Tattoo your baby

[Jack]

Should parents be allowed to put permanent tattoos on their babies?

[MadMonk]

No.

[Faith]

Aren't they allowed to pierce their babies ears?

[Patrick]

Yup, okcgoddess.

[sweetdaisy]

Is this issue something that has recently come up? Did not know there was a line of folks waiting to tattoo their babies...

[Patrick]

I don't think it should be legal. It's making a permanent, life altering change on a baby, and the baby has no part in the decision-making process....one which will affect its life forever.

[Faith]

Besides that I think you can classify it under "Child Abuse".

[Jack]

Isn't it a woman's baby? Shouldn't she have the right to do whatever she wants with her baby, so long as it isn't abuse? Tattooing your baby isn't abuse. If that's abuse, than so is piercing your little baby's ears.

[Faith]

A little pinch on the babies ears is a big difference to the application of a permanent tattoo.

Although I would pierce my babies ears either.

[Faith]

A parent should never purposely give their child any sort of pain. That isn't right no matter what it is for.

Curious why did you bring this topic up? Did you see an article about it or something???

[Karried]

God no.

I vote to take Jack to a tattoo parlor ... Let's tattoo the back of your arm above the elbow or any other sensitive area .. ouch! Then let's see if you still think tattoing a baby is okay.

I think I know the answer as to why Jack posted this.. he loves to talk about controversial topics. Gives us all something to talk about..

[Keith]

God no.

I vote to take Jack to a tattoo parlor ... Let's tattoo the back of your arm above the elbow or any other sensitive area .. ouch! Then let's see if you still think tattoing a baby is okay.

I think I know the answer as to why Jack posted this.. he loves to talk about controversial topics. Gives us all something to talk about..

Jack is....well....Jack. He loves controversy and thrives on it. He must be off his medication. LOL, j/k

I agree that tattooing a baby should be considered child abuse.

[Oki_Man5]

I cannot imagine any parent even considering it.

[Jack]

I never said I agreed with it. It's simply a good topic for ethical debate. Should decisions like this be left to the parent, or should laws be created? You never know. Something like this may come up in the future.

[Midtowner]

The decision should be in the parent's hands IMHO. No child will die of a tattoo, and they can be removed.

I can also think of a valid reason to have a child tattood -- such identifying marks can be of great assistance in locating the child if they turn up missing, are kidnapped, etc.

[Subvertia]

I think decisions should be left to the parent, I can't believe I'm saying that, but I believe that we already have enough laws interfering with our personal decisions as it is.
I don't agree with tatooing a child ESPECIALLY for identification purposes (call it the fear of Big Brother, or watching Schindler's List too many times).
However, ethically, I believe the parents have the right. If they want their kid to grow up hating them for what they have done to them, that's their karma to deal with. Also, there are more important laws we could pass governing the treatment of a child.

[Jack]

I agree. We need to leave all decisions like this to the parents.

[Oki_Man5]

I disagree; a baby is not a mother's property. Yes, it is her child, but there are bounds, and this should be one of those bounds.

[dirtrider73068]

Should parents be allowed to put permanent tattoos on their babies?

No way should parents be allowed to tatoo there baby. Thats just, well in my mind an deyes wrong. I would agree with the others it should be justified by something don't know about child abuse but its wrong. Here is a question why in the world would you want to tattoo your baby? I could maybe tattooing info so if they got kidnapped or something but then when they get older that info is still going to be there. I wouldn't ever tattoo my baby.

[Midtowner]

I disagree; a baby is not a mother's property. Yes, it is her child, but there are bounds, and this should be one of those bounds.

Your standard is so arbitrary that it makes no sense. While on one hand, most would not call it abusive to raise your child in a strange religion that, for example, believes that education is sinful. It is not abusive to raise your children to hate those of another race. It is not abusive to homsechool your kids, but never teach them how to read... Or at least there is no one proposing any legislation (of which I'm aware) that governs any of those things.

But it is abusive to get them a tattoo? Someone please explain why the line is drawn here. It seems extremely arbitrary.

