ForumGarden

cars;1248788 wrote: No where was "female genitalia" mentioned in OP, that's where the main derailment started from.


Actually, you're quite wrong. The quote I picked up from the OP was "Defense lawyers argued that the tattoo was no different than circumcision or piercing the ears of a baby girl". The derailment of the thread, if there has been any at all, has been the suggested triviality or even benefit of male circumcision, not any comment on female circumcision which the OP, at least syntactically, brought up. In my opinion there's no greater or lesser degree of assault between circumcising either sex other than Western cultural bias making one acceptable to the participants here and the other not. I think both are an outrage far beyond any tattooing, gang-tribal or otherwise, or even whether men still act as heads of families these days.

Tattooing itself has a long and honourable tradition worldwide. Nobody took up my suggestion that the government seems to want to interfere in what would normally be considered a family choice - a comment I made to try to bring the thread back closer to the topic you wanted discussing.

The possibility that you disapprove of this opinion doesn't mean you can unjustifiably single me out with accusations of derailment. If you take the sentence at its literal interpretation then the tattoo was no different than either the circumcision of a baby girl or piercing the ears of a baby girl, that was the defense lawyers' point unless he was being deliberately evasive in his use of English. Baby boys have ears pierced too, you know, just as baby boys are also circumcised, but baby boys weren't mentioned at all - the distinction "of a baby girl" would normally apply to both disfigurements. I don't insist it's the only possible interpretation but it's the primary meaning of the words as they appear in the quote. It is, at the very least, an ambiguous sentence.

qsducks;1248820 wrote: [QUOTE=Odie;1248819]they aren't under general anesthetic here.Well, they are here.


Go and check the practice of Jewish ritual circumcision in America sometime. Anaesthetic, general or otherwise, doesn't form any part of it, though antisepsis might. Are you seriously saying any American male is given a general anaesthetic for a circumcision procedure, at any age? I'd be quite amazed if that were true.

spot;1248843 wrote: Go and check the practice of Jewish ritual circumcision in America sometime. Anaesthetic, general or otherwise, doesn't form any part of it, though antisepsis might. Are you seriously saying any American male is given a general anaesthetic for a circumcision procedure, at any age? I'd be quite amazed if that were true.


I would imagine any circumcision carried out in a hospital takes place with a local anaesthetic, I can't imagine any Doctor working within a medical establishment would do it without one on any age of man.

It's the religious circumcision rituals that carry them out without suitable pain relief and that is where the origins of circumcision lie in both sexes. A procedure used to de-sensitize sexual feelings and urges.

The seven year old with the tattoo, I wonder if the experience has put him off ever having a tattoo again. Poor chap if he has to go and endure more pain to cover this one, that area looks painful to have tattooed. He's old enough to remember that trauma vividly and as Pam said no doubt he was left more confused by all the goings on after with Dad ending up in court. I wonder if at any point he was asked how he felt, whether he protested to his father or whether he agreed. It's an extreme thing to go and do without discussing with the child's other parent, I would assume that for whatever reason the father believed he had ultimate consent and 'ownership' rights over his son otherwise he would have discussed it first.

spot;1248839 wrote: Actually, you're quite wrong. The quote I picked up from the OP was "Defense lawyers argued that the tattoo was no different than circumcision or piercing the ears of a baby girl". The derailment of the thread, if there has been any at all, has been the suggested triviality or even benefit of male circumcision, not any comment on female circumcision which the OP, at least syntactically, brought up. In my opinion there's no greater or lesser degree of assault between circumcising either sex other than Western cultural bias making one acceptable to the participants here and the other not. I think both are an outrage far beyond any tattooing, gang-tribal or otherwise, or even whether men still act as heads of families these days.



Tattooing itself has a long and honourable tradition worldwide. Nobody took up my suggestion that the government seems to want to interfere in what would normally be considered a family choice - a comment I made to try to bring the thread back closer to the topic you wanted discussing.



