3littlekeets Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) I admit, at first I laughed that anyone could be so clueless -- and her grammar didn't help. But, WOW, when it set it, I was just dumbfounded. If I had an ex, and he did that, I'd be livid.... http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/01/04/dnt.parents.tattoo.kids.wtvc edited: yes, it should be tattooing, but it wouldn't let me change my typo in the title. Tattoo an L on my forehead. Edited January 7, 2010 by 3littlekeets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Jenny Flint Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 The standards of some people are pretty scary. But, then again, "I don't know how this got all blowed up like this." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Well.... People pierce their children's (little babies even) ears all the time. I'm not sure this is too different? signed, KJB non-tattooer non-piercer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMom Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 The standards of some people are pretty scary. But, then again, "I don't know how this got all blowed up like this." :lol: :001_huh: :lol: I'd be livid if someone tattooed my kids. And her cluelessness...Yikes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Well.... People pierce their children's (little babies even) ears all the time. I'm not sure this is too different? signed, KJB non-tattooer non-piercer Ear piercings can close. A tattoo needs to be removed at a fair cost. While you and I may agree that piercing a child’s ears is...well we do not need that argument..... there is both culturally, and aesthetically, a difference between this and a clearly visible home-done tattoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TN Mama Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Ear piercings can close. A tattoo needs to be removed at a fair cost. While you and I may agree that piercing a child’s ears is...well we do not need that argument..... there is both culturally, and aesthetically, a difference between this and a clearly visible home-done tattoo. :iagree: (And we don't pierce infant's ears either.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysticamethyst Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Saddly it really doesn't suprise me. They have 7 children between the 2 of them and neither of them look like they should have custody of any of them. I noticed none of her kids got the tattoo, just his. What really sickens me about this whole story really is that they used the same homemade needle on all the children. As for being the birth mother if I went to pick up any of my kids and they had tattoos, well, I can only think of the movie "There will be Blood". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2denj Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 WOW! Both of my girls had thier ears pierced as babies and they LOVE them now!!! I always feel bad for the older little girls that are scared to death, but want them so bad. And NO I would not tattoo my children! It is not the same! Well.... People pierce their children's (little babies even) ears all the time. I'm not sure this is too different? signed, KJB non-tattooer non-piercer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Black tattoos can be removed with laser light. These tattoos are black. Regardless of the expense for removal, these tattoos for these children *can* be removed, just like piercings *can* close, although they don't necessarily close, especially if a baby is pierced and earrings are worn continuously. My ears were pierced when I was young, and I wore earrings for about two years, and I still have holes in my head to this day. :D I don't see the difference. In fact, since black tattoos can be removed, I'd say tattooing is a less permanent choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 WOW! Both of my girls had thier ears pierced as babies and they LOVE them now!!! I always feel bad for the older little girls that are scared to death, but want them so bad. And NO I would not tattoo my children! It is not the same! I suspect that these tattooed children LOVE their tattoos. I'm not sure why this matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2denj Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 It matters because you are being very offensive!!!! I suspect that these tattooed children LOVE their tattoos. I'm not sure why this matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) It matters because you are being very offensive!!!! I apologize most sincerely if you are offended. Mine is just one opinion in a sea of opinions....Take it for what it's worth (not much). The beauty of freedom is we all get to make our own decisions. And I should add, I'm fairly against elective procedures of any kind done on children unless there is a health benefit. In both of the case of piercing and tattooing children are subjected to a risk of infection with no benefit besides aesthetics, which of course is subjective. Edited January 7, 2010 by KJB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomtoCandJ Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 The tattoos are better than actual black and blue marks and other forms of abuse. Don't see what the big deal is either, it could have been a whole lot worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I agree that I think it's fine. I wouldn't do it, but we are not tattoo people. I wouldn't pierce a kid's ears either unless they asked for them to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3littlekeets Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 I was also shocked that he used the same "needle" on the children. The older ones may have been exposed to something like Hepatitis....sigh. I guess the younger ones may have been as well. Using the same needle only added to the shock of it for me. As for the "kids love it" argument. I know parents who let their 15 yo children get drunk b/c it is safer to drink at home:001_huh:. I'm sure those kids don't complain:tongue_smilie:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomOfOneFunOne Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 OI, you should have seen the letter I wrote when my girl came home from pre-school with painted fingernails. I was livid. I cannot imagine what I'd do or how I'd feel if someone tatooed (or