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

Originally posted by Believer101
Mother or not, it is against the law to let ANYONE under the age of 18 get a tattoo, whether or not they have parental consent.
She broke the law, she got arrested.

AGREED! it's crazy to say that parents can do whatever they like to their children!

reply to post by Ashes1221

Following that logic... it would be ok to beat your children, sexually abuse your children, starve your children....etc. I think you see where i'm going with this! The government and the laws in place are there to protect people, including inocent children who definitely didn't choose their parents. complete freedom would be anarchy!

Well, following that logic...

Why not let the government lock us all up in padded rooms, and just bring us out for supervised visits?

You took the slippery slope all the way one way, so why not take it the other, to maximum safety?

The only difference in our two comparisons, your's is completely unlikely, because most parents are good parents, and most extended families would step in to protect a child at some point, and the amount of child abuse and neglect is not going to change much with or without the laws, but.................

The government is historically proven to grow and grow and intrude more and more, and so my example is not only plausible, but likely if we don't act to interfere and slow down its growth!

So, we both have illogical slippery slope arguments, but yours is unlikely because of the human element, and mine is likely without the human element!

reply to post by DYepes


Deny Ignorance...My son has a tatoo in memory of his cousin who died in a drunk driving accident. It didn't stop him from getting 2 DUI's. Kids think there 10 feet tall and bullet proof. It was sad that I had no strong male role model to help me raise him as well as my daughter. Unfornately all the men at the time that could have made a difference failed. Yes, I think boys need a strong male role model in their life to help them grow up. Especially when there's so much crap out there.

In my opinion. This woman should have not been arrested. It is a waste of tax payer money. What are they going to do , take her kid away for letting him get a tattoo? A non provocative tattoo at that. Now , if she does this twice ... then yeah , they need to look into getting this kid out of her hands.

I will never let my kid get a tattoo until 18 years of age. I do not agree with what she did , however , i do not think she should have been arrested. Fined? Yes. She should have been fined.

Do i agree with tattoos? Unfortunately .. i like them ; tasteful tattoos any how.

--------------

In my honest opinion. The tattoo parlor should be held more liable than the mother and the kid. They knew the law .. or should have. Even if the artist felt bad for the woman , he should have not put one on the kid.

reply to post by relocator


No dirty(improvising)....

All the tribes in villages in small countries should be invaded by the US, take their resources, and protect their children from 100's to 1,000's years of traditions of painting and tattooing their bodies and faces, so inhumane, such destruction to one's body, I can't beleive this happens, We as a SUPERPOWER need to save them now!

That's to nay sayers in the up most respect of having a open mind to this issue, How the hell you know the decent of the heritage??? Hurry, hurry, the minds are closing, get it in quick, LOL.

Just a thought, have a nice day!

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

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!

I have no problem with it. It is for a very good purpose. His brother DIED. That is not something he will ever regret.

While im inked up and my 7yr old cant waits until she is old enough for tattoos and I would not let her get one so young....we need LESS government in our lives. LESS. not more!!

every situation is different and I do not see this situation as one that deserves legal action. now if a mother was taking her kid to get ink all over his body for the fun of it....with stupid crap....then I would judge her negatively.

but this was a memorial of a dead sibling!!

edit on January 20th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

What would be wrong with having him wait a few years? Could a parent not direct him into another satisfactory memorial to his brother? Maybe seeing this daily will not help him move on and not get depressed all the time. When he is older he may have not made the same choice. I don't think we need let permanent things be done as decoration to our kids when they are not old enough to have grown into their final beliefs, we are there to help protect them from their own young mistakes.

My Father who died at 42 I remember always regretted getting his tattoos when he was young.

Would you feel the same if he had got an infection and died or HIV or something from having it done?

Just think if he ever decides he does not like being reminded everyday of his loss, he would feel to guilty to ever remove that Tattoo it would be like saying I want to forget my brother or I didn't love him.

I agree with the OP! The PTB puts
pressure on parents to do what they
want done with kids - such as vaccines.
But when it comes to something personal
like a tattoo and a sentimental tattoo at
that is just mind blowing IMO.

Posion them with vaccines but a tattoo -
no way.

Originally posted by AK907ICECOLD
reply to post by relocator

 

No dirty(improvising)....

All the tribes in villages in small countries should be invaded by the US, take their resources, and protect their children from 100's to 1,000's years of traditions of painting and tattooing their bodies and faces, so inhumane, such destruction to one's body, I can't beleive this happens, We as a SUPERPOWER need to save them now!

That's to nay sayers in the up most respect of having a open mind to this issue, How the hell you know the decent of the heritage??? Hurry, hurry, the minds are closing, get it in quick, LOL.

Just a thought, have a nice day!

