The process to remove them (if the tattoo is in an area where it can be removed) is sufficiently involved and gross that it’s not really worth distinguishing.
YouTube – The Procedure
YouTube – After the Procedure
(Note that this is something you have to go through several times over the course of a month)
No, I don’t, because I’ve never seen somebody be so shitfaced that they go get their ears pierced. Or circumsised. :eek:
:rolleyes: Why didn’t you use the cutting of the umbilical cord or him getting assaulted with a slap on his bottom? You are aware that there is a medical reason for circumcision, right?
Unbelievable.
And anyone one who gives a seven-year-old a tatoo is not fit to be a parent and deserves to be in jail for a few years.
I wish people would pay attention to what is written and what the words and sentences mean. I said there was a medical rationale, not that there was absolute medical necessity.
Perhaps now you can point to the medical rationale for giving a seven-year-old a tattoo. And when you can’t perhaps you’ll see that my critique of your point was correct.
Hope springs eternal.
:rolleyes:
Wrong.
[cite](There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys): US National Library of Medicine & NIH
cite: Van Howe, R., “A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision,” Medical Decision Making 24 (2004):584-601.
When come back, bring facts.
My point is, just because “the child wanted it” isn’t a good reason.
There’s a style of argument which I see a lot where people build up hypothetical situations which are much worse than whatever really happened and then argue as though the hypothetical was true, instead of what actually hppened.
“Here’s a video of someone poking a kitten. Isn’t this horrible?”
“Eh, he’s just tapping the kitten. The kitten doesn’t seem to really notice.”
“Well, what if he was stabbing the kitten? Would you support that you cruel bastard!?”
I think letting a little kid get a tatoo is bad parenting, but there’s a world of difference between say, a tattoo of a flower on the hip and “I am a retard baby” tatooed on the forehead. You have to deal with the facts of whatever case are brought before you.
I missed that this was a gang sign when I first read the OP, but it still seems like bad parenting, not criminal activity, and still not the equivalent of openly tatooing hate speech on the child.
I’m against tattooing children solely because they haven’t yet developed the judgment to pick one out yet. Had I been allowed to get a tattoo when I was seven, I’d still be sporting my kick-ass Big Bird tattoo.
Yes it should be a crime. It should also be a crime to dye your child’s hair green, give him a fauxhawk, dress him in an Iron Maiden shirt, or otherwise impose your pathetic lifestyle on a defenseless kid.
Let me help you out: circumcision is allowed because people have been doing it for religious reasons for a long time. That’s it. It’s not rational, but do lawmakers give a shit? And female circumcision is unthinkably savage because it’s some other peoples’ insane practice.
My initial reaction was that this was criminal conduct, but as soon as I read your post I changed my mind.
However, mayhem is the stupidest name for a criminal activity ever. Why don’t they add a count of aggravated hullaballoo?
Correct. Both should be illegal. Circumcision is child abuse.
Normally I’d agree that the “you can’t draw the line precisely, therefore no line should be drawn” argument is fallacious, but I think the question of where the line should be drawn is interesting in this instance. At first glance, I do not really want judges to have to decide that good tasteful tattoos are legal while tasteless tattoos are illegal. From that I’d conclude that something like obscenity laws would be the best to preserve the legality of bad artwork and preventing hate crime tattoos. It does still leave open the door for an abusive parent to aggressively tattoo a kid as a punishment or form of abuse, but I am unsure how that would be proven unless it is very excessive.
Calling it “female circumcision” is misleading. What’s usually done is analogous to cutting your son’s dick off.
Circumcision does have medical uses, tattoos have no purpose except show, so that analogy isn’t apt
Circumcised men have lower HIV infection rates, they transmit less STD and such. Of course the primary reason behind this is circumsized penises are easier to keep clean.
So it’s not that you couldn’t achieve this without circumcision. Of course circumcision goes back centuries as a religious ritual. Courts allow illegal things for religious rituals. Note certain Native American tribes are allowed to use plants that cause hallucinations and such in their native rituals, while banning the use of these plants for recreation.
So the analogy isn’t apt. A tattoo isn’t part of a religious ritual, it’s simply a recreation or decoration. And no gang and club rituals aren’t covered because the 1st Amendment protects RELIGION not gang or social clubs.
Furthermore there are lots and lots of temporary solutions. For instance, there are temporary tattoos. There are new methods of tattooing that use special inks that break up under lasers. These tattoos are permenent yet are more easily removed than the traditional tattoo.
These people did something similar and they never got charged for it
