Child's tattoo: disfigurement or poor parenting?

reply to post by memarf1


We might not agree with his choice, but he still has the right to make it. Maybe they should put you in jail for letting your kids get thier ears pierced. Somebody out there might see that as abuse or you are raising them to be whores. Do you really want to limit your parenting choices to whatever group of people want to think they know better than you on how your children should be raised.

I don't think that it is criminal when a parent provides approval of such processes when their child determines it is their will (however, I totally agree that it should be the child's decision and not the parent's will being imposed on the child).

Personally, I think a good parent will make them wait, but some children do learn better by learning first-hand and have to be allowed to make mistakes that have consequences they have to learn to live with. That's part of what allows a child to grow up and become a functioning and responsible adult! A parent's role is to provide a safe and healthy environment in which their child can grow and learn, but allowing them the freedom to grow and learn in their own way, and to make decisions for themselves when it does not put them in danger or harm's way, so that they may learn about consequence. Parents are supposed to catch their children when they fall, not prevent them from trying to ride their bicycle (or in this case, get a tattoo).

Certainly, neither society nor government has any right making those parental decisions for children.

Now what if the parent gave them a Henna Tattoo? According to the letter of the law, that would be just as criminal even though the Tattoo is temporary and last only 1-2 weeks. It's not permanent but it's painful disfigurement. What about those temporary Tattoos that are dispensed in every gumball machine between LA and Portland Maine? They may not be permanent or painful, but they are disfigurement of a minor. Those apparently violate the letter of the law too!

Gosh, I hadn't thought about Breast Enhancement, although in High School at least a dozen girls in my graduating class had such done. Although if that is "permanent and painful disfigurement" then what about Breast Reduction that many girls have to go through to prevent Physical Health problems? If we are to consider the later acceptable then the inverse has to be equally as acceptable, even though both violate this law.

I talked about this with my daughter on her lunch. She told me that one girl in her 7th grade class got a Nose Job done over the summer and another girl in her class got a Chemical Peel over the summer so she could be as pale as my daughter. A Chemical Peel for a 12 year old? That is far more painful and dangerous than any Tattoo would ever be! You're talking about being scared and bandaged over your entire body for 3 months! How can that be acceptable but a Tattoo wouldn't?

I understand that to many people over the age of 30-35 Tattoos still hold a social stigma, along with other kinds of Body Modification. However, in younger generations in American society, this isn't considered to be taboo or even out of the ordinary anymore. I'm considered "old fashioned" and a "stick in the mud" by most of my friends and peers (and have a body unadorned and unchanged), yet I certainly wouldn't judge a young person on their choice of Tattoos or Piercings or Cosmetic Enhancements (although I may snicker at them behind their back). The need to establish one's self-identity and the strong desire towards uniqueness and individuality amongst our youth makes them want these procedures at younger and younger ages.

Laws shouldn't dictate what a child wishes to do with their life, so long as it does not put them in harm's way, nor should it dictate what a parent can or cannot allow their child to do, so long as it does not put their child in harm's way. Laws shouldn't enforce Social Trends that are outdated. That's why government shouldn't get involved in governing Social Trends at all! Let the civilian-run Fashion Police do their jobs, as the government doesn't have the time to keep up on all the new trends.

reply to post by memarf1


I absolutely see your point. It is disgusting. And also, I wonder how much of the body surface it will cover. They can be removed now, but I think it's costly, and also painful. At some point I agree it would become emotional abuse, or child abuse, or at least the child might have grounds for a civil suit against the parents once he's grown.

reply to post by SquishyFishy


While I agree with the premise of your question, I do not agree that this is as simple as the rights parents have to the way they raise their children. As I stated before, it isn't about the fact that they got a tattoo, it is about which tattoo he bought. Maybe someone could argue that I would pierce my kids ears and raise them to be whores, but there are so many vast examples of the innocent and most obvious reason, I doubt that argument would work. A gang tattoo has no innocent reason, only an obvious one. That is the error of the father, the type of tattoo he got. I may not like parents tattooing their children, but I can understand it. I may argue against their preferences compared to mine, but their rights are clear. However I do not understand how we can argue however, in favor of this guys rights to mutilate this childs future with this gang tattoo and what it represents. That is the problem and it is not the same to compare it to ear piercings or even different tattoos.

Would you support his right to send his child to a terrorist training camp when he is young and impressionable?

Would you support his right to enlist him in the U.S. military when he is 8 or 9?

Would you support his right to "Jump" him into a gang when he is young and impressionable?

I assume no to the above, so why then, would you try to justify his right to get his son a gang tattoo?

That's just wrong! However, let me play devil's advocate. What if it were tribal religious tattoos? Would it be OK? Would court intervention be in violation of his freedom to practice his religion of choice?

