It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Child's tattoo: disfigurement or poor parenting?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
If you're going to get your child or baby tattooed then you are a *&%$# idiot who should never have had a child in the first place and should probably be investigated by Child Services.

There's a reason why you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, because at 7 years old you're not old enough to make a rational, informed opinion.

I'm sure that Bob the Builder tattoo will look just as great in 13 years when the kids is trying to find work.

There's is a plague of young parents who have never fully grown up who now have kids who have children as parents.

As for the OP, this man should have his children taken away just for being a gang member. We can sit here and say "Oh, but his none of our business" and that is EXACTLY how children like this grow up around crime, drugs and prostitution.

Every child deserves a chance at their own life. Children who are forced to live in a situation like that because of a massive failure of the systems put in place to protect them, are the children who end up dead before 18.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Its both!! A seven year old does not need a tattoo and definitely not a gang one at that! What in the world are people thinking?!!?! I have 5 tattoos but I am an adult and made the decision myself. This kid should not have to suffer and yes a 7 year old would SUFFER because their father is an idiot gang member. That kid will be doomed with a gang tat at SEVEN! Wow I cant even believe a tattoo artist would even consider doing one on a 7 year old...My bf did tattoos for 15 years I so cant wait to get his take on this and I am sure its not one supporting this idiot.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
It all boils down to this. It is non of your freaking business. It his kid and he can do as he wishes. Wasn't the smartest choice in the world but its non of my business. One the biggest problems with this country and even the world is that people cant stay out of other peoples business.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
What I find most interesting about the article is that the boy is now getting laser treatment to remove it. This procedure is MUCH more painful than getting the actual tattoo.

While the father should have not let the child get the tattoo, it was on his leg... a place that is almost always hidden by clothing. Even if tattoos hindered someone in life, which I don't think they do, the boy's life wouldn't have been affected by this.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the father didn't take the child down to a tattoo shop for this. I am a heavily tattooed lady and know lots of tattoo artists - none of them would ever tattoo a child. This was most likely done by someone who does not work in a shop, which might actually make the tattoo easier to remove since the inks people like that use are inferior (often they use india ink or pen ink).



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Well, there are great points, especially about the fact that yes, little girls (and boys sometimes, though less often) get their ears pierced whenever they want, or their parents want, and a tattoo hidden on a hip isn't SO different, but the real question here is, was it the boy's decision?
The article made it sound a bit like his dad just said "hey kid, you're getting a tattoo cause I say so".
Also I agree that it being a gang symbol, it might get him hurt by adults or other children with gang parents!

But there is definitely a difference between a little boy wanting a paw print tattoo (maybe he doesn't even know it is for a gang? Just likes dogs?) and a dad wanting to brand his little son a gang member. I think that should have a part in this.

-Whether it was the boy's idea or the dad's
-Whether the boy knows it is a gang symbol, or is just a paw print to him

At least they got it done somewhere a bit inconspicuous! Not on say his arm or something anyone can see. Depending on the exact location ("hip" is pretty broad) then maybe nobody will ever see it! At least, not until he is much older, I should hope.

If it was the kid's idea, and he doesn't know it is for a gang, I say, whatever. Same as getting a piercing. Especially if he dealt with the pain just fine, I know some people don't even make faces when they get tattoos. Gotta be a pretty brave kid to go through that!
Whereas if it was the dad's idea, that is a problem, and if the kid knows it means he is "in" a gang, maybe someone should intervene in his family life, get someone to show him that being in a gang is dangerous and not cool.
I honestly....I just don't think kids should be around that stuff. I know they are and always will be, but it makes me sad.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by glitch88
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.


I'm not saying anything pro or anti "nanny state", but there should be some sort of standard. If we are taking children from parents because of their name, and this is obviously worse than that, then we should take them for this. If, on the other hand, we do not punish this guy for what he did, then we definitely should give that other guys kids back.

The argument is that we should have a standard and stick to it. Paradoxical Law is problematic and begs for increased legal costs, court loads, and wasted resources.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Although Im inked and have never had any negative issues with being inked....I think 7 is way too young.

Luckily, the kid can get it removed. Not a pleasant proceedure, but the kid does not have to have it for life. And im sure as time goes on, removal will become much better and easier and more pain free.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It's clearly deliberate disfigurement.

This is an adult forcing a minor to do something permanent to their body.

