Georgia Mom Arrested for Allowing 10-Year-Old to Get Tattoo

Originally posted by dalan.


No.

Its one of those things when you ponder "Where do we draw the line?" When the State began stepping in to "protect" children from child abuse, is when people began losing their rights as parents.

Actually YES.

I'm talking about physical and sexual abuse of a child.
If you don't think the police (state) and social services (state) should step in in such instances, then you need your head looking at.

I'm not talking about parents smoking or playing loud music.


I'm talking parents beating and sexually abusing their kids.... which is why I said there are SOME instances where children need to be removed from parents.

reply to post by revmoofoo

The laws regarding body mutilations are there to protect the young and I find it difficult to understand why any adult (especially a parent) would want to flaunt said laws because they think their child is smart and mature enough to handle it.

So removing the foreskin of an infant males without his permission is ok - but allowing a 10 year old to get a tattoo in remembrance and love for his dead older brother is not?

When someone can replace a foreskin as easily as one can remove a tattoo maybe I'll agree. Until then? It's the parents decision.

peace

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by revmoofoo

 

The laws regarding body mutilations are there to protect the young and I find it difficult to understand why any adult (especially a parent) would want to flaunt said laws because they think their child is smart and mature enough to handle it.

So removing the foreskin of an infant males without his permission is ok - but allowing a 10 year old to get a tattoo is not?

When someone can replace a foreskin as easily as one can remove a tattoo maybe I'll agree. Until then? It's the parents decision.

peace

You're putting words in my mouth and assuming a little too much. I am not a proponent of circumcision, but that's mostly because my cousin had it done when he "became a man" and I remember how uncomfortable it made him.

Tattoos are not always easy to remove and the comparison to the removal of a child's/man's foreskin just doesn't cut it because they are very different things. I have tattoos, a piercing and a couple of brands, but all of my body mutilations (except for the scars) were adult choices that I made.

And that's my point really. If you're a parent, then encourage your children to be children rather than allow them to do adult things that they shouldn't even be thinking about while under the age of consent for said adult thing.

I think you're taking this whole subject a little too personally OP and it is my belief that this is effecting your judgement. I base this observation on your past posts, which are usually less biased.

Rev

And for the record, when my mum died, instead of a tattoo, I wore her cross. Doing something like that makes much more sense than inking a developing body.

In my opinion, this is right on the boundary line. The problem is that today most parents aren't mature enough to have kids but they do anyway, 99.9% of the time it isn't thought out but accidental pregnancies. When kids have kids, you start to have problems. I can see what my parents would've said if I would've asked for a memorial tattoo for my dead brother at age 10, and that would've been "Its a good thing you want to do for your brother but you will have to wait until you are 18". A 10 year old isn't capable of considering all the consequences of getting a tattoo nor the long term repercussions. I'm covered in ink, but I made choices to get them as an adult, not a child.

reply to post by Imightknow


Well said!

I think my parents would have had the same attitude as yours. My dad always hated my tattoos, but he went ape when I got my first brand. If you can get past the smell (I couldn't eat meat for ages lol) I recommend it as something unique...like tattoos were when I was a kid.

Star for you.

Rev

I agree with you

Originally posted by reverandrandy
It is illegal to tattoo a minor in Georgia, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, the tattoo artist should be the one arrested, and held accountable for practicing their trade in an illegal manor.

The mom walks into the parlor, and requests the services for a tattoo for her son: The artist then says, "I'm sorry, ma'am, it is against the law to tattoo minors in this state."

Because the artist failed to know the law, they should pay the price.

Just because a child requests something doesn't mean it's good for them.

I have a son who had a cousin pass away from a car accident. I made my son as well as my daughter wait until they were adults before they were allowed to make that decision and then I advacated against it. After my daughter got a staph infection from an "extremely clean" tatoo shop (Yeah Right) she hasn't gotten anymore...You try to warn them of the dangers but sometimes they have to suffer the consequences before they see the wisdom.

Because the artist failed to know the law, they should pay the price...Buyer beware!

reply to post by relocator

After my daughter got a staph infection from an "extremely clean" tatoo shop (Yeah Right)

I've never known anyone that got an infection from a tattoo, and I know a LOT of people with tattoos.

