[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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]
Look, if the only question is whether a parent should be allowed to allow a tattoo, then what are the parameters for that decision? Where is the cut-off point where a parent can and cannot make decisions about its child’s life? I think it’s a misnomer to say that there are definite negative consequences to having a tattoo that aren’t also inherent to many, many decisions that parents are allowed to make about their children.