Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A story in the paper caught my eye. A Georgia Couple (parents of six kids all under 18) were arrested for giving all their kids tattoos. The parents do not feel like they did anything wrong. They said the kids all wanted tattoos and liked them. The parents both have tattoos and wanted their kids to have them too.
Lets not have a debate about the pros and cons of tattoos. That subject has been talked to death. Instead, do you think kids under 18 should get tattoos to please their parents? Should parents have the right to give their underage kids tattoos?
This is a tough one. I don't think they should be arrested. My son is sixteen and if he wanted to get a tattoo I would not allow it. When he is 18 he can make his own decisions and do what he wants with his body, but until then I am responsible for him, by law. To me getting a tattoo is a bad thing ( I don't want to be 70 with sagging skin with people trying to figure out what the tattoo use to be), but to others it is a right of passage, or art, etc. I do not feel I have the right to tell others what to do with their bodies, but I do have the right to tell my kids until they are out on their own.
If you are going to arrest them for tattooing their kids, then arrest parents who get their babies' ears pierced as well. Neither is anything more than body mutilation in the name of vanity, so why differentiate between the two?
If you are going to arrest them for tattooing their kids, then arrest parents who get their babies' ears pierced as well. Neither is anything more than body mutilation in the name of vanity, so why differentiate between the two?
If you are going to arrest them for tattooing their kids, then arrest parents who get their babies' ears pierced as well. Neither is anything more than body mutilation in the name of vanity, so why differentiate between the two?
My 10 yo wanted to get her ears pierced. My husbands aunt just insisted that she wanted to do it and pay for it when we were visiting. I was upset with my husband, because he told her that is was fine. I knew my daughter wouldn't like it and I was trying to put it off as long as possible. I take responsibility because I could have said no, but I didn't. It was awful. She started crying, but she did it. She had the earings in for maybe a week. She hated them. I told her to take them out and she did. My husband was mad, because his aunt paid $50.00 to get it done, but I told him that I didn't want it done in the first place and if she wanted to take them out she could.
Now, if it was a tattoo. you just can't take it off. Unless of course it's a temporary tattoo.
A story in the paper caught my eye. A Georgia Couple (parents of six kids all under 18) were arrested for giving all their kids tattoos. The parents do not feel like they did anything wrong. They said the kids all wanted tattoos and liked them. The parents both have tattoos and wanted their kids to have them too.
Lets not have a debate about the pros and cons of tattoos. That subject has been talked to death. Instead, do you think kids under 18 should get tattoos to please their parents? Should parents have the right to give their underage kids tattoos?
From the article:
Turns out Georgia state law prohibits both tattoos on children and those created by unlicensed artist.
I agree with the poster who said that tattoos are no different from pierced ears. One is just much more common and accepted than the other. So, in general: butt out. However, given that tattoos ARE less common and accepted than pierced ears, and the subsequent issues having one can bring (prejudice, difficulty finding a job, getting trouble in school--depending on its message and visibility), I might be OK with tattoos for kids at 14 or 16 with parental consent.
I do think that kids getting tattoos is very stupid, but it is not my job to legislate all the stupidity out of people.
The part about an unlicensed artist, now, I think I agree with that. It's too easy to cause an infection. If you are just hell-bent on tattooing your kids, get some training and a license.
Should the parents have been arrested? Well, they broke the law.
If you are going to arrest them for tattooing their kids, then arrest parents who get their babies' ears pierced as well. Neither is anything more than body mutilation in the name of vanity, so why differentiate between the two?
Pierced ears grow back in, and are not a permanent marker that they will carry for life as a sign that screams "Look how stupid I am".
So are you saying that all of those that serve in the military and have tattoos are stupid?
What does the military have to do with it? If being in the military validates or obliges tattoos, then the military itself is stupid. Even aside from all the other things the military does that shows that it is stupid.
A tattoo to me is a signal that a very immature person allowed a combination of peer pressure and probably mind-altering substances to persuade them to permanently mark their body with something that can do nothing for the rest of their life except be a living reminder of their childhood foolishmess.
Last edited by jtur88; 01-06-2010 at 02:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