The possibility that you disapprove of this opinion doesn't mean you can unjustifiably single me out with accusations of derailment. If you take the sentence at its literal interpretation then the tattoo was no different than either the circumcision of a baby girl or piercing the ears of a baby girl, that was the defense lawyers' point unless he was being deliberately evasive in his use of English. Baby boys have ears pierced too, you know, just as baby boys are also circumcised, but baby boys weren't mentioned at all - the distinction "of a baby girl" would normally apply to both disfigurements. I don't insist it's the only possible interpretation but it's the primary meaning of the words as they appear in the quote. It is, at the very least, an ambiguous sentence.
Actually, no names were mentioned anywhere about derailing, some flatter themselves assuming they are the end all to end all!

Betty Boop;1248848 wrote: I would imagine any circumcision carried out in a hospital takes place with a local anaesthetic, I can't imagine any Doctor working within a medical establishment would do it without one on any age of man.

It's the religious circumcision rituals that carry them out without suitable pain relief and that is where the origins of circumcision lie in both sexes. A procedure used to de-sensitize sexual feelings and urges.

The seven year old with the tattoo, I wonder if the experience has put him off ever having a tattoo again. Poor chap if he has to go and endure more pain to cover this one, that area looks painful to have tattooed. He's old enough to remember that trauma vividly and as Pam said no doubt he was left more confused by all the goings on after with Dad ending up in court. I wonder if at any point he was asked how he felt, whether he protested to his father or whether he agreed. It's an extreme thing to go and do without discussing with the child's other parent, I would assume that for whatever reason the father believed he had ultimate consent and 'ownership' rights over his son otherwise he would have discussed it first.


If they do use a local anesthetic for circumcision, needles injected into the penis or even around that area for freezing? I still would not consent.

so simple, as we teach our children how to clean themselves.



Your spot on again Betty, imagine the pain that 7 year old endured during the tat?

-and trauma?

I believe it was a power trip his dad was on.



shame to take that out on your 7 year old.:-5:-5

cars;1248855 wrote: some flatter themselves assuming they are the end all to end all!


Well....yea.

Its a gift.

Odie;1248865 wrote: If they do use a local anesthetic for circumcision, needles injected into the penis or even around that area for freezing? I still would not consent.



so simple, as we teach our children how to clean themselves.





Your spot on again Betty, imagine the pain that 7 year old endured during the tat?

-and trauma?



I believe it was a power trip his dad was on.





shame to take that out on your 7 year old.:-5:-5


Not only did the tat hurt him at the time, it could turn out hurt him more! Say if a rival gang member saw the tat on the kid when he was in a playground or at the beach, & then took it out on the kid, just to get back at the father! :-2

cars;1248884 wrote: Not only did the tat hurt him at the time, it could turn out hurt him more! Say if a rival gang member saw the tat on the kid when he was in a playground or at the beach, & then took it out on the kid, just to get back at the father! :-2


tat's are extremely painful, even the most smallest.



and as I said earlier, imagine what the other gang will do to him?:-5:-5



I just don't get it, how can any father do this to his son?:mad:

Calif. Dad Who Tattooed Gang Symbol on Son Won't Face Mayhem Charge - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Poor judgement on the fathers part for tattooing his son. Kids want alot of things all the time but we as parents should have enough common sense to deny certain requests and let them make their own dicisions after they turn 18.

I would imagine any circumcision carried out in a hospital takes place with a local anaesthetic, I can't imagine any Doctor working within a medical establishment would do it without one on any age of man.


Circumcisions are usually performed within 48 hours after birth here, by the parents consent to have this procedure done.

Circumcision -- familydoctor.org

Mustang;1248891 wrote: Calif. Dad Who Tattooed Gang Symbol on Son Won't Face Mayhem Charge - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Poor judgement on the fathers part for tattooing his son. Kids want alot of things all the time but we as parents should have enough common sense to deny certain requests and let them make their own dicisions after they turn 18.