Just my 2-cents

reply to post by SquishyFishy


This is exactly right. Whether we like it, or whether we don't. They should have the right to do it, provided it does not create a medical issue for the child. We can speculate it might cause "social" issues down the line, but that's all it would be: speculation.

Originally posted by memarf1
Would you support his right to send his child to a terrorist training camp when he is young and impressionable?

Would you support his right to enlist him in the U.S. military when he is 8 or 9?

Would you support his right to "Jump" him into a gang when he is young and impressionable?

I assume no to the above, so why then, would you try to justify his right to get his son a gang tattoo?

You assume incorrectly.

When I was a child, my parents sent me to a Terrorist Training Camp when I was young and impressionable. They enlisted me in a U.S. Paramilitary organization when I was 6. They encouraged me to join a gang when I was young and impressionable.

It was called the Boy Scouts, and apparently it was quite acceptable back then for parents to do such.

Originally posted by fraterormus
It was called the Boy Scouts, and apparently it was quite acceptable back then for parents to do such.

LMAO!!! I can just see an Eagle Scout jihadist. Do they have a badge for that

reply to post by fraterormus


Ammusing examples, but I think we all know that isn't what I meant by "Terrorist" or "Gang".

Edit: Don't you think honestly that if a war had broken out that your parents would have been far more likely to try to keep you safe vs. letting you fight with your "para-military" buddies to partake in the revolution or defense of invasion?

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by SquishyFishy

 

This is exactly right. Whether we like it, or whether we don't. They should have the right to do it, provided it does not create a medical issue for the child. We can speculate it might cause "social" issues down the line, but that's all it would be: speculation.

Could we not argue that these possible social issues are very likely going to cause medical issues for that child later in his life?? While I realize that is speculation, I would say that it is reasonable to say that they are far more likely than you or I having similar issues. Wouldn't you agree?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by memarf1]

I have two tats for which my mother never wanted me to get and discouraged me from doing so. I honored her wishes until I was older, 21, and even then I was advised by my friends who already had tats to wait until I was ABSOLUTELY SURE of what was going to stay with me for the rest of my life. I don't regret my tats at all, I want more but can't afford them at the moment nor are they priority, it can be an addiction! However, I do remember having to sign a consent form/waiver at the shop stating that I was of age to make the decision I was entering into. I also believe that most states have a requirement of being 18.

It is my stance that children, and/ or young adults, do things impulsively and should wait until they have a full comprehensive as to what they are about to do.

reply to post by memarf1


It is not like this tattoo is on the child's forehead. It is also not like it is a back piece with the gang's name in graffiti letters across it.

It's a dog paw.

He can hide it and if he leaves his hometown, no one will know what it is. Besides, as he grows, it will more than likely become distorted from the stretching and addition of skin.

Also, let me introduce you to a song called "Boy Named Sue"...

Originally posted by Aggie Man
That's just wrong! However, let me play devil's advocate. What if it were tribal religious tattoos? Would it be OK? Would court intervention be in violation of his freedom to practice his religion of choice?

Just my 2-cents

Good point, but in my opinion a different thing altogether. Tribal religious tattoos are ones usually of community of a positive nature, gang tattoos the opposite.

There are a couple of issues at hand here. The child is not old enough to make a decision to be permanently marked on his own. Sure, he can get it removed later if he wants but that process is painful, expensive, takes many sessions and there is no guarantee that the tattoo will be completely removed. The other issue is the type of tattoo. It is a form of child abuse to mark your child with this type of "artwork" that represents such a negative lifestyle. Just because the parent wants to belong to a gang doesn't mean he has to subject his child to what that tattoo represents. I think the kid should decide for himself whether he wants a tattoo at a later age when (hopefully) he can make a more informed decision. Some children of gang members may want to break away from that lifestyle later on and shouldn't have to deal with the expense and pain of having to remove something that they were in no position to agree to in the first place.

I think the state should intervene if parents are making wise decisions for their kids. The trouble is anyone can become a parent.

Slightly off topic,

What about circumcision?

reply to post by glitch88

Also, let me introduce you to a song called "Boy Named Sue"...

LOL! You know he spent his life trying to find and kill the SOB that gave him that awful name!

Anyway, I agree our Boy Scouts are someone else's jihadists, and it is all a matter of opinion. I may think my opinion is clear and correct, but the gang-banger or Al Qaida guy would see things entirely different, and I can respect that, and I value the right to choose above the right of that poor kid!

Now, if I happened to be an Uncle or Grand Parent, or maybe even a father of the kid's friend. Then the father would have to answer to me, and that would be true justice. Leave the courts out of it and let the families decide. Hopefully the court would have mercy on me in the aftermath!

children aren't property.

say it ten times to yourself. Repeat as necessary.

"Enrique Gonzalez wanted his 7-year-old son to have a gang tattoo."

What part of this sentence makes sense to any parent?

7 year old? Gang?

