th Amendment issue here. It would depend on how they classify the “right” to a tattoo. They’v gone as far as allowing someone to commit virtual suicide by refusing medical treatment on the grounds that the unwanted treatment constitutes a battery (Cruzan). That case basically established more than most in recent history that control over one’s body, short of actual suicide, was the most fundamental of rights.
Does this then extend to tattoos and are all decisions about one’s body, regardless of what it is, of SO fundamental a nature that they cannot be denied to children either? I don’t know how that argument would go. It could go anywhere, really.
I think the Court could argue that a tattoo represents a much more potentially-damaging result upon a child who gets it than say, a piercing, based on social stigmas he may suffer from at an age where he’s too young to properly handle such encounters. There is also the physical potential for some sort of injury that is small, but one that exists nonetheless. There is also the chance that the kid pulls out halfway through or something due to the pain and now he has a difficult decision to make regarding getting it finished or not that he may not have anticipated at such a young age.
Part of it is contract law and part of it may be some sort of Equal Protection issue. If kids at say, 16 or 17 can get a tattoo with parental consent then is that a right of theirs and if so, to what age does it go back to? 10? 6? 5? Is there perhaps some sort of test that can be applied? And of course, does the parent’s consent really mean anything? If the Court were to rule that at the age of 10 a child is not competent to make this decision then parental consent is moot.
Is there some sort of test that states can enact in the form of mandatory educational literature or other such media that must be provided beforehand, such as with some states and abortions? Or is it strictly a state matter? Should it be left up to states to decide the laws on this so that in one state NO ONE under the age of 18 can get a tattoo, period, and in another anyone over the age of 13 can get one with parental consent?[/quote]
Although your post is well thought out, you’re passing by the major issue; this kid is indeed a child and under no legal analysis yet old enough to choose or consent to anything. He cannot decide to get a tattoo anymore than he can decide to drop out of school, which will not allow us to embark on such “personal right” issues. And your musings cannot pass that simple legal point.
In a nutshell, this is why parents have legal responsibility for their MINOR children. The issues become more cloudy as a child begins to reach majority, even mid-teens, but there is simply no such tortured analysis to apply to a 10 year old.
My opinion of course.[/quote]
I don’t think I did pass by the issue at hand. I mean, if tattoos are somehow considered part of a fundamental right to have control over your own body, then doesn’t that right begin from birth? Isn’t that what inalienable means? And sure, a child is not considered to be competent in most respects, but the parent is. Part of our fundamental rights include the right to make certain decisions about our children’s lives. We can choose what schools they go to, what sports they play, the type of healthcare they receive (provided it isn’t a LACK of healthcare) and so on.
So when does this right to have some control over the lives of your children start and stop? When the possibility of injury exists? I’d argue that there is a FAR greater chance of permanent injury when a kid plays virtually any organized sport than when receiving a tattoo. So who decides when it is and isn’t appropriate for a child to engage in a certain activity, provided that he and his parents both consent? What is the difference, from a purely legal standpoint, between allowing a kid to play full-contact football at the age of 10 and allowing him to have a tattoo that he wants and his parents will allow him to have?[/quote]
I’m not going to quibble with you. Your question is an interesting one, in the way you have couched it, although I’m not quite sure it’s legally analogous. You’re assuming the only consideration for a tattoo is injury. It’s not. It carries long term consequences. 10 year olds do not have the mental capacity to make such decisions - so that’s a non-starter. The only question that remains is whether a parent should be permitted to allow it.
And for anyone else that would like to weigh in, I’d suggest you divorce yourself from the reason for the tattoo and just assume it’s a spongebob tattoo - because the legal issues are identical.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]LessTraveled wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]LessTraveled wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
TL:DR
-10 y/o kid’s brother died
-asked mom to get a tattoo in remembrance of his bro
-she said o.k.
-he got it done
-mom got arrested for “child cruelty”
note: the kid got the tattoo done at a legit studio.
So, should the kid have the legal right to get a tattoo since his mother consented to it? Would you let your child get a tattoo?
Discus.[/quote]
he’s not old enough to to make that decision, no matter how heartfelt.
no, I would not let my child get tatood. I have also refused mohawks and earrings (my 6 year old has asked for both b/c of the little future felons he goes to school with - because when your parents are letting you get your ears pierced at 5, what kind of parents do you expect they’d be???).[/quote]
Right because Mohawks make you a felon…wow, awesome stereotype bud. oh while your at it you mind as well just say that Older White guys always wear plaid pants and Golf 24-7 right? (see mirror).
