Tattoo your baby

[Faith]

Maybe not painful to a full grown adult who has endured all types of pain in their life. But to a child the pain can be alot worse and not only that but very scary.

[Jack]

I really doubt it traumatizes the baby or anything.

[Faith]

It would definitely be the most traumatizing experience that a baby or child would ever go through. Its just ridiculous to ever think that it would be okay. I'm sorry but if someone wants to tattoo their baby or their child, in my opinion, that person must be wacked in the brain.

[Midtowner]

Back to circumcision.. If tattoos traumatize a baby, cutting off part of its wee-wee certainly would.

I think we have ourselves a double-standard here.

Excellent point BDP.

[Faith]

Not a double standard - there is a huge difference.

A circumcision is performed for health reasons. It helps prevent infection and is easier to clean the "wee wee".

Tattoo's have no health benefits associated with them. Only health risks.

[Faith]

Majority of boys that are circumcized are done so in the hospital before they ever go home. That is 48 hours old. The baby is way to young to ever be traumatized by that.

[BDP]

I'm sorry but if someone wants to tattoo their baby or their child, in my opinion, that person must be wacked in the brain.

I generally share that opinion, figuratively, of course. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal or that the state should make that decision for the baby.

A circumsion is performed for health reasons.

This is in no way universally accepted. The practice is certainly continued more so out of tradition than any real health threat from not being circumcised.

It helps prevent infection and is easier to clean the "wee wee".

Washing helps prevent infections, more so than circumcision. Millions of men have uncircumcised ***** and never get infections. Why? Because they clean themselves. I am sure that pinning my ears open may make cleaning them "easier", but it's really not that hard to clean them now and there is no tradition of doing so, so I won't do it.

The truth is, and we all know it, that circumcisions are largely performed for traditional cultural reasons and for aesthetic reasons than for any health benefit. I am not making a judgment on those reasons, or on circumcision itself for that matter, but the "ease of cleaning" argument doesn't make much sense compared to the medical risks of the procedure and the trauma it has to cause. Clearly, cutting skin off of the ***** is a very extreme measure given any of the suggested health benefits. This is why doctors do not insist, or hardly even suggest, that uncircumcised adult males have circumcisions. I can guarantee you if it wasn't attached to cultural traditions and aesthetic taste, it would hardly be done at all.

As for me, I have a tattoo, it didn't hurt much and I never took meds or experienced much irritation, but it also is not a "serious" tattoo. I also pierced my ear when I was a teenager. It didn't hurt much either, but I had to do much of the same things to keep it clean and free from infection (if I remember right, I had more problems keeping it clean that I did my piercing). You’ll have to guess about the other thing.

In any event, my stance on the legality of tattooing a baby is not based on my personal feelings on the practice itself, but on my belief in the difference between public and private policy. I think it’s stupid, but certainly no more traumatic than circumcision, unless, of course, they tattooed the baby’s *****.

[Karried]

I can't believe this discussion is even ongoing.. tattoing a baby!????

Please tell me you are joking.

[Patrick]

The wildest topics stir up the most discussion.

[BDP]

tattoing a baby!????

Actually, it's about whether it should be illegal or not.

[Faith]

Is it legal anywhere in our country? I wouldn't think so.

[Jack]

If the pain is an issue, before the baby is tattooed, there's something you can give them:

http://www.jkirkj.net/video/Kids_Stoned.wmv

[Karried]

This was the original thread....

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

I guess I don't care if it's legal or not..... it's wrong to inflict that kind of pain on unconsenting babies.

Besides, I can't remember the last baby I saw that sported a " MOM " tattoo.. so I feel the whole discussion is irrelevant but I know how much we all like to debate and discuss things so there you have it..

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

Regarding the Question - I think Madmonk put it best "no".

[BDP]

Is it legal anywhere in our country?

Usually you have to be 18 to get a tattoo. I am sure some allow for parental consent, while others states may not. The truth is that most tatoo parlors are very paticular about what they will and won't tattoo. I can't imagine that any reputable parlor would agree to do it. However, I could also see how some may be sensitive to any cultural or family tradition that may be a motivation for someone wanting to do this.

As usual, I think Jack's topic is designed more as an academic excercise than real world debate.

[Jack]

I agree.

[Karried]

Jack = Academic

LOL, LOL I just read his toilet thread...just picking on you Jack

[BDP]

I guess I don't care if it's legal or not..... it's wrong to inflict that kind of pain on unconsenting babies.

Well, I think it's safe to say that the word "allow" means "to be legal" when it comes to adults.

I think it's wrong to pierce a baby's ear and circumcision causes so much pain in babies that many show signs of shock and complications have caused infections and even death due to hemorrhaging. Should those practices not be "allowed"? Basically, do we base right and wrong, as well as legislation, on objective criteria or what is culturally "normal"?

[Faith]

I was in the room right beside the doctor with my son's circumsion one year ago. He let out a little scream and then that was it. He didn't cry anymore and there wasn't any complications. His cry I would compare to a mild pinch.

Sorry for getting off topic since this is a topic about tattoo's

[Jack]

Here's a parent that had their baby tattooed

[Jack]

[Karried]

Jack - I could have gone my entire life without seeing those.

[BDP]

He let out a little scream and then that was it. He didn't cry anymore and there wasn't any complications.

OK. So, if a tattoo had the same result or better, then you'd be okay with it?

If you're saying that having the skin cut off a ***** is less painful than getting a tattoo, you are severely kidding yourself. I can honestly say I would rather be tattooed than having anything cut off my genitalia. Even if your anecdotal claim meant that circumcisions are not painful, which it doesn't, then it would logically follow that tattoos would not be painful either. Sometimes, anesthetic is giving for circumcisions (because they are painful). The same could be done for tattoos. Although, analgesics for newborns isn't always a good idea.

You can read on about the pain response during circumcision here (it's referenced):

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

Again, I am not saying it should be illegal or that it's even wrong, just that it is in fact extremely painful and claims of significant health benefits are dubious at best and hardly justifies the procedure on their own.

It is, like tattooing, a painful procedure (extremely to some) with health risks, especially if performed under poor conditions, that is performed largely for cultural and aesthetic reasons.

[Jack]

I doubt those pictures are real.

[Karried]

No way those pictures are real... but still disturbing..

[Subvertia]

Haha, those are *SO* photoshopped, and yes, disturbing.
However, we all know it's a joke because no one in their right mind would either have their baby tattooed, or put a tattoo on a baby.
There are some sick people out there, but they are considered sick to even the "counter culture".
The original question is:
Should parents be allowed to put permanent tattoos on their babies?
It's a legitimate question, regardless of how ridiculous it is.
I don't think we should waste taxpayer money passing a law forbidding parents to tattoo their children. This hasn't even become a problem, if it is happening, even beyond identification purposes (I think of the Omen here).
And if it were to pose a problem, then yes, we should spend our tax dollars on passing a law to bann tattooing of babies.
Philosophically, however, I don't it's necessary to even ask the question. It has drawn up some nice debate, though.