Posted on 01/23/2012 12:38:16 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
A Georgia mother who was arrested for allowing her 10-year-old to get a tattoo said she had no idea it was illegal for him to get one, even with her consent.
When Chuntera Napier’s son Gaquan Napier asked her if he could get a memorial tattoo for his 12-year-old brother Malik who died after being hit by a car, Napier was touched by the request.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“As long as there are idiots who would do this to a child, there ought to be a law against it, right?”
No. We don’t need a law to ban everything you don’t like.
That would be celebrated.
From the looks of those involved probably tax payer funded too.
Baloney. You could make those same arguments for minors to have access to abortions.
It’s still not right.
Lovely. Did Santa bring them gold teef for Christmas, too?
So... how about under-age ear piercings?
“First let me state, I am not in favor of children getting tattoos.”
I don’t think their mom was, either. But then little Malik was killed and that changed everything.
Causing harm to a minor.
(Of course, I will concede the harm began when she named the thing Gaquan, but still...)
I would disagree. I do not know a single person with ink, that is using the tat to “identify” something but to commemorate something significant in their own lives.
Of course I do not know everyone who wears ink, but dozens of people who do.
A child is not a canvass, you want “art work” on human skin use your own.
“Baloney. You could make those same arguments for minors to have access to abortions.”
Yeah because there’s no difference between killing a baby and etching ink under the skin to remember a loved one. Gotcha.
Got it. By your reasoning, you would have no problem with performing an abortion on a minor child.
Ok, that is a reason but just how is a tattoo harm to a minor, the boy asked for the tattoo.
And how is arresting her going to solve the “problem”.
I was thinking in terms of medicine, not in terms of someone wanting a tattoo as a piece of artwork or self-expression. And I couldn’t imagine a medical need.
At post number 20, svcw does explain a medical need. And that is appreciated.
Deliberate and willful disfigurement of a child is and should be illegal.
Maybe you should go ban unhealthy food in restaurants because it is abusing the poor kids who are forced to eat there by their parents. Lock them up too!
R I agree with you on much but how on earth do you lump abortion and tattoos. Pretty sure you are trying to make a point, but you may want to try something different.
It will discourage others from committing the same crime.
Tattoos, nose piercings, lip piercings, tongue piercings, ear lobe stretching, private parts piercings, on and on to a grotesque level, are all identifiers of certain types of people. To a greater or lesser degree perhaps, but identifiers none the less. It simply is.
“Deliberate and willful disfigurement of a child is and should be illegal.”
It’s art, not disfigurement. May not be your idea of art but to each his own. The kid wanted it; it’s not as if mom forced it upon him.
“It will discourage others from committing the same crime. “
Just like Prohibition. /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.