Tattooing Your Baby

Follow me on this. Parents have almost total say over what their kids eat, drink, watch on television, read, when they go to bed or whether the kid goes to this or that doctor or no doctor at all. You don’t want to vaccinate Little Timbo? You don’t have to vaccinate Little Timbo. You want Little Timbo to belong to some whacked out religion? Fine.

If you wish to feed Little Timbo three or more meals a day of horrible, greasy fast food, French fries and donuts, that’s fine. If you let the little one consume gallons of soda a week, that’s fine too. If Little Timbo’s idea of a vegetable is that green stuff that grows outside but that he never sees in the house or on a plate, hey that’s the parent’s right, right? If dessert is a nightly gigantic portion of salted pretzels, cheese doodles, pounds of milk chocolate and potato chips, that’s hunky dory. Little Timbo is his parents’ little tubby tot.

No parent has ever been arrested for child abuse because he or she feeds too few veggies, too much grease, too many gallons of soda, barrels of candy, or mountains of fast foods to Little Timbo. (Who might wind up as Gargantuan Tumbo as he ages.)

Parents can bring up Little Timbo in extreme religions and cults. You believe that the white man or the black man or the yellow man is the devil? Fine, Little Timbo, that’s today’s lesson. You believe that women should cover their faces? Okay, cover them girls. And on and on wild religious beliefs go – but Little Timbo is his parents’ child and on and on Little Timbo will go as his parents take him there.

[I know of only one case where a parent was stopped from exercising his/her almost total control of a baby and that concerned a couple who named their kid Adolf Hitler – but that case seems to be the exception that proves the rule. I know of some cases where medical emergencies have seen courts overrule parents. These cases are pretty rare too.]

So now I ask you, what if mommy and daddy want to have Little Timbo tattooed. Would this be child abuse?

Don’t answer right away. First think on these things:

Think about the non-vaccination of babies when every legitimate study has shown that vaccinations have literally saved billions of lives. Think about what horrifying glop many parents feed their kids. Think about religious practices such as circumcision and clitorectomy. These are considered perfectly okay and the right of the parent to have performed. (I think clitorectomy might be outlawed in the U.S. but it is a growing concern in Ireland.) Think about various teachings that fly in the face of science (too many to list here). Simply think about a parent who has his or her daughter’s (or son’s) ears and/or nose pierced.

Knowing all the stuff parents are within their rights to do to their kids…

…would tattooing your baby be child abuse?

Intriguing.

My knee-jerk reaction to the title of this thread is very different to my reaction after having read the post.

Intriguing indeed....

Interesting when you put it all this way. At a basic level I would say it is going to depend on the age of the child. An infant who has no say vs a child a few years older who may consciously want the tattoo. I know you can pierce the ears of an infant (have a niece who had them done at just months old) but there is also what society considers acceptable vs what the "letter of the law" states. You also have to take the "spirit of the law" into account, and that might matter more in a common-law country like the USA than a code-law place.

I would say it should not be done, and while I dislike almost any new law I would back banning the practice. It could surely be regulated to say no tattoos for anyone until they are 18.

I think an argument could be made for tattooing as a means of identification should tragedy strike ie Amber Alert situations. Maybe of a certain size and particular placement options. Otherwise, I don't think it can fly, culturally, and maybe not even that much if someone makes a concentration camp historical argument. Check your gut reaction to the idea here: Peyton Manning United Way Commercial. Worth watching just for the laughs, even if you've seen it before.

Parents should be absolutely banned from having their young children Tattooed, unless they can prove in court it will greatly improve their future. I can't think of to many reasons this would be the case.

I think parents that have their babies ears pierced just because it looks cute are discussing, selfish human beings (considering it can lead to an infection) and then I get over it.

As far as some of the other things you mentioned, I believe kids have been taken away from their parents in extreme cases. Most everything you mentioned is constantly debated especially the fast food situation. Getting a kid tattooed is pretty black and white, how much soda a kid should drink is a bit more gray.