Definitely poor judgement, to act on actually getting the tattoo done as the son said he wanted to be just like dad was a bit silly.

Even more interesting was the fact his mother didn't notice it for 2 weeks! :-2

Betty Boop;1248895 wrote: Definitely poor judgement, to act on actually getting the tattoo done as the son said he wanted to be just like dad was a bit silly.

Even more interesting was the fact his mother didn't notice it for 2 weeks! :-2


This happened on Wednesday, April 22, 2009. The mother reported it to authorities the following Tuesday. Guess this case is just now in the court system for hearing. Still, why wait a week to report it?

7-Year-Old Tattooed

Mustang;1248898 wrote: This happened on Wednesday, April 22, 2009. The mother reported it to authorities the following Tuesday. Guess this case is just now in the court system for hearing. Still, why wait a week to report it?

7-Year-Old Tattooed




Thanks Mustang for the new update, thank god he will now be charged.



'Police say the father, 26-year-old Enrique Gonzalez, faces six charges including mayhem, child abuse, false imprisonment, battery, participating in a criminal street gang and committing a crime for the benefit of a gang.'



as you and Betty said........still wondering why the mother never reported it?

I'm thinking with a husband like that, maybe she was just to frightened?

There seems to be a complete lack of proportionality in the US Justice system.

spot;1248930 wrote: There seems to be a complete lack of proportionality in the US Justice system.


Could this be due to each state (within the United States of America) having their own laws..................

How come the owner of the tattoo parlour hasn't been charged? Take that back just read the article.

Body decoration is a cultural thing. We find facial tattoos abhorrent other cultures don't. Arguably doping it to a seven year old is child abuse but relatively mild compared to other forms. I think it depends on the circumstances as to what should be done which is why you have courts to settle these things dispassionately taking in to account all the circumstances. Locking up the breadwinner for life does seem a bit ott. on the other hand

He is accused of holding down his 7-year-old son while another man tattooed a dog paw on the child's belly. The paw is a symbol of the Bulldogs, Fresno's largest street gang.


It might be doing the child a favour.

posted by gsducks

Neither is a circumcision...and no it's not the end of the world for a baby to get that...they are fine after taht...a little petroleum oil...never bothered my boys, but a tattoo really hurts imo


Circumcision is mutilation carried out for cultural/religious reasons however you want to dress it up or justify it. Cutting bits of a new born baby is not rational however you look at it. But it's culturally acceptable. So is female circumcision in some cultures. Both are justified on religious grounds. To willingly chop bits off a helpless child for no good medical reason whatever the sex is not rational. If the practice was cutting the ears off would you find that acceptable? Do it of you must but don't kid yourself there is some rational reason behind it- and yes I am aware the male circumcision is sometimes done for medical reasons.

Circumcision, with pictures of the alteration of the boy's penis

In the US, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and The Pediatric Urologists Association all say the circumcision of infant children is unnecessary.


Dangers of Circumcision for Male Infants - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

The more immediate hazards of circumcision include infection which may be minor, or which could lead to gangrene or general sepsis, severe hemorrhage, mutilate deformity of the penis, or rarely, a procedural misadventure requiring partial amputation of the penis.


BBC News | HEALTH | Circumcision dangers spelt out

A tattoo can be removed.

gmc;1248948 wrote: How come the owner of the tattoo parlour hasn't been charged? Take that back just read the article.

Body decoration is a cultural thing. We find facial tattoos abhorrent other cultures don't. Arguably doping it to a seven year old is child abuse but relatively mild compared to other forms. I think it depends on the circumstances as to what should be done which is why you have courts to settle these things dispassionately taking in to account all the circumstances. Locking up the breadwinner for life does seem a bit ott. on the other hand



It might be doing the child a favour.

posted by gsducks



Circumcision is mutilation carried out for cultural/religious reasons however you want to dress it up or justify it. Cutting bits of a new born baby is not rational however you look at it. But it's culturally acceptable. So is female circumcision in some cultures. Both are justified on religious grounds. To willingly chop bits off a helpless child for no good medical reason whatever the sex is not rational. If the practice was cutting the ears off would you find that acceptable? Do it of you must but don't kid yourself there is some rational reason behind it- and yes I am aware the male circumcision is sometimes done for medical reasons.

