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

No.

Aren't they allowed to pierce their babies ears?

Yup, okcgoddess.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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???

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..

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.

I cannot imagine any parent even considering it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Getting a tattoo isn't painful.

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.

I really doubt it traumatizes the baby or anything.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 *****.

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

Please tell me you are joking.

The wildest topics stir up the most discussion.

tattoing a baby!????

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

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

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

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".

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.

I agree.

Jack = Academic :doh:

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

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"?

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

Here's a parent that had their baby tattooed

http://www.webtwo.de/teena/baby_tattoo.jpg

http://www.tattoo-mania.ch/images_piercing/baby_piercing.jpg

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

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.

I doubt those pictures are real.

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

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.

I only posted the pictures to put a spin of reality on what we're discussing here. Seeing something often impact an opinion one holds. For example, I've known many people change from being pro-choice after they actually watched an abortion.

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.

There are health risks involved with the circumcision itself. Any kind of surgery has risks -- the same ones that tattoos cary as a matter of fact.

The health benefits are minimal. Many old testament rules (which is basically why we go through this barbaric ritual) have roots in what would be considered good hygeine back before pennicilin.

Dang! Permanently tattooing your baby? Like setting their path in life without giving them a choice in the matter? NOOOOO! I took my 3 yr old to an outdoor art festival where the local police department was handing out temporary tatoos that look like badges, sound innocent enough, right? Well, in the first 2 days, everywhere we went, I had people assume it was a real tattoo and said something rude and overheard an ongoing conversation at a restaurant, which the obviously wanted me to hear, talking about the "white trash" family in the next booth. If you choose to do something like a permanent tattoo, make sure it's not visable to other people and hope your child doesn't grow or change their shape later in life making the tattoo almost unbearable to look at. If you want to make sure your child has a special marking somewhere on their body in the event they are ever kidnapped or anything, then just brand them with some really horrific burn mark, like they do cattle, that way they will always and forever be a member of your herd.

Who cares what other people think? Most people that make negative comments about other people have problems themselves.

If a parents wants to tattoo their baby, I don't see the problem with it.

Tattoos aren't permanent. They can be removed with surgical procedures.

I've never had a tatoo before, but I've been told that it is painful. If that is true, then that is reason enough not to tatoo a child. It's not like immunizations which are also painful, but are for the health of the child.
1 Corinthians 3: 16 & 17 say, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
Most of us would never consider writing graffiti on a Temple, church building or a building considered holy, yet many write words and paint pictures on their bodies which is considered a holy temple by God.
Just another way of looking at this topic. Think about it.

Here we go again.. perhaps a tattoo is a work of art - not defiling but adding beauty..

Anyway, start a new thread - this topic is about babies being tattoed.. I think people would like to respond to your theory that tattoos are wrong in the eyes of God.

So you think tattoos are against God?

[I]I[I]never said that tatoos were wrong in the sight of God. I am not the author of the Book of Corinthians in the New Testament. Each individual can read that scripture and find what it means to him or her. To me it says that your body is a Temple and that we are not to defile that Temple. To me a tatoo is the same a graffiti. I know many disagree and that is there right, just as it is my right to feel the way I do. I would not tatoo my baby or my child or myself because I feel it is not a good thing.

http://www.anvari.org/db/fun/Cute_Kids/Baby_Tattoo.jpg
like this? lol:tweeted:

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.One which would be easy to use to identify your child should it be lost or stolen and one which, when the child reached maturity, could be removed, if desired.