[Patrick]

Although I wouldn't want my baby to have a tattoo, I don't see what harm it does.

[Faith]

Defining Child Abuse -

This is from the International Child Abuse Network

Simply stated, Child abuse is the bad treatment of a child under the age of 18 by a parent, caretaker, someone living in their home or someone who works with or around children. Abuse of a child is anything that causes injury or puts the child in danger of physical injury.

Child abuse may be:

Physical abuse is any physical injury to a child that is not accidental.


The following are the primary complications that can result from tattooing: <This was taken from the FDA website>

Infection. Unsterile tattooing equipment and needles can transmit infectious diseases,such as hepatitis. The risk of infection is the reason the American Association of Blood Banks requires a one-year wait between getting a tattoo and donating blood.

Even if the needles are sterilized or never have been used, it is important to understand that in some cases the equipment that holds the needles cannot be sterilized reliably due to its design. In addition, the person who receives a tattoo must be sure to care for the tattooed area properly during the first week or so after the pigments are injected.


Removal problems. Despite advances in laser technology, removing a tattoo is a painstaking process, usually involving several treatments and considerable expense. Complete removal without scarring may be impossible. See "The Most Common Problem: Dissatisfaction" and "Removal Techniques," below.


Allergic reactions.
Although allergic reactions to tattoo pigments are rare, when they happen they may be particularly troublesome because the pigments can be hard to remove. Occasionally, people may develop an allergic reaction to tattoos they have had for years.


Granulomas.
These are nodules that may form around material that the body perceives as foreign, such as particles of tattoo pigment

Placing your child in known danger or risks is child abuse. Accidently placing your child in danger or other risk is not considered child abuse. If you tattoo your child then obviously it wasn't an accident but abuse.

[BDP]

a baby is not a mother's property.

So, I guess you're saying that a baby is the government's property? Does a baby belong to the state until it can decide what it wants to do for itself?

the baby has no part in the decision-making process....one which will affect its life forever.

You could say that about almost everything a parent does. You don’t get to choose your parents.

Physical abuse is any physical injury to a child that is not accidental.

The following are the primary complications that can result from tattooing:...

None of those complications listed are intentional. Therefore, it is not abuse under that definition. If so, then there is a very similar list for ear piercing. I’m not sure that anyone would argue that an infection from ear piercing would be considered intentional child abuse, mainly due to our cultural acceptance of ear piercing. If tattooing puts them in danger, so does piercing.

And while we're at it, I guess we should mention circumcision. Talk about a permanent procedure with life long affects in which the baby has no part of the decision making process and comes with the potential for some very similar, and even worse, complications. Should that be illegal?

Your standard is so arbitrary that it makes no sense.

That's because the standards are largely cultural not objective and, unfortunately, we live in a time when legislating cultural views is very popular, especially in our beloved state.

Personally, I think it’s stupid to pierce a baby’s ears and definitely stupid to tattoo them. But that’s my sensibilities. My sister-in-law and brother-in-law pierced their baby’s ears and I think it’s ridiculous, but it’s been done in her family for generations and I don’t think I’d like the state telling her family that they could not do it anymore. If they want to protect the baby, which I can respect, make it illegal to have it done by an unlicensed merchant.

In the end, there are safe ways to tattoo and to pierce (and to circumcise). Making them illegal only ensures that many more will be performed illegally and no laws can erase all risks.

[Faith]

Circumcisions are done for health purposes. They help keep that area clean and help prevent infection build up.

Tattoo's have no health purpose.

BDP.. do you have any tattoo's? Was it painful at all? Did you take medication to help with any pain? Why would anyone want to inflict pain on a child intentionally. The child isn't owned by the government. The parents are to be responsible adults and not inflict pain on their child. Children getting their ears pierced is a small pinch that can hardly be felt with all the carteledge there. Getting a tattoo can be very painful, especially if you were a child. Then it is red and swollen for several days afterward. That is child abuse to me.

[Jack]

Getting a tattoo isn't painful.