Circumcision, with pictures of the alteration of the boy's penis



Dangers of Circumcision for Male Infants - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com



BBC News | HEALTH | Circumcision dangers spelt out

A tattoo can be removed.


Male circumcision is mutilation, I fully agreed earlier.



We are talking about the 7 year old here, were not talking about other forms of child abuse so I have no idea why you said its relativity mild to other forms.

-The child was held down against his will

-The pain would have been unbearable.

-He may well suffer mentally for years.

-Its a gang tat...what happens now when the opposite gang members see's that on him?



a tattoo can be removed is your conclusion?

when?

any idea how much pain he will endure then?

Odie;1248965 wrote: Male circumcision is mutilation, I fully agreed earlier.



We are talking about the 7 year old here, were not talking about other forms of child abuse so I have no idea why you said its relativity mild to other forms.

-The child was held down against his will

-The pain would have been unbearable.

-He may well suffer mentally for years.

-Its a gang tat...what happens now when the opposite gang members see's that on him?



a tattoo can be removed is your conclusion?

when?

any idea how much pain he will endure then?


I was speaking to the body of the kirk not answering anyone in particular, you were not actually defending circumcision as being harmless and beneficial.

I'm sure you can think of worse forms of child abuse. This particular version had visible signs that can be removed other forms have scars that cannot. I'm not saying I approve of it but the original question was the judge right to reduce the charges.

a felony that can result in a life sentence


IMO he was but not being an american or in his environment or knowing the full circumstances it's only an unqualified opinion. That's why there are courts and juries to decide and pass judgement. What's the sentence a paedophile gets in the states? Getting a tattoo is relatively mild compared to what could have happened.

gmc;1249063 wrote: I was speaking to the body of the kirk not answering anyone in particular, you were not actually defending circumcision as being harmless and beneficial.

I'm sure you can think of worse forms of child abuse. This particular version had visible signs that can be removed other forms have scars that cannot. I'm not saying I approve of it but the original question was the judge right to reduce the charges.



IMO he was but not being an american or in his environment or knowing the full circumstances it's only an unqualified opinion. That's why there are courts and juries to decide and pass judgement. What's the sentence a paedophile gets in the states? Getting a tattoo is relatively mild compared to what could have happened.


-I have never said circumcision was beneficial nor harmless.....because I believe its not.....accept in medical conditions.

your just not getting the actual point of this thread on the 7 year old.

Well, imo I don't think male circumcision is that big of a deal...you peeps are making a fuss over nothing imho. BTW, my boys are fine.

Odie;1249140 wrote: -I have never said circumcision was beneficial nor harmless.....because I believe its not.....accept in medical conditions.

your just not getting the actual point of this thread on the 7 year old.


I wish you'd read the posts properly. I know you didn't and I never said that you did. I wasn't actually answering you I was speaking in general terms to nobody on particular.

But since you missed it this is what I posted.

I was speaking to the body of the kirk not answering anyone in particular, you were not actually defending circumcision as being harmless and beneficial.




I'm sure you can think of worse forms of child abuse. This particular version had visible signs that can be removed other forms have scars that cannot. I'm not saying I approve of it but the original question was the judge right to reduce the charges.




IMO he was but not being an american or in his environment or knowing the full circumstances it's only an unqualified opinion. That's why there are courts and juries to decide and pass judgement. What's the sentence a paedophile gets in the states? Getting a tattoo is relatively mild compared to what could have happened.




posted by gsducks

Well, imo I don't think male circumcision is that big of a deal...you peeps are making a fuss over nothing imho. BTW, my boys are fine.


