Want to Tattoo Your Child???

• Con_Alma

  The doctor wouldn't go unless he/she did so without the parents permission. The parents would go.
  
  The tattoo "artist" didn't get charged with child endangering to the best of my knowledge.
• mtrulz

  I might be getting one here soon.
• sherm03

  

  I agree with DeyDurkie.
  
  While it's a fucked up thing to do, and I would never do it, I feel it's no different than getting a baby's ear pierced. Both inflict pain on the child, and both are things that the child cannot say that they don't want. So if one is considered endangering a child, both should be.
• jmog

  I never said kill the bastard, said he should be charged with child abuse.
  
  The whole freehuddle was up in arms (and rightly so) about the guy who waterboarded his 4 year old for messing up the ABCs.
  What if this father waterboarded the 1 year old?
  
  No permanent damage.
  No pain.
  No memory of it down the road.
  
  Seems like less disturbance to the kid than a tattoo no?
  
  
  I'm with the post a few up, I can't believe how far our country has gone if we are seriously discussing if this is "ok" to do to a 1 year old kid or not.
• Fab1b

  

  At least wait till the child is two to make their own decisions!!
• jmog

  sherm03 wrote: I agree with DeyDurkie.
  
  While it's a fucked up thing to do, and I would never do it, I feel it's no different than getting a baby's ear pierced. Both inflict pain on the child, and both are things that the child cannot say that they don't want. So if one is considered endangering a child, both should be.

  1. Tattoo is more painful.
  2. Tattoo is more permanent.
  
  I'm with most of the posters with the ear rings at 1, its screwed up and I'd never do it, but not jail time punishable or against the law.
  
  However, if you really think tattoos and ear piercings are in the same category then you really don't know what each feels like and know what it takes to have each removed.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  jmog wrote:

  sherm03 wrote: I agree with DeyDurkie.
  
  While it's a fucked up thing to do, and I would never do it, I feel it's no different than getting a baby's ear pierced. Both inflict pain on the child, and both are things that the child cannot say that they don't want. So if one is considered endangering a child, both should be.

  1. Tattoo is more painful.
  2. Tattoo is more permanent.
  
  I'm with most of the posters with the ear rings at 1, its screwed up and I'd never do it, but not jail time punishable or against the law.
  
  However, if you really think tattoos and ear piercings are in the same category then you really don't know what each feels like and know what it takes to have each removed.

  Both are equally painful and both are equally permanent when the piercing is done at that age because by the time they can take it out, the ear has already recognized the hole and it won't grow skin over it.
• Con_Alma

  Tattooing is the only process in the US that one can legally inject a fluid into the body with a needle and not have it regulated by the USFDA.
  
  .... of course if it's for religious reasons...
• swsmalley

  He should get 5 years in prison period. And the people on here who think this isnt that big of deal are sick people.
• sleeper

  

  If people actually read the article, the guy who did it isn't even the child's father.
• Con_Alma

  ...changes things a bit doesn't it.
  
  "...Lee. M. Deitrick is accused of applying the tattoo in early November while the child was visiting his home at 1317 W. Main St. ...Deitrick is not the girl’s father, the chief said. ..."
• sherm03

  

  jmog wrote: 1. Tattoo is more painful.
  2. Tattoo is more permanent.
  
  I'm with most of the posters with the ear rings at 1, its screwed up and I'd never do it, but not jail time punishable or against the law.
  
  However, if you really think tattoos and ear piercings are in the same category then you really don't know what each feels like and know what it takes to have each removed.

  I have four tattoos...so I know what it takes to have one and what it would take to have it removed. I realize that a tattoo is more painful, but should that be the deciding factor? Where is the line? Getting smacked in the head can be considered child abuse, but I don't think that hurts as much as a tattoo. So should a person who smacks their one year old in the head get less time than a person who gives their kid a tattoo because the tattoo hurts more. You can get child endangering charges for leaving your kid at home alone. They might not get hurt at all...but leaving them alone (which causes no pain) is considered child endangering. The point is...what's the line regarding the amount of pain inflicted?
  
  And because a tattoo is more permanent it's worse for a child? That doesn't make any sense to me.
  
  Like I said, I'm not condoning what this guy did. I never said it's OK to do this to a one year old kid. I just think if this is going to be considered child endangering, then the definition should be expanded to include other things.
• Con_Alma

  Is it child endangering if your neighbor comes over and tattoos your child?
• sherm03

  

  sleeper wrote: If people actually read the article, the guy who did it isn't even the child's father.

  I'll admit. I didn't read the article. I had just assumed it was the kid's father that applied the tattoo...or that they had the parents' approval to do it and the parents got arrested for endangering.
• cbus4life

  Always in Ohio...
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  mtrulz wrote: I might be getting one here soon.

  Haha, That's the funniest post I've seen here yet. That has nothing to do with anything and no one gives a fuck.
• Fab1b

  

  Poor Mtrulz
• HitsRus

  

  I don't know where the notion that parents "own" a child enough to do things like piercings and tatoos. They should be stewards of a child's body, keeping them from harm and injury...protecting them until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Parent should act for the benefit of the child...and tats and piercings have no benefit. In another mindset...a piercing is nothing better than schrapnel, and a tattoo is but a scar inflicted on a body.
• zambrown

  

  I can't believe no one has even mentioned the possibility of an unsanitary needle having been used - read "AIDS" "Hepititus", etc.. Apart from the tattoo itself being reprehensible on a baby, my concern would be who else might he have tattoo'd with the same needle?????
• iclfan2

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: THe people here that are remotely siding with the fact that this isnt that bad is amazing. Must not have kids of your own.
  
  The comparison to piercing ears is like comparing a rock in my backyard to the fucking moon. Not even close.

  This. Some dude tattooed a families child. People who pierce their babies ears are stupid too, but this takes it to a different level. Put him in jail.
• Fab1b

  

  Look what this idiot did was 1000% WRONG!! I am just tired of my damn tax dollars covering people in jail. Hot meals, clothes, and roof over their heads. I would rather see punishments like tons of community service, huge fines, loss of driver's license, etc....for stupid crimes!! There already isn't room in most jails because of the stupid crap people are incarcerated for!! Traffic tickets, minor drug offenses, minor domestic or other disputes, etc.........
  
  Also he should have to pay a large sum for damages to the family as well!
• Fab1b

  

  I would be perfectly ok with criminals having to pay for the their stay in jails as well!!
• Upper90

  I kind of feel like this isn't a stupid crime....MOSTLY because it wasn't his kid.
  
  If it's HIS kid, still stupid, but I'd be thinking more lenient. But, this wasn't his kid, so I'm more all about this guy doing some time.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "endangerment?"
  
  Couldn't the prosecutor make a case for battery?
• sherm03

  

  Upper90 wrote: I kind of feel like this isn't a stupid crime....MOSTLY because it wasn't his kid.
  
  If it's HIS kid, still stupid, but I'd be thinking more lenient. But, this wasn't his kid, so I'm more all about this guy doing some time.

  I have to agree. All of my previous posts were based on the thread title since it said "Want to Tattoo YOUR Child." I didn't read the article at first and just assumed that some parent did it or signed off on it and got in trouble because of that. When it was pointed out that this guy wasn't the child's dad (or any relative for that matter) and that the parents did not consent to it...my stance changed and I completely agree that the dude should do some time.