Normally the only people who debate whether they have the right to do something unhealthy to a child are the ones doing it. Most People looking in from the outside see it as, just plain bad parenting, often times they are hypocrites and don't see themselves as bad as other parents.

Adolf Hitler & Aryan Nation

I follow news pretty regularly and this was the closest thing that came to mind. Both tattooing and naming are semi-permanent things that the parents have full control over. My person belief is that tattooing is worse than naming, changing your name at age 18 is much easier and less painful than a tattoo. One might say that there would be some level of teasing involved with being named Adolf/Aryan... but do you really think white supremacists this extreme would let their kids be in the public school system... or hangout with anyone that isn't of the same belief system?

For the record, I have a huge issue with the government taking those kids away... situation of government overreaching. I'll err on the side of being ok with parents tattooing their children... I guess.

Quote: ahiromu

Adolf Hitler & Aryan Nation

I follow news pretty regularly and this was the closest thing that came to mind. Both tattooing and naming are semi-permanent things that the parents have full control over. My person belief is that tattooing is worse than naming, changing your name at age 18 is much easier and less painful than a tattoo. One might say that there would be some level of teasing involved with being named Adolf/Aryan... but do you really think white supremacists this extreme would let their kids be in the public school system... or hangout with anyone that isn't of the same belief system?

For the record, I have a huge issue with the government taking those kids away... situation of government overreaching. I'll err on the side of being ok with parents tattooing their children... I guess.

Why?

Hmmm.... If you leave your kid in the car for 30 minutes, you get hauled off to jail. Recent news article about a stoner that forgot the kid 20 minutes while, tragically, the 2-yo died from the intense heat of day. Tatooing little Timbo?, HOW OLD is Timbo... 6 months or 2 years ...might get you the same.

I have been around the types of girls that think something like this is cool. Generality they are single, trailer trash, attention seeking unfit mothers that live off their kids attention. The same kind of girls that have their missing babies daddies and kids name tattooed to their upper arm. If they have a little boy, he most certainly has a diamond stud in his ear.

Quote: AxelWolf

Why?

The specific article, which says it was because of "violence" not naming/political, was the result of a google just to get a link up. At the time it was actually happening I got the distinct impression (that has obviously stayed with me) it was purely because of the name/political leanings, thus my opinion.

I'll just assume the "Why?" was directed to my libertarian view on child rearing. As long as there's no physical harm done to the child, I have a hard time telling the parents they're doing it wrong. It's a slippery slope that needs to be taken on a case by case basis when it involves "mental torture" and the such. For me, raising children to be white supremacists is no different than raising children to be stalin-style communists. It might take some time for the kid to realize their parents were retards, but it's better than the state getting knee-deep in raising children.

If they take it on a case by case basis the damage will already be done.

Body modification of someone unable to make informed consent is seems morally wrong to me.

That goes with 'less harmful' modification like ear piercings to seriously genital mutiliations. I do agree that parents should be raise their kids with out directly harming them with out interference. Indirect harm (bad diet, for instance) is much harder to gauge, and when it becomes a grey area, I'm not sure the government (or the law) should be stepping in.

How about those parents who have a baby in the stroller while they are playing slots. Parent of the year material right there.

Quote: djatc

How about those parents who have a baby in the stroller while they are playing slots. Parent of the year material right there.

I once called casino security when I found a dog in a vehicle on the top floor(open roof) in the Las Vegas summer heat. Don't know if it had tattoos. I've seen young kids bored as shit sitting in snack areas while their parents are off somewhere in the casino. Being as I was sitting there eating for about 15 minutes I knew it wasn't that brief an interval.

Seriously, though, if you're going to tattoo your kid which sounds like a bad idea, might as well make it a corporate logo. See if you make some cash. Least until child services shows up.

Possibly the only tattoo suitable for an infant: "I'm with stupid."