Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleeding Red
If my kid wanted a tattoo at age 12 and I gave consent can he get one? should he get one? am I allowing him to be mutilated?
|
Nope. You can't get tattooed until you're 18 in most places regardless of parental consent.
Quote:
|
Would you equate it with piercing? I see many baby girls with their ears pierced. Obviously a parental choice.
|
No, I wouldn't equate it to piercing. It's a permanent change, and more invasive IMO.
Quote:
|
At what point does the the parent not have the right to make a binding irreversible decision for their kid? If my kid had the choice he would stay at home watching Simpsons on TV all day eating junk food (or masturbating according to another thread).
|
You as a parent cannot legally choose to have your infant child covered in tattoos. It's painful, permanent, and merely for aesthetic purposes. You have the right to raise your child as you see fit - but you can't mutilate them. I would treat circumcision the same way.
Quote:
|
Or, better yet, if he had the choice no way in hell does he get immunization shots. I am sure many adults do not get the flu shot, but I am also sure many kids do get it.
|
That's pretty much universally acknowledged as a societal good, not restricted to the individual, nor merely for aesthetics.
Your braces analogy is actually a pretty good one - it's not harmful to others, is painful to the child (both emotionally and physically) and is for the most part only for looks. But I think the irreversable nature of circumcision and the fact it's only done on helpless infants sort of negates consent. Not sure you have many struggling kids being held down by an orthadontist and braces forcibly applied.
But I could be wrong about that I suppose.
Quote:
|
If I were king of the world 13 year-olds wouldn't get fancy tablets before their fathers!
|
Ok. I probably have a few wish list items above circumcision on my KOTW list too. Maybe that would make a good off topic thread...