Try asking a teenager if they want to have it done and see if they think it no big deal.

gmc;1249189 wrote: I wish you'd read the posts properly. I know you didn't and I never said that you did. I wasn't actually answering you I was speaking in general terms to nobody on particular.

But since you missed it this is what I posted.







posted by gsducks



Try asking a teenager if they want to have it done and see if they think it no big deal.


I'm sure if that teenager was Jewish it would be not a big deal and I'm also sure that they numb the area...mine were done as newborns

The judge should have sentenced the Dad to have T.W.A.T tattooed on his forehead, life imprisonment is a bit much.

qsducks;1248691 wrote: ''

We did it for practical reasons...my nephew who is not circumcised has had all sorts of problems...from the day he wasn't circumcised...my boys are..so much less mess...although mine are not sexually active my nephew is...he hates that his parents didn't do the circumcission.


ditto for my grandson, sadly as he approaches age 3 it has been advised he be circumcised my daughter and son in law really thought they were doing the right thing by not having the procedure done but now it's a must and apparently for cleanliness, and believe me it is not from dilegence of his parents.

given that this tat is a gang tat, would that not be child abuse enough now since this little boys life could be at danger? Geeze he has no choice but to be a gang member till he can afford lazer removal, which in my understanding is painful as hell more so than the tattoo.

Yes the tat artist should have been charged, I thought it would be illegal to tattoo a minor.

minks;1249205 wrote: Geeze he has no choice but to be a gang member till he can afford lazer removal, which in my understanding is painful as hell more so than the tattoo.
No no minks, we've already been assured, as far as this quarter-sized tattoo is concerned, that "The pain would have been unbearable - He may well suffer mentally for years". No laser removal could possibly come close to such unendurable torture. I'm surprised people who get tattoos don't die of shock within minutes of the needle being applied.

The pain would have been unbearable. He may well suffer mentally for years.

Odie, does it not occur to you that far too many people have enough direct experience to know this is just plain not true?

qsducks;1249197 wrote: [quote=gmc][quote=qsducks]Well, imo I don't think male circumcision is that big of a dealTry asking a teenager if they want to have it done and see if they think it no big deal.I'm sure if that teenager was Jewish it would be not a big deal and I'm also sure that they numb the area...mine were done as newborns


Where on earth are you going to find an uncircumcised teenage Jewish boy to ask!!

As for numbing, no. It's a ritual, there are rules on how it's performed.

Here. Something slightly more authoritative than my merely stating the fact: "Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days of age, i.e. well within the neonatal period; no anaesthetic is used." - BJU INTERNATIONAL, Volume 83 Supplement 1: Pages 22-27, January 1999. Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective, J. GOODMAN. The article it worth reading from start to finish.

spot;1249316 wrote: Where on earth are you going to find an uncircumcised teenage Jewish boy to ask!!

As for numbing, no. It's a ritual, there are rules on how it's performed.

Here. Something slightly more authoritative than my merely stating the fact: "Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days of age, i.e. well within the neonatal period; no anaesthetic is used." - BJU INTERNATIONAL, Volume 83 Supplement 1: Pages 22-27, January 1999. Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective, J. GOODMAN. The article it worth reading from start to finish.


Why does he have to be jewish-do they not feel pain or something. Ask yourself if you would be happy to undergo it as an adult-assuming you are uncircumcised and no I don't want to know if you are or not.

There are plenty cultures that mutilate each other as part of tribal rituals- you see quite a lot of africans with facial scars male and female-done as a rite of passage to adulthood. There's certain parts of the UK where tattooing is more common than in others as a hangover from our tribal origins-ever wonder why it is seen as a lower class/white trash kind of thing to do?

Chopping bits off your baby unless absolutely necessary is not normal. Dress it up any way you like. People kid themselves that babies don't feel the pain and justify it on medical grounds but the reality is it is primitive tribal practice that lingers to the present day. There are cultures that circumcise older boys as a rite of passage and it happens in both the UK and the states amongst muslims -if the boy objects and goes to the police what would happen then-is it seen as child abuse or acceptable because it's a cultural practice?