But, it's interesting to see so many here proclaiming this to be a crime, and yet Americans routinely allow the genital mutilation of their male children as though it's not comparable to this.

It reeks of hypocrisy, IMO.

America routinely proclaims that the genital mutilation of women in Africa is disgusting and against Human Rights, and yet you do the same thing to your boys.

And, before you say it, no, there is NO MEDICAL FOUNDATION to the myths of decreasing disease or improving health and cleanliness. That's a BS story that has been proven time and again to be completely false. This can be clearly seen in the data from other countries where this barbaric act is not routine.

So, Americans in the audience, how do you proclaim this to be abuse of a minor, disfigurement and against all that is right and just, and yet you allow circumcision to continue arbitrarily in America?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Honestly, I'm mostly concerned about how the tattoo will stretch as the child grows...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
If we don't think that children under 18, 16, or 13 (whatever age) should get tattoos, breast augmentation, chemical peel, or whatever we should get it to be a law that it's not allowed. It should be something at the level of the tattoo parlor, or cosmetic surgeon's office.

The story upthread about parents getting their baby tattooed made me feel ill, however. Don't those morons know that the tattoo is not going to look the same after a year or so? I seriously think that is over the line bad judgement. For god's sake, babies under 3 years old are not even supposed to eat honey. How can even a doctor know if it's safe for them to get a tattoo? It's not like it's been tested.

I think in the case of the OP's story, it wouldn't be fair to throw the man in jail for doing something that is not illegal. And as far as I know, it's not illegal to let a seven year old get a tattoo. It would certainly sound like abuse to me if the seven year old didn't want it. And the fact that it is a gang symbol is troubling. But IMO, there should be a law that tattoo parlors shouldn't be allowed to tattoo someone under the age of 16, even with parent's permission.

Okay, I just read someone say that maybe it wasn't done in a shop. Don't most states have laws about doing tattoos without a license?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by AmethystSD]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystSD

I think in the case of the OP's story, it wouldn't be fair to throw the man in jail for doing something that is not illegal. And as far as I know, it's not illegal to let a seven year old get a tattoo.
[edit on 2-10-2009 by AmethystSD]


Age laws for Tattoos and Body Piercing



California
Cal. Penal Code §653
Cal. Penal Code §652
Tattooing-Establishes that it is a misdemeanor for any person to tattoo or offer to tattoo anyone under age 18.

Body Piercing-Prohibits anyone from performing or offering to perform a piercing upon anyone under age 18 unless the piercing is performed in the presence of a parent or guardian or as directed and notarized by the minor's parent or guardian. Does not apply to emancipated minors and does not include pierces of the ear.


[edit on October 2nd 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 


The major difference being that for piercings you simply remove them and they heal-up very quickly - tattoo removal can be problematic and can leave bad scarring.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jokei
 


Well, yes. My ear holes healed themselves up accidentally, overnight. But I had only had them pierced for a couple months. My aunt had hers pierced when she was young, and you can still see where the holes are, even though she stopped wearing any earrings at all at least a decade ago.

But we pierce the ears of BABIES. (I knew tons of 2-3 year olds in my life with their ears pierced, or people who had their ears pierced at that age, one friend about a week after birth)
These holes don't heal, they become a part of the person. They "heal", in that you cannot put anything through them any more without pain, but you can usually still see them.
And also, they pierce more than just ears now, obviously. And other parts of ears. Those don't heal as easily, I have been told.

Of course, there is a difference. But the point was that this was "too painful" to get a tattoo, and equating it to torture, and saying it was traumatic or any other way of saying it caused the child too much pain.
Circumcision is painful. Ear piercing is painful. (I was 17 and almost cried from pain)
I have heard people saying ear piercing isn't at all painful. I have also heard people say tattoos are not at all painful. So, in my opinion, they are the same pain level.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Jail time for being an idiot? Nope, but I would certainly take his parental privileges away as he is clearly not fit to be a parent.

It's pretty selfish and arrogant of people who would tattoo their children.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


the worst thing about it is that he's got the tattoo for life, and will forever be misjudged as a gang member. what has parenting devolved to?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



And, before you say it, no, there is NO MEDICAL FOUNDATION to the myths of decreasing disease or improving health and cleanliness. That's a BS story that has been proven time and again to be completely false. This can be clearly seen in the data from other countries where this barbaric act is not routine.