So if I shave my kids head because in summer its hot or because he does Brazilian Ju-jitsu 4 times a weak and he like his hair short for that then my kids going to grow up to be a Skinhead???
I do agree on the ear piercing deal, some people get their INFANT girls pierced, that’s a little scary for me, I would not allow that.
I Don’t think Id stop my kid from wearing his hair like he wanted and I do not. If my kid grows up to be a felon then it has notning to do with his fucking hair and everything to do with my failure as a parent to teach love, respect, and acceptance.
Now Im going to be a hypocrite here and say that I do not allow my boys to walk around with their pants hanging off their asses like a gangsta…I guess that would imply that I believe thier style of pants is going to influence how they grow up…I just hate baggy jeans and I don’t want to walk around seeing other peoples asses in public, its fucking disrespectful.
[/quote]
calm down sugar britches. i don’t have to reply b/c you’re all over the place here contradicting yourself.
and i don’t play golf or own plaid pants. lol[/quote]
Sugar Britches…awesome!.
Anyway, I guess I do sound all over the place and I guess its only because I was speaking about things that bug the shit out of me and of things that I don’t think are a big deal. SO yeah I guess I am contradicting myself, my apologies.
I guess I don’t think a mohawk is going to influence my kid to be a criminal…but I wouldn’t allow cornrolls, braids etc etc. SO I guess Im fucked up and the hypocrite.
Also to chime in on the subject of the thread…NO I wouldn’t allow my 10 year old to get a tattoo.
Also BG, don’t lie man, we know your closet full of plaid bro, don’t be mad.[/quote]
dude, you live in Alasaka, I live in NJ. I bet your whole wardrobe is flannel.
There are a few kids in my son’s school with earrings and mohawks. Grade school. Without exception, their parents are uneducated, and in dead end jobs. It is absolutely largely a class issue. You don’t generally see the children of college educated, high wage earning parents, wearing earrings and mohawks in GRADE SCHOOL.
[/quote]
I’m just curious, but what is wrong with a mohawk? Also, are you talking about a real mohawk with liberty spikes? Nowadays they are pretty common to see someone with one that isn’t the liberty spikes one. I wouldn’t care if my kid wanted a mohawk.[/quote]
you’re talking about “faux-hawks” I’d guess. My son had one last haircut. meh.
but there are kids in his school with 2 inch or better Mohawks with coloring. give me a fucking break.
what is “wrong” with them? well, i’m not sure i can say anything is “wrong” with them, but maybe you might want to address my observation that the parents of these kids are invariably lower income, not college educated, and that you just don’t see this from higher income, educated parents. and remember, i’m talking K-3 grade here.
[/quote]
Two inches is nothing. Oh my god, this kid must be poor trash because he has a mohawk.[/quote]
If you want to deny class standing and education as an issue here, please deny reality. Otherwise, I’m sorry if I insulted you or your children.
[quote]okage wrote:
So, should the kid have the legal right to get a tattoo since his mother consented to it? Would you let your child get a tattoo?
Discus.[/quote]
he’s not old enough to to make that decision, no matter how heartfelt.
no, I would not let my child get tatood. I have also refused mohawks and earrings (my 6 year old has asked for both b/c of the little future felons he goes to school with - because when your parents are letting you get your ears pierced at 5, what kind of parents do you expect they’d be???).[/quote]
Haha,
Your kid is pissed at life. These things are external. An earing, a tattoo, a mohawk, these things in no way mold a child the way a parent does. Please believe that children are smarter and more morally intelligent than your giving them credit for.[/quote]
you haven’t even put together a logical rebuttal (big surprise here). you’ve contradicted yourself. all along, my point is “what kind of parent would allow this” and you’re telling me that parents mold children and the tat is external. you just agreed with me, while disagreeing.
if you think allowing a 10 year old to get a large tatoo where it will always be visible, if you think that’s “good parenting” and “sound” decision-making, great. it’s safe to say we’ll never see eye to eye on this issue.
so to directly address your point, i question the ability of a parent that would allow such a thing to “mold” a dog.