Mind you neither is holding down a screaming child and tattooing him particularly normal either imo. Throwing him in jail for the rest of his life would be a bit OTT perhaps but it depends on what else is going on.

posted by gsducks

I totally disagree with the judge in this case...a tattoo is permanent where esle you can remove the earrings, etc. As for circumcision, that is made at the moment the boy is born...has no difference imo. The father sounds like an arsehole


You think it acceptable for the courts to intervene over this-how about if circumcising babies was seen as abuse and illegal-what then?

Don't misunderstand-I think this father is in the wrong but it is a bit hypocritical to object to tattoos and promote genital mutilation as being normal and perfectly OK.

gmc;1249334 wrote: Why does he have to be jewish-do they not feel pain or something. Ask yourself if you would be happy to undergo it as an adult-assuming you are uncircumcised and no I don't want to know if you are or not.

There are plenty cultures that mutilate each other as part of tribal rituals- you see quite a lot of africans with facial scars male and female-done as a rite of passage to adulthood. There's certain parts of the UK where tattooing is more common than in others as a hangover from our tribal origins-ever wonder why it is seen as a lower class/white trash kind of thing to do?

Chopping bits off your baby unless absolutely necessary is not normal. Dress it up any way you like. People kid themselves that babies don't feel the pain and justify it on medical grounds but the reality is it is primitive tribal practice that lingers to the present day. There are cultures that circumcise older boys as a rite of passage and it happens in both the UK and the states amongst muslims -if the boy objects and goes to the police what would happen then-is it seen as child abuse or acceptable because it's a cultural practice?

Mind you neither is holding down a screaming child and tattooing him particularly normal either imo. Throwing him in jail for the rest of his life would be a bit OTT perhaps but it depends on what else is going on.

posted by gsducks



You think it acceptable for the courts to intervene over this-how about if circumcising babies was seen as abuse and illegal-what then?

Don't misunderstand-I think this father is in the wrong but it is a bit hypocritical to object to tattoos and promote genital mutilation as being normal and perfectly OK.


Its done for cleanliness...and no court in the US will see it as child abuse...its the parents decision not the governments.

minks;1249203 wrote: ditto for my grandson, sadly as he approaches age 3 it has been advised he be circumcised my daughter and son in law really thought they were doing the right thing by not having the procedure done but now it's a must and apparently for cleanliness, and believe me it is not from dilegence of his parents.


Thank you Minks...yes it is done for cleanliness & alot of parents do it in this country. It is back on the rise again for the reasons you & have both stated. And, no I don't view it as child abuse.

gmc;1249334 wrote: Why does he have to be jewish-do they not feel pain or something. Ask yourself if you would be happy to undergo it as an adult-assuming you are uncircumcised and no I don't want to know if you are or not.

There are plenty cultures that mutilate each other as part of tribal rituals- you see quite a lot of africans with facial scars male and female-done as a rite of passage to adulthood. There's certain parts of the UK where tattooing is more common than in others as a hangover from our tribal origins-ever wonder why it is seen as a lower class/white trash kind of thing to do?

Chopping bits off your baby unless absolutely necessary is not normal. Dress it up any way you like. People kid themselves that babies don't feel the pain and justify it on medical grounds but the reality is it is primitive tribal practice that lingers to the present day. There are cultures that circumcise older boys as a rite of passage and it happens in both the UK and the states amongst muslims -if the boy objects and goes to the police what would happen then-is it seen as child abuse or acceptable because it's a cultural practice?

Mind you neither is holding down a screaming child and tattooing him particularly normal either imo. Throwing him in jail for the rest of his life would be a bit OTT perhaps but it depends on what else is going on.

posted by gsducks



You think it acceptable for the courts to intervene over this-how about if circumcising babies was seen as abuse and illegal-what then?