If we did half the things they do in these small villages you speak of we would not have the society we have but we would live like they do in small villages.
we have states and they vote for the laws they would like to live under, as long as states rights are still in place we are not being dictated too.

reply to post by celimonster


YOUR MOM SHOULD BE ARRESTED, LOL

Good to have you on myside, look at my post on page 9 or 10, you will appreciate it dearly.

Thank you Miss

When I read the headline I was fully expecting to be further disgusted that a mother would allow her under age son to get a tattoo, however after reading the reason behind it and that this boy was at the scene when his brother died, I'm more than ok with it.

Many parents get their infants' ears pierced, I haven't read all the posts so maybe that's already been addressed. The problem lies with the fact that it (tattooing) is against state law for someone so young and I can understand why people are in a tizzy about it. She didn't know though, but I know, ignorance of the law is no excuse, blah blah.....whatever, it still sucks. I think that in cases like this the spirit of the law should be looked at. Obviously, the law was made to protect children. Perhaps the mom could have gone about it another way, but I say give her a break, my gosh she's lost a child! Who knows what that feels like? I don't, and I don't even want to imagine. So she gets arrested, furthering her and her sons pain ( one can only imagine this is the case)

I'm just so sick of practically forced down your throat laws that even though part of me thinks she should have made her son wait longer, (or maybe had the tattoo not openly visable) I still think this is messed up. I wonder if she had taken him to another country where it's legal and had it done if there would still be a stink over it.

You don't have to vaccinate your kids either fill out the forms or home school.

See: Source

A memorial tattoo on a 10 year old... not only is it tacky, but its a child whose arm or whatever it was placed on. Kids have parents for good reasons: one of them being to prevent the naive and inexperienced child from making foolhardy decisions that they could very well regret in the future.

Tacky tattoos hurt your chances of getting good jobs, in this case its going to distort soon because the child is going to grow and the skin is going to stretch, and in 2 weeks the child will probably be over the whole idea and then be stuck with it permanently.

This "mother" is obviously not a very good one.

reply to post by Char-Lee


You say that like it's a bad thing, their family values and morals ARE stronger as a whole then 95% of america's.
to say otherwise is ingorance is it not??


Please indulge me.............ohh wait, I'm sorry and sarcastic when I say you are too dependant on tech and not on nature, could you survive in a loving family in a small village with nothing but dependance on a person and nothing else, I could, what say you.

Still I love and pray for your short sightedness.

Originally posted by AK907ICECOLD
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

You say that like it's a bad thing, their family values and morals ARE stronger as a whole then 95% of america's.
to say otherwise is ingorance is it not??


Please indulge me.............ohh wait, I'm sorry and sarcastic when I say you are too dependant on tech and not on nature, could you survive in a loving family in a small village with nothing but dependance on a person and nothing else, I could, what say you.

Still I love and pray for your short sightedness.

edit on 20-1-2012 by AK907ICECOLD because: Added a lil love

Wow thanks...I feel your prayers already!

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This is ridiculous. I'm not saying this stupid mom did the right thing - she did not. But if the government is going to go after her, they need to go after all of those fat cows who live vicariously through their three-year-olds by putting makeup on them and forcing them to perform in beauty pageants - AND the sick bastards who organize those pageants.

Which do you think is doing more damage to the kid? A tattoo, or being objectified before the age of reason? Seriously.

I agree with you there but that is not the subject of this discussion.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


Thank you for probably the one sane post on this topic. I believe it's a given that we don't need the state in on this, but at the same time the actions of the mother do not indicate that she is a "mother" or a smart one in my opinion.

Public condemnation of this is what's needed, the best reformer is that of shame.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
I wonder if Mom had allowed the son to brand or scar himself rather than get the ink would the law have come for her? WA set precedence by acquitting the Dad who branded his underage kids, but of course state to state laws would differ... Just musing, really a bit off topic, I guess.

edit on 20-1-2012 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

Actually i think it is very on topic as a brand is the same thing, it involves permanent marking and pain and possible infection.

First of all when I read the title,I thought it was a rant about getting a child a tattoo..
Now reading it,I understand why she allowed him to. Because a brother has great love to his relative does not mean that he cant express it.
I heard worse things than that like tanning in those booths or whatever they are..I mean thats not right but a tattoo for that reason.I think there should be exceptions.

Originally posted by hellzdoms
First of all when I read the title,I thought it was a rant about getting a child a tattoo..
Now reading it,I understand why she allowed him to. Because a brother has great love to his relative does not mean that he cant express it.
I heard worse things than that like tanning in those booths or whatever they are..I mean thats not right but a tattoo for that reason.I think there should be exceptions.

Maybe if all concerned gave it time...for grief to pass and then were clear headed they may not have made the same decision. NO ONE should make any life changing decision during time of grief.

reply to post by silo13


good post op, well more so on your own opinion. the government have no bloody right to tell you what you can and cant do to your kids, they are yours not the governments (sad truth is that where all owned by the/your government)

SF