[quote]okage wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I thought about this some more over dinner and the obvious occurred to me: if you’re too fucking stupid not to let your 10 YEAR OLD get a tattoo, well then you DO need the State to come along and interfere.
It was a dumb fucking decision, and any defense of the mother is is pretty weak. [/quote]
Your too stupid. period. The tattoo in no way damaged the kid. Get over yourself Bro[/quote]
“You’re”, as in “you are”. Not “your” as in “‘your’ dumb-ass didn’t make it to English class.”.
Bro. LOL
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It only matters because some people make it matter…and hopefully many of those will soon die off.
[/quote]
lol! I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s had this cross their mind.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
One point you need to consider about society is that it is always changing. I have seen many medical assistants with tattoos in visible areas…whereas, 30 years ago those people probably never would have been hired. What would his classmates say? Considering they grew up in a society that is slowly accepting “stigmas” that were avoided before (you probably saw very few lawyers with dreadlocks but there are some now)…probably not much.
Mind you, I agree with you for the most part which is why I keep focusing on the location of the tat.
I don’t care that a ten year old got one.
I care that he got one in such a visible area which like you said can have an affect at this time.[/quote]
Fair enough. But we could also slide back the opposite way to where tattoos are no longer considered socially acceptable. So out of rebellion to thier parents (who have tattoos) the younger generation might refuse to get them. To some extent they are fashion so they go in and out of vogue.
You’re right about placement. We wouldn’t even be having this discussion had the tattoo been in a more concealed place. If he had it done on his back or somewhere covered then nobody would have known and this would have been a non-issue. It’s illegal but the only way to get caught is to have it visible. So the answer is to have it somewhere it can’t be seen. I’m not saying that would be right still but I am saying that nobody would have known.
james
[/quote]
I’m fairly certain his pediatrician would have reported it if it had been located elsewhere. It’s a bizarre decision.
And your earlier post about the future is on point. It doesn’t matter what the culture is now. We can’t predict what it will be. And we cannot predict the possible future for the kid (although I think it’s safe that we can eliminate a few things based on his parenting - this kid aint growing up to be a lawyer or doctor). It shows terrible judgment and a complete lack of foresight. In many ways, the parent is not much different from a minor child in terms of weighing consequences.
And then there is the classic “how can I tell him no?”
No?
BTW, I’ve had 4 piercings and one tattoo. The tattoo is on my neck, it healed faster than any of the other “modifications”, and I often forget I have it. On the other hand, the belly ring took 9 months to really heal (I was told it sometimes takes up to a year) and then kept getting bumped open by workouts. I finally gave up, took it out, and have a scar. This happens to young kids all the time. In terms of medical safety, I would say a tattoo hurts the most while it’s being done, is about the same while healing, and is the safest after it’s healed. The belly ring, which young girls get done regularly nowdays, was infinitely more painful and risky.
it’s funny when people call tattoos “body art” :))… even if a guy who does tattoos commercially sometimes did it for his own artistic expression and not what the client wants, and he would only use your body as a place for his art… who would own a copyright then?? the tattoo master?? maybe, but you still have a right to omit the tattoo if you decide to, don’t you? or, if the master wanted to present his art, I guess, you still have a right not to participate in that event:)…
so, even if the tattoo was an artistic expression of a tattoo master and not your request, personally you would still have nothing to do with the art because that isn’t your art, it’s just the guy used your body to place that picture… and he should pay you money for walking and presenting his art… but if you pay him, that is just unfair and very stupid:)…
It would be different if you did tattoo by yourself on your own body though. While those commercial tattoos are just a part of that garbage macdonald culture and nothing more. Sorry guys for the truth.
[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
it’s funny when people call tattoos “body art” [/quote]
Actually, no, it isn’t funny. It is art…on a body.
I wouldn’t call what you wrote “the truth” at all. You don’t have to have your work copyrighted to be an artist.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I love how she says “how can I tell my child no?” Ummm…you say “NO. Wait until you’re 18.” [/quote]
So, a kid wants to make a memorial for his brother and he has to wait 8 years for it? I could see that leading to all kinds of emotional issues.
Its not NO don’t wear those jeans. Its NO don’t honor your brother by sparing your flesh…[/quote]
I’m sure there are plenty of other ways to honor your brother than getting inked at age 10.[/quote]
What like a brand?[/quote]
Perhaps cutting off a bit of the pinky finger?