Don't misunderstand-I think this father is in the wrong but it is a bit hypocritical to object to tattoos and promote genital mutilation as being normal and perfectly OK.




google 'how do jewish people do a circumcision'.........its not just the cutting, its the clamping the mother has to do afterwords etc.



Chopping bits of skin off your new born baby is just not normal....physicians in Canada and the US are now trying to talk parents out of this barbaric act, years ago, this was done without even a thought......but not anymore. No physician enjoys doing this, who would?

qsducks;1249342 wrote: Its done for cleanliness...and no court in the US will see it as child abuse...its the parents decision not the governments.


Bollocks it's cultural. It's up to you do it if you want but stop kidding yourself there is a valid medical reason-might be in some cases but not every one. That is just a justification dreamt up to mollify the instinct that tells you cutting bits off a baby is not a good idea.

Circumcision, with pictures of the alteration of the boy's penis

It seems the US has recently discovered that it is the only Western country where child circumcision is still widely practiced, despite a rapid decline in recent years. The remaining American doctors who profit from penile reduction surgery are under attack from their colleagues in the medical profession who say that the basis for child circumcision was never medical, but social.

Now that the problems associated with child circumcision have become known, there is no longer any medical authority in the western world which advocates the circumcision of either male or female children. Now most children in the US are uncircumcised.

In the US, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and The Pediatric Urologists Association all say the circumcision of infant children is unnecessary.




Dangers of Circumcision for Male Infants - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Unless of course you are better qualified medically than these guys.

In the US, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and The Pediatric Urologists Association all say the circumcision of infant children is unnecessary. The present medical policy in the United States and some other English-speaking nations is to offer and perform elective non-therapeutic circumcision of infant males at the request of the parents.


Why not apply the same logic to tattoos-it's the parents decision not the governments.

spot;1249315 wrote: No no minks, we've already been assured, as far as this quarter-sized tattoo is concerned, that "The pain would have been unbearable - He may well suffer mentally for years". No laser removal could possibly come close to such unendurable torture. I'm surprised people who get tattoos don't die of shock within minutes of the needle being applied.

The pain would have been unbearable. He may well suffer mentally for years.

Odie, does it not occur to you that far too many people have enough direct experience to know this is just plain not true?


um are you yanking my chain Spot..... or is there proof a 7 year old would be in such unendurable torturous pain under the tattoo needle, more than an adult?

yah I know you are yanking my chain.

I just think the stupid father has set his son up for a lousy start to life bad bad bad

SPOT you are bad bad bad.

qsducks;1249342 wrote: no court in the US will see it as child abuse...its the parents decision not the governments.


The same would once have been true of tattooing. The goalposts get shifted. The chap in the OP has just had his life wrecked by not knowing they'd moved. What baffles me is that in circumstances like this the prosecutors throw as much of the book as they can throw, as heavily as they can manage. That's what I meant about the response being disproportionate.

spot;1249421 wrote: The same would once have been true of tattooing. The goalposts get shifted. The chap in the OP has just had his life wrecked by not knowing they'd moved. What baffles me is that in circumstances like this the prosecutors throw as much of the book as they can throw, as heavily as they can manage. That's what I meant about the response being disproportionate.


How about we agree to disagree, because I'm not going to agree with you on boys being circumcised & you can moan all you want about how unnatural it is...its your opinion & I also have the right to voice mine whether anyone likes it or not.

qsducks;1249433 wrote: How about we agree to disagree, because I'm not going to agree with you on boys being circumcised & you can moan all you want about how unnatural it is...its your opinion & I also have the right to voice mine whether anyone likes it or not.


But you're still against tattooing children? Or circumcising girls?

Sounds like cultural bias to me. A bit of "I know best and nobody can change my mind".

Lon did a thread on circumcision back in '07 if anybody is interested in contributing to his thread....

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ision.html

Thank you Mustang.

What we're discussing here is the Original Post. The defence lawyers, quoted in the Original Post, said the tattoo was no more or less abusive of a seven-year-old than circumcision or ear-piercing. Some of us agree, some disagree