Couple arrested for giving kids (ages 10-17) home tattoos

Interesting little moral problem here. Is it ok to brand your underage kids for life? :think:


http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-arrested-for-giving-265194.html


By Alexis Stevens

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A northwest Georgia couple arrested for giving six of their children homemade tattoos say they didn't do anything wrong. The kids, they say, wanted the tattoos to be like Mom and Dad.

"I'm their mother," Patty Jo Marsh said late Saturday. "Shouldn't I be able to decide if they get one?"

Georgia law prohibits tattoos from anyone other than a licensed professional. Children under 18 are also prohibited from getting tattoos.

Marsh and her husband, Jacob Bartels, did the tattoos in their Summerville home. They cleaned up a tattoo machine someone gave them, and used guitar strings as a needle. Out of the seven children in their custody, only the youngest child did not get a tattoo.

"They weren't hurt by them," Marsh said. "We would never do anything to hurt them."

Marsh said the children, ages 10 to 17, wanted the small cross tattoos, and the couple did them after Thanksgiving. But when two of the children spent a weekend after Christmas with their biological mother, she reported it to DFACS and police.

...

when he was younger. He loved Ninja Turtles and I figured that would have been the tattoo he wanted.

He looked at me like I had lost my mind. LOL

Hey honey, go boil me sum um hot water and grab little Jim Bob. He's first to get this here cross on his neck :rofl:

Most people in the U.S. would say "yes." Circumcising male babies is legal and widely accepted.

Of course, you rule out his becoming a star in the field of "uncut" porn. There might be prostheses for that, though...

:crazy:

But: I don't think it's immoral, just ill-advised and stupid.

And in my opinion pretty stupid. But... why is it illegal and stupid? The kids said they wanted tattoos, so it wasn't as if this was against their will (if the step-mother is telling the truth). If tattoos are acceptable body art for over 18s, why are they prohibited for under 18s?

Also, your opinion of what's a rad, kewl, sweet tat will differ when you're 10 and when you're 30.

Some of you MIGHT be interested to know that having a tattoo that's exposed when you're in a long-sleeved jacket is disqualifying for military service. Having said this, I wonder just how many DUers will offer to celebrate their children's upcoming 18th birthdays by getting them hand tattoos?

When I was 7 I watched my mom tattoo my step-father using needles and india ink. I decided that I wanted one as well and kept asking and asking, until she said okay!

After she got the first letter of my name done, I decided that it wasn't such a good idea after all. I still have it to this day, and it's the only tattoo that I have ever gotten.

But this was back in 1966, when tattoo parlors were equivalent to brothels.

I like and have several tattoos. They were all done by professional inkers in sterile conditions. The tattoos given in this case were crosses on the webbing of the hand between the forefinger and thumb. This is old school, classic prison ink. In fact, old lore was that the cross tattoo there with lines coming off between the top parts signifies that you have killed someone.

Prison Ink stands out like a sore thumb and will severely limit your ability to get good employment. Of course, not much going on in NW Georgia (from Rome, GA) so perhaps the limiting factor of the tattoos will not be as intense if they were living in Suburban Maryland.

Was that it was probably not sterile and that they put the tattoo on a visible part of his body to the public. I think the kid should wait till he is 18 before he tattoo's his arms and face and whatever that will probably prevent him from getting a job.

The mom could have put the tattoo on his upper arm or something.

Isn't that their right to raise their kids to be unemployable? :crazy:

don't really give a shit about whether or not they are defining a very narrow path for these children to take in the future. The machine they used looked foul and to be honest I too thought it might be some sort of prison tattoo because I saw a documentary on tattoos years ago and they defined the different types of designs by culture and even discussed prison tattoos.

& no one says a word.

dg

You can remove them with no harm and little visible signs.

They are not really comparable (no more than the poster above that compared this with circumcision) as tattoos are permanent and can limit the path that you might wish to take in life.

If someone changes their mind about a piercing, they can simply take out the ring, but ridding yourself of a tattoo is much more painful and expensive.

they even had little sterile kits at that hospital to do it, so apparently it is pretty common.

Y'all been joking about Ninja Turtle tattoos but those would take actual talent to do. The second I read the first report of this tattooing, I thought "crosses, right?" and lo and behold they WERE crosses!

Do you remember John Freshwater (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/) the high school science teacher who got fired for branding a student in class? Yea, he branded his student with a cross.

Want to have LOTS of fun? Tell a fundie with a cross tattoo your faith says the cross tattoo is the Mark of the Beast.

Not crazy about that.

After 18, I don't care what anyone does to their body. It's theirs.

If we are going to have a law that divides childhood from adulthood, then rights follow when they enter adulthood, and prohibitions on the right of their parents to tattoo them should attach until they are 18. When the child becomes 18, they can get all the tattoos they want.

I just don't understand or care for tattoos but both my adult sons have a couple. Children should not be disfigured for life.