pierced) her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraGB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Hmmm... On the one hand, its just "an itty, bitty cross" and all the kids probably think they are pretty cool. On the other hand, mom's boyfriend/other kids' dad repeatedly poked a bunch of kids with a sharpened guitar string hooked up to a motor and left long lasting marks. Hmmm...what to think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuff Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I'd be livid if someone did that to my children too. But really, the divorce or breakup is the stem of the issue here. Since we'd never have heard about it if they were two agreeing parents. I don't see the issue with tattooing over piercing. One is more socially acceptable; both cause pain and permenantly change the body. But they shouldn't have done it without involving the other parent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I think the key objections are that the other parent did not give consent to the tattoo and that the children are legally too young to have given consent (the tattoo industry takes legal age considerations very seriously). There is also the fact that the guy doing the tattoo is not licensed and did not even come close to observing safety and sanitary regulations. I'm not even sure he used a tattoo grade ink. There are so many reasons these parents are in hot water. Even if this is a teeny tiny tattoo and even if it is removable (this may still leave a visible scar), these parents needed to be stopped. Judging from the extent of their own body illustrations, they may not have stopped at a tiny cross if nobody had objected. They clearly didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing and completely blew off the other parent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 It matters because you are being very offensive!!!! I don't see where she is being offensive at all. You may not agree with her opinion but she stated it politely and was in no way offensive about it. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remudamom Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I say let the idiots be idiots and it'll be easier for homeschoolers to take over the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I think the key objections are that the other parent did not give consent to the tattoo and that the children are legally too young to have given consent (the tattoo industry takes legal age considerations very seriously). There is also the fact that the guy doing the tattoo is not licensed and did not even come close to observing safety and sanitary regulations. I'm not even sure he used a tattoo grade ink. There are so many reasons these parents are in hot water. Even if this is a teeny tiny tattoo and even if it is removable (this may still leave a visible scar), these parents needed to be stopped. Judging from the extent of their own body illustrations, they may not have stopped at a tiny cross if nobody had objected. They clearly didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing and completely blew off the other parent. :iagree: It isn't so much that one parent didn't give consent or the size of the tat. It is that these people broke several laws. There wouldn't have been anything to blowed up if what they did was legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) I agree that the real issues here are doing this without parental consent and the lack of safety precautions. I would also be curious about the legal age for getting a tattoo, and whether or not that would be allowed even with a parent's consent. I suppose there are potentially laws being broken on this front as well. As for piercing vs. tattooing, I really don't see the difference. And I wonder if those that do see a difference between the two would think that other piercings would fall into the category of "acceptable". For example, would it have been ok if this couple pierced the kids' eyebrows, rather than giving them tattoos? (Solely on the basis of their age, ignoring the issues about parental consent, etc.) Edited January 7, 2010 by MelanieM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah CB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 WOW! Both of my girls had thier ears pierced as babies and they LOVE them now!!! I always feel bad for the older little girls that are scared to death, but want them so bad. And NO I would not tattoo my children! It is not the same! :iagree: I had my ears pierced at 4 and it hurt so badly that I didn't let my mom clean them and she had to take the earrings out and let them grow in. Then I had to wait years before she'd let me try again. I had dd's ears pierced at 3 months - she cried for about a minute and that was it. I thought it would be easier to get it over with before she knew that she had ears. She's thirteen now and loves having earrings (she's loved having earrings ever since she figured them out). I have never actually met anyone my age or younger who doesn't have ear piercings and doesn't want them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah CB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 As for piercing vs. tattooing, I really don't see the difference. And I wonder if those that do see a difference between the two would think that other piercings would fall into the category of "acceptable". For example, would it have been ok if this couple pierced the kids' eyebrows, rather than giving them tattoos? (Solely on the basis of their age, ignoring the issues about parental consent, etc.) I guess the difference, to me, is that I don't think I know any women who don't have their ears pierced... I know lots of women who don't have tattoos, I know lots of women who don't have eyebrow piercings, I know lots of women who don't have their noses pierced. But, everyone I know has earrings. It's inevitable...other piercings and tattoos are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I guess the difference, to me, is that I don't think I know any women who don't have their ears pierced... I know lots of women who don't have tattoos, I know lots of women who don't have eyebrow piercings, I know lots of women who don't have their noses pierced. But, everyone I know has earrings. It's inevitable...other piercings and tattoos are not. Maybe everyone they know has tattoos. I had my ears pierced when