However, just about everyone I know has had a staph infection at one time or another. I had one on my back last year, and it still isn't completely healed! My brother has been fighting one on his big toe on and off for a couple of years as well.

In other words, it is unlikely that the staph infection was a direct result of the tattoo. Indirect maybe, but not direct. Staph already lives on our skin, and is in all of our zits and imperfections, and sometimes it gets out of control.

And if a white supremest tattooed swastikas on his children?

I don't think you can make exceptions - - you can't know the mind and intent of all parents.

I agree with the law on this one.

reply to post by Annee


I agree with the law requiring an adult decision. Kids shouldn't be getting these on their own, but the law shouldn't override a parent's decision.

I asked earlier, but how is a tattoo any different than a circumcision, or wisdom teeth removal, or choosing an appropriate afterschool program or hobby? Any of those things have permanent impacts on a child. What if the government decides we shouldn't let the kids take a karate class? What if the government decides the Dentist or the Doctor get the final say on healthcare decisions and not the parent?

We know it already happens on occasion, but it seems to be becoming more and more common to take away a parent's role and give it to someone else.

I would disagree with the swastika tattoo, just like I disagreed with the gang tattoos in my earlier post, but I don't want the government stepping in. Just because I disagree doesn't make my opinion more important than the actual parent's opinion.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

So, it becomes just an issue of money? They will give her a citation or a fine or something? What is the point of that? If they really wrote this law with the best of intentions, then what the hell good is any fine going to do? Is this basically the same as saying, "You can do anything you want to your child as long as you pay us for it."

So, the issue of liberty, and parenting comes up, but also the intent of the law. What the hell is the law written for? It seems it is just another way to take some money off a citizen?

I believe you are on to something there.

Great posts, getready.
Everyone needs to open their eyes and see what is happening.

Personally, I would never tattoo or ear pierce a child but that's just me....but if I so chose to allOW my child to do this, it should be MY business alone and without interference. But yeah, it's about the money, and of course control of the people.

Also to say to an earlier comment - someone said that tattoos are for life. Well, this isn't necessarily so, for they CAN be removed . Of course this is costly.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I agree with the law requiring an adult decision. Kids shouldn't be getting these on their own, but the law shouldn't override a parent's decision.

I do not agree. You can't know the mind/intent of all parents.

YOU would be responsible - - but what if a Skinhead chooses to use his kid as a signboard? There has to be laws to protect some kids from their parents.

I asked earlier, but how is a tattoo any different than a circumcision, or wisdom teeth removal, or choosing an appropriate afterschool program or hobby? Any of those things have permanent impacts on a child. What if the government decides we shouldn't let the kids take a karate class? What if the government decides the Dentist or the Doctor get the final say on healthcare decisions and not the parent?

Sorry - - but I see no correlation - - between the above and permanent tattoos.

I totally agree with the OP. I have mad tats, I also have kids. I would not let my child get a tat at that age but that is MY personal opinion about MY child. If her son wanted a small tat of his dad brother and the mother said yes and the tattoo parlor didn't have a problem with it, then what is the problem? There were 3 parties involved and apparently all 3 parties agreed. That should be the end of the discussion. The government already has too much power over our families. I remember a time when kids were told "if you live under my roof, you'll follow my rules". One problem is that the government is taking all the parents tools, to raise their own children, away. If you pick up the phone and overhear your child's conversation about a crime, and report it, YOU could be charged with invading their privacy. Doesn't matter if the phone is in your name and you pay for it. You can't go in the bedroom that you paid for because that' an invation of privacy. You can't spank your kids.You can't discipline them in public without someone running to call the cops. I'm SICKENED by it. Then I see girls like Jenelle from Teen mom 2 acting a straight up fool on public tv blatantly direspecting her mother (who is NICE enough to take care of her child for her) teaching this new generation that it doesn't matter how you treat your parents, they still will do what you want.

Guys, your getting this wrong. Of course most people would agree that what happened here is a joke, but when the law against under-age tattoo's was issued, they obviously had other stuff in mind. Ie. (gang culture, peer pressure, abuse etc.) the cops couldn't ignore this if the school reported it. Otherwise, every other kid on the block would be gettin tattoo's left right and centre. "oh that's my great great great granpa 2pac Shakir and that one on my neck is in memory of my dog and the huge crucifix is in memory of Jesus." ....

reply to post by Annee


The correlation is somewhere on the side of the slippery slope.