I have two boys, one is circum and one isn't. From a parenting standpoint, it is far easier to keep the cut one clean. From personal experience, I do believe it helps with disease prevention, and I know that for every study that proves it helps, there is a corresponding one that says it doesn't.

Now, for the CS part. If there were clear evidence that it did help prevent disease, there is a good chance that some well-meaning politician would try to make it mandatory! I would be flatly against such a requirement, even though I choose to get it done to my children.

I believe the gang tattoo on the 7 year old is horrendous, but I don't believe it should be criminal. However, I also don't believe that if someone kicks his arse for it, that is a crime either!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



And, before you say it, no, there is NO MEDICAL FOUNDATION to the myths of decreasing disease or improving health and cleanliness. That's a BS story that has been proven time and again to be completely false. This can be clearly seen in the data from other countries where this barbaric act is not routine.



I have two boys, one is circum and one isn't. From a parenting standpoint, it is far easier to keep the cut one clean. From personal experience, I do believe it helps with disease prevention, and I know that for every study that proves it helps, there is a corresponding one that says it doesn't.


I actually find it quite worrying that a parent would suggest genital mutilation of their child is "convenient" for them.

I have a feeling you are clutching at straws here to justify it, when in fact it simply makes it sound worse.

The evidence for and against is simple. There is no increase in disease or decrease in cleanliness. The cleanliness issue, as you point out, is about education and common sense, not "convenience".
Do you suggest all kids have their ears removed to make it easier to keep them clean? How about cutting the tips of their fingers and toes off to keep their nails clean? Maybe surgical scalping is in order, then they won't have hair to wash.

You see where I am going with this?

Removing a part of a kids body for "convenience" is severely wrong. And removing it based on a misguided belief that it "might" prevent "something" is not adequate excuse either.

I'm not surprised many others haven't discussed this aspect. It's easy to criticise others for bad parenting until something comparable is presented.

In my view, there is nothing different between what this parent has done to his child and what millions of others do to their boys all over the world. In fact, it might be less sickening because at least the child has the option of having a tattoo removed.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Well, I think you are wrong.
There are a great many studies that show benefits to circumcision. But, as I said earlier there are an equal number of studies that show no improvement.

So, as I said before, in absence of a clear medical opinion, I go to personal experience. I know that I have been exposed to some nasty stuff over the years, and I have never contracted any STDs. So, I put some of the credit for that to being circumcised. I also know from experience that it has not hindered my "feeling" or nerve endings, enjoyment of contact in the area, or "size" in any way!


Therefore, without any negative effects, and a good possibility of positive effects, I opt for the procedure for my boys.

But, as I stated earlier, it is my decision and mine alone, and I would not want to legislate the decision for anybody else, nor would I criticize whatever choice they make.

Now, I do think this argument is a key premise in the OP case. This is a painful and permanent procedure, and the kid could wish it was done differently later in life. So it is a great correlation to a tattoo. Also, it signifies a religious affiliation to some people, and in Nazi Germany it was a quick way to find out if you needed to be rounded up for internment or not. So the circumcision argument is very pertinent to the gang tattoo.

This is exactly why I don't believe the guy should go to prison for this action, but I thoroughly believe another family member should issue some type of "justice" for this stupid decision! The main difference for me is that the tattoo clearly does not provide any benefits! It can only serve to cause pain and trouble, it will never provide anything good!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 


Thing is - pain is subjective, people have different tolerances, mine are quite high, but I guess that's just being used to getting tattooed, I know people that have had their feet done that found it really painful, yet I was ok with it.

The issue is - would you risk that for a child? I actually also disagree with the circumsision thing and think it should only be done as and when necessary.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


If you daughter wants all those things and you have no problem encouraging her to get them when she is 18 then I question your parenting skills. If a child is brought up to love and respect their body and the parent is not neglectful in raising their child vs. the system raising their child, the child will have enough common sense to know that the body is beautiful on its own and needs no such garnishes or surgical alterations.

Even after they turn 18, most usually wind up regretting the markings they have placed on themselves. I can't believe the tattoos one of my brothers and one of my cousins have put on their body (and the places they have put them), and they also regret ever doing so. These will (and have) hurt their chance at a good profession and can detract from attracting a potential mate with good values.

A parent has no right to encourage their child to do such things; rather they have a responsibility to teach them good values and to take care of their bodies inside and out, for physical and/or mental and/or spiritual well being.

[edit on 10/4/2009 by pjslug]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join