Edit to add

[edit on 1-10-2009 by savageheart]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by glitch88

 

Also, let me introduce you to a song called "Boy Named Sue"...

Now, if I happened to be an Uncle or Grand Parent, or maybe even a father of the kid's friend. Then the father would have to answer to me, and that would be true justice. Leave the courts out of it and let the families decide. Hopefully the court would have mercy on me in the aftermath!

Now you are arguing semantics, that is what the role of the state is for. While I agree justice should be done, to say that you would do it and we should keep the state out is maybe a bit illogical. There are some things that require a beating and the state should stay out of, but if there is dispute about a matter such as this then it isn't up to us. In this matter it is a bit shady for the uncle or grand parent, but definitely you shouldn't intervene if you are the father of the kid's friend, in that you are taking the role of the state, or at the minimum shouldn't argue against the state intervening. The court should not waste it's time with the aftermath, it should waste it's time for the right of the child to begin with.

Good point about a boy named Sue, but then again what about young 'Adolf':
www.foxnews.com...

Is this a precedent? His name is way less likely to get him beat up by a jew, considering American Jews are relatively peaceful, but the tattoo on the otherhand is inflammatory to rival gangs. Maybe no jail time for the father, but relocate the child, I agree that in another region the paw may not offend anyone.

Originally posted by Aeons
children aren't property.

say it ten times to yourself. Repeat as necessary.

Agreed, and in this case the childs property was violoated(His Body is His Private Property) and private property is protected by law, no exceptions!

[edit on 1-10-2009 by memarf1]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by memarf1]

I don't think the state is interfering in parenting if they decide it is criminal to disfigure a 7 year old, especially if the tattoo is a large one. I don't know how big the tattoo is, so I can't make a firm decision on the punishment. It is criminal for an adult person to disfigure another? Why would it be okay for an adult to disfigure a child? I don't care if it his child, it is wrong to put a child through pain for your pleasure. It isn't a moral issue that is being tried in court, it is a sadistic thing that man did to a 7 year old.
I would never have allowed my late husband to put a tattoo on our children.

reply to post by memarf1


Under your logic, it should be the child's decision to relocate himself or not. Why would you cause him undue pain and distress of being plucked out of his home just because of a tattoo that can be covered up?

You would not do this for your child, but who are you to say it is not acceptable for that child? Did you read the first post I made in this thread?

About the kid named Adolf, yes, I am aware of that situation. Again, I think it is ridiculous to take a child away because the parent's named the kid something that other people don't like. I don't recall anyone threatening to take the kids away from some of these celebrities that name their children things that will absolutely cause them pain and ridicule later on in life...

I didn't like my name as a child. I was made fun of for it. I hated my parents for naming me what they did. Guess how I compensated? I made up a new name for myself and insisted that people called me by it. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for and they will learn to adapt. That is the point of my mentioning the Johnny Cash song.

A nanny state is not the answer.

Firstly, to the people that are arguing whether or not this is culturally applicable, well yes it is, if this were an African tribal society, that practiced scarification it would be valid, however - and this isn't about "civilisation" - in the Western world, we don't do these things as a culture - I seriously can't believe that it's even legal for a tattooist to do this - in the UK if you tattoo and under 18 it is considered assault on the part of the tattooist, so you could argue that regardless of the parents consent, no self respecting business person would do this in the first place.

I'm heavily tattooed, including hands and neck and it has made some impact on my life, but nowhere near as bad as you might think, I've always (almost) been in steady employment and never had any issue with interviews, I think people are generally becoming more tolerant of such things. However, I was over the age of majority when I had these things done and had a lot more sense of the implications - also my tattooist told me to wait a month and come back and if I still wanted my hands tattooed he'd do it then, I did go back after a lot of careful thought and granted 10 years ago it was "F the system" and I guess I've been lucky with peoples attitudes - However, I don't have any gang or offensive tattoos.

There are reasons why kids aren't allowed to do things, we don't let them drive, smoke or drink amongst others, we don't let them join the military. Children are protected from certain adult responsibilities for very good reasons - because they're still learning and developing. If I had a tattoo at 7 - I probably would have had a Spiderman web on my face, because I loved Spiderman, obviously not someting that I would do now... although

It's incredibly irresoponsible of the parent and almost definitely "child-abuse" to do this. With regard to the childs future and what if maybe, just maybe that kid does do well at school, decides he wants out the life and be a part of society?

All this talk of the government not interfering in your life, well fine, don't ring the police next time your getting burgled or expect to use public ameneties. It's a Democracy, the government were voted in and these are the rules, if you don't like it - actually work to do something about it, get a group together, lobby your local politician... Seriously, the government does interject itself into daily life, some times to genuinely protect its citizens from harm, from corporate negligence, poor safety standards etc. I know we all agree this doesn't get done very well, responsibly or morally most of the time, but in this case!!!