If we say that a parent can't make a decision regarding a tattoo, because we disagree with the decision-making of some parent's choices, then we can extrapolate that to other areas. We can outlaw anything with permanent implications that don't meat the politically correct social climate of the day. Some town has already tried to outlaw circumcisions, while other times they have tried to make them mandatory. I had a Dentist try to force my parents to get my wisdom teeth removed, and in today's climate, that same dentist might have been able to force the issue by getting child protective services involved and overrode my parents decision!

It is easy to see the problem with the gang tattoo, but obviously Georgia already ran into a problem with their law, and they had to make the exception of the medically necessary tattoos.

It is impossible to draw clear-cut lines in law that will meet every situation, but it is pretty simple to see that government intrusion very rarely solves any problems, it only creates more problems. Therefore, we should limit government intrusion.

reply to post by silo13







Would it be alright for the mom and 10 year old to smoke a little heroin?




I love what our founding fathers had in mind for this country this is not it. You have the right to do anything as long as it does not infringe on another's right to do the same.

Originally posted by Submarines
Not only was I shocked, but I was speechless!

What shocked me even more was your post! I can't believe that you have a problem with the arrest of a mother who allowed a TEN YEAR OLD CHILD to be permanently tattooed.

Please tell me, someone, that I'm not the only one here that has a problem with this!

Totally agree!!

I hate these so-called parents who treat their children as toys to decorate as they wish - with no regard whatsoever for the child. I would ban all piercings for anyone under 18 as well.

Mind, what tattoist would ever maime a child? I hope he/she lives to regret their evil selfishness. Money isn't everything!

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by silo13

 

Would it be alright for the mom and 10 year old to smoke a little heroin?


I love what our founding fathers had in mind for this country this is not it. You have the right to do anything as long as it does not infringe on another's right to do the same.

That depends doesn't it.

Where is the line drawn?

Heroin seems entirely wrong, but what about a neti pot? If the government can tell you one treatment is wrong, then they can tell you any treatment is wrong!

What if there was a very good reason for it? I don't know much about it, but maybe there is a good reason out there. What if the kid had a terminal illness and modern medicine wasn't helping, and the mother found out by accident that one singular thing could make their child more comfortable. Would you take away that mother's right to make her own child more comfortable?

You see, once you give the government a little meddling power, then they don't know where to stop!

reply to post by getreadyalready





It is really simple actually a child can not protect there rights so if a parent will not the government must.



Would it be alright for the child to be a crab fisherman? What about working in the coal mines? What if the child wanted to sell a kidney? Or maybe the kid wanted to settle down and get married to a 50 year old.




Ya get my point?

reply to post by Subjective Truth


No, I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but I don't see anything wrong with any of those things you mentioned. In fact, I think that is part of the problem with our current education system.

So a child wants to become a coal miner, or a crab fisherman like his father. Why not? Why not educate him during the off months, and let him apprentice with his father during the on months? Why do we feel the need to try and turn every kid into a doctor or a lawyer? We are diluting the education system with subpar students and creating a shortage in skilled-labor, and that shortage is being filled by illegal immigrants! We have the worst possible scenario as it is, and the things you suggest actually sound like a huge improvement if you ask me!

What if a very poor family has a 14 year old daughter that is likely to end up on drugs or in prostitution or porn, but instead a nice old man becomes enamored with her and her situation and offers to marry her? I don't see the the problem. As long as the parent's say it is ok, who are we to judge?

There was a Law and Order episode where some illegal immigrant girl was being "abused" because she worked for a family from dawn to dusk, and her quarters were a tiny closet under a staircase. So the evil do-gooders decided to "rescue" her, and take her away from that life, and she ended up deported, back to a place where the conditions were much, much WORSE!

We need to stop trying to but into everyone else's business and just worry about our own.

If my brother tried to give his kid a tattoo, I would be immediately and directly involved, and my opinion would matter. BUT, if some stranger does it, let his family worry about it, not me, and not the government.