I was a child, and I never wear earrings. If it were not done, I would not have had them done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I agree that the real issues here are doing this without parental consent and the lack of safety precautions. I would also be curious about the legal age for getting a tattoo, and whether or not that would be allowed even with a parent's consent. I suppose there are potentially laws being broken on this front as well. As for piercing vs. tattooing, I really don't see the difference. And I wonder if those that do see a difference between the two would think that other piercings would fall into the category of "acceptable". For example, would it have been ok if this couple pierced the kids' eyebrows, rather than giving them tattoos? (Solely on the basis of their age, ignoring the issues about parental consent, etc.) :iagree: we already cautioned our dc that even as adults, they should be very thoughtful about where they get piercings and tattoos. Visible ones can unfortunately close doors for them. as for piercing age, I got mine pierced around 10yo. My granny took me. It didn't hurt that much and was a fun outing. We're gonna wait for our dd to be a bit older before we see if she wants to pierce her ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I agree that I think it's fine. I wouldn't do it, but we are not tattoo people. I wouldn't pierce a kid's ears either unless they asked for them to be done. How about if the tatts were on the face? How about if they were swastikas? How about instead of being black they were red or some other color that is harder to remove? One does not get underage children tattoos. It is just that simple. It is called being a good father or mother, someone who allows an underage child (below adolescence) to get a home tattoo is not a good parent. I frequently understand opposing opinions, even if I strongly disagree, but not on this thread. To permanently mark a child, especially in a visible place, is simply wrong. When we get into adolescence, well no child of mine would ever be allowed a tattoo, but I do understand parents allowing them to get one. I suppose I can see the case for the 17 year old, but below that....these "parents" are nuts. They tattooed a 10 year old!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I guess the difference, to me, is that I don't think I know any women who don't have their ears pierced... I know lots of women who don't have tattoos, I know lots of women who don't have eyebrow piercings, I know lots of women who don't have their noses pierced. But, everyone I know has earrings. It's inevitable...other piercings and tattoos are not. So then is it your opinion that people should be able to do whatever they want concerning their children's appearance as long as the majority of society does it as well? From your post, it sounds like your concern would be regarding the issue of non-conformity. For what it's worth, I had my ears pierced as a baby. I *hated* it as a child (in fact, my mother couldn't get them in my ears as I resisted so much... so they grew over and she had them done again when I was four or so), liked it well enough as a teen, and now really would prefer not to have them as an adult. And even though I don't wear earings, my holes don't grow over. If it were *my* choice, I would not have my ears pierced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) I don't see the difference. In fact, since black tattoos can be removed, I'd say tattooing is a less permanent choice. :iagree: My ears were pierced when I was a baby. I went through a grumpy childhood and adolescence refusing to ever wear earrings, but the holes never closed. Worse, they remained visible as these two dots that always looked empty when I looked in the mirror. I eventually put earrings in just so I didn't have to feel like I was walking around with holes, got facial piercings to shift the theme my mother had imposed on my face. I would have been just as annoyed if I had a black tattoo, but I could do something about that. These kids were all ten and up, and it sounds like they consented. I wouldn't let my kids consent to something like that before I knew they could earn the money to remove it, or let them have it done with a homemade gun, or do it against the will of the other parent. But it was not against the kids' will or without their knowledge and so I don't think it should be a cruelty against children charge. Maybe an endangering the welfare of a child charge. Are there charges specific to breaking health regulations? Edited January 7, 2010 by dragons in the flower bed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 How about if the tatts were on the face?How about if they were swastikas? How about instead of being black they were red or some other color that is harder to remove? One does not get underage children tattoos. It is just that simple. It is called being a good father or mother, someone who allows an underage child (below adolescence) to get a home tattoo is not a good parent. I frequently understand opposing opinions, even if I strongly disagree, but not on this thread. To permanently mark a child, especially in a visible place, is simply wrong. When we get into adolescence, well no child of mine would ever be allowed a tattoo, but I do understand parents allowing them to get one. I suppose I can see the case for the 17 year old, but below that....these "parents" are nuts. They tattooed a 10 year old!!!! I gotta disagree w/ your definition of "good parent" and "wrong" here. color is irrelevant, tattoo design is irrelevant, placement of said tattoo is irrelevant. "permanently marking a child" isn't "simply wrong." -- it is the discretion of the parent. now I don't know what the laws are about underage tattoos and parental consent, but considering I had an illegal homebirth in NY, I'm not exactly one that holds legality equivalent to morality, tho as with any other civil disobedience you gotta be aware of the law and the consequences. ;) there are certainly issues in this particular case, but the ones you give aren't the ones I'm worried about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 These kids were all ten and up, and it sounds like they consented. ..... but it's not like it was against their will or without their knowledge. Who cares if they consented? It was a ten year old. We have laws saying that underage consent is not acceptable. Can the molester say well she consented? Children of that age are too young which is why they are supposed to have parents who stop this type of behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 It matters because you are being very offensive!!!! I have no clue how you came to this conclusion. The other poster was very polite. Disagreeing with you is not offensive in and of itself. I agree that the lawbreaking is what got them in hot water. It's the same as everybody said about the NY hs'ers with no paperwork on file...if you knowingly break the law, you are taking a calculated risk for reasons of your own. You take into consideration that there may be consequences. If it's a stand based on strong personal convictions, well, that's what the courts are for and why we have the freedom to homeschool today. These folks don't seem to have been clear about how many laws they were breaking. That said, it seems sort of weird to me to be saying, based on that vid, that neither parent "looks" like he or she should have custody. I'd like clarification on that. It also doesn't strike me, particularly as a member of this board, that a blended family with seven children is necessarily the product of or proof of ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 One does not get underage children tattoos. It is just that simple. It is called being a good father or mother, someone who allows an underage child (below adolescence) to get a home tattoo is not a good parent. Hm. I personally feel that permanently altering a child in any way before they are old enough to consent is a bad decision on the part of parents. However, I don't think it's fair to say that makes one a bad parent. Very loving, wonderful, amazing parents do things that *I* do not feel appropriate for *my* family because of their own cultural standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraGB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Who cares if they consented? It was a ten year old. We have laws saying that underage consent is not acceptable. Can the molester say well she consented? Children of that age are too young which is why they are supposed to have parents who stop this type of behavior. :iagree: Would the opinions change if the tattoo became terribly infected? If my 11 year old decided he wanted to learn to walk on coals, and I let him...and lets say he burnt his feet, would I be a neglegent mother? I'm pretty sure I'd be in A LOT of trouble. Kids do not get to make those decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 How about if the tatts were on the face?How about if they were swastikas? How about instead of being black they were red or some other color that is harder to remove? One does not get underage children tattoos. It is just that simple. It is called being a good father or mother, someone who allows an underage child (below adolescence) to get a home tattoo is not a good parent. I frequently understand opposing opinions, even if I strongly disagree, but not on this thread. To permanently mark a child, especially in a visible place, is simply wrong. When we get into adolescence, well no child of mine would ever be allowed a tattoo, but I do understand parents allowing them to get one. I suppose I can see the case for the 17 year old, but below that....these "parents" are nuts. They tattooed a 10 year old!!!! Some cultures tattoo the face of every young man. That's their culture, who are you to judge? I may think it will cause major problems for a child to have a swatiska tattoed on their face in red ink for example (combined all 3 of your questions into one tattoo, nice eh? lol). I think it would be horrid for that child. But I also think it will cause major problems for a child to be taught that evolution is pretend. I think that's horrid too. Does that give me the right to say parents can't teach creationism to their children? no way! If we start to restrict freedoms because we don't like the result, then pretty soon someone won't like the result of one of our freedoms we enjoy, and then they can take that away. If someone told me I didn't have the freedom to teach my children, say evolution, I would break the law and teach it to them in secret. These children are old enough to speak for themselves, some even being teens. They do not object. They were not forced. Just because you think it's dumb doesn't mean you get to say it's not allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nukeswife Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Who cares if they consented? It was a ten year old. We have laws saying that underage consent is not acceptable. Can the molester say well she consented? Children of that age are too young which is why they are supposed to have parents who stop this type of behavior. Well there is the hitch in your statement. They did have parents that consented for them, it may have been only one of their parents but the dad that did the tattooing was giving his consent for his children and the mom in the video gave consent for her kids. Sure he shouldn't have used the same needle, he should have taken more precautions against infection and the whole homemade tattooing kit is a bit weird, but is the child cruelty, well that's a matter of opinion. Like others have said if these children had not been in a blended family where both of the bio-parents were the ones that did it, it would have never made the news. When my mom took me to get my ears pierced when I was 11, she didn't have to ask my dad if it was ok, just one parents consent was needed because they were married so nobody would have ever thought to ask if it was ok with both of my parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Who cares if they consented? It was a ten year old. We have laws saying that underage consent is not acceptable. Can the molester say well she consented? Children of that age are too young which is why they are supposed to have parents who stop this type of behavior. Are you prepared to make this same argument for "culturally accepted" ear piercings? our society does recognize some opportunities where a child's consent is sufficient,especially if it is backed up w/ the parent's consent. Not that I necessarily agree with those standards, but hey-- I'm not that family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Who cares if they consented? It was a ten year old. We have laws saying that underage consent is not acceptable. Can the molester say well she consented? Children of that age are too young which is why they are supposed to have parents who stop this type of behavior. Physical marks you inappropriately wore as a child can be removed from the skin when you decide you are done with them. Emotional attachments you inappropriately bore as a child can not be wiped off your soul with a laser when you grow up and develop a sense of your molester's place in the world. Yes, I agree that children of this age are too young to consent, but I don't believe it merits a cruelty against children charge. Health regulations charges, sure. Child neglect charges (for failing to do their consent-preventing job as parents), sure. Cruelty, no. If they had held the kids down while they cried, "ow, mom, this hurts, stop!" then they should be subject to cruelty charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 color is irrelevant, tattoo design is irrelevant, placement of said tattoo is irrelevant. "permanently marking a child" isn't "simply wrong." -- it is the discretion of the parent. .... I'm not exactly one that holds legality equivalent to morality, .... there are certainly issues in this particular case, but the ones you give aren't the ones I'm worried about. We will be on opposite sides here. To tattoo a child (and yes I care not a whit where or what color) and permanently alter appearance is not at the discretion of a perent. I strongly support parental rights over state rights but can not agree that a parent can permanently mark a child (Yes...I make an exception for that little snip that some boys get). My argument is not only based on legality but also the morality of saddling a child with a tattoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Who cares if they consented? It was a ten year old. We have laws saying that underage consent is not acceptable. Can the molester say well she consented? Children of that age are too young which is why they are supposed to have parents who stop this type of behavior. To equate this with rape is way out of line. But to answer your question, yes they can say that. That's why there is statutory rape and forced rape. A 17 year old who has sex with their consenting 15 year old girlfriend is a rapist here. If the boy were only 16 at the time, he would not be. Two 15 year olds can have legal vaginal intercourse, but two married 17 year olds cannot have anal intercourse. Do those laws make sense to you? They don't to me. When I was 10 I knew how to say no. I knew how to call the police. IF someone held me down and forced a tattoo on me, or if someone molested me, or if someone hit me, etc... I was old enough to let it be known. If you don't think a 10 year old is old enough to consent, then what if a 10 year old wants a blood transfusion to save their life, but the parents say no, their religion doesn't allow it? What if the 10 year old wants to learn to read but the parents say no, their religion doesn't let girls do that, etc.... At what age does a person get the rights of a person in your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Yes, I agree that children of this age are too young to consent, but I don't believe it merits a cruelty against children charge. Health regulations charges, sure. Child neglect charges (for failing to do their consent-preventing job as parents), sure. Cruelty, no. If they had held the kids down while they cried, "ow, mom, this hurts, stop!" then they should be subject to cruelty charges. I do not make a call on the accuracy of the charges (where we probably agree), rather I am speaking of the "parents" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 :iagree: Would the opinions change if the tattoo became terribly infected? Would the opinions change if the infant ear piercings became terribly infected? If my 11 year old decided he wanted to learn to walk on coals, and I let him...and lets say he burnt his feet, would I be a neglegent mother? I'm pretty sure I'd be in A LOT of trouble. Kids do not get to make those decisions. I'm sure you would be. But not necessarily from ME [says the mom who let her oldest jump off the roof because she had confidence in his physical abilities to do so unharmed]. And if my son had blowed up an arm :lol: after I supported him jumping off the roof,I'm sure I'd have been hauled in for bad parenting too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nukeswife Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 My argument is not only based on legality but also the morality of saddling a child with a tattoo. The bolding is mine. You may see it as saddling, other cultures may see the same thing as a right of passage. So who gets to decide what's acceptable and what's not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 At what age does a person get the rights of a person in your opinion? that depends on what your definition of a "right" is. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cindie2dds Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I suspect that these tattooed children LOVE their tattoos. I'm not sure why this matters. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Saddly it really doesn't suprise me. They have 7 children between the 2 of them and neither of them look like they should have custody of any of them. When you say "look like..." do you mean because the mother has poor spoken grammar, the father has been divorced and remarried three times, and they appear to live in a trailer and shop for clothes at Goodwill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (Yes...I make an exception for that little snip that some boys get). Why does that earn your exception? That is permanent. I know many men who wish it wasn't done. What magical criteria gets that a pass while tattoos get a fail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 that depends on what your definition of a "right" is. ;) True true, and what my definition of a person is also I suppose. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraGB Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Would the opinions change if the infant ear piercings became terribly infected? Yes, if the parent used a sharpened guitar string attached to a motor and did a whole bunch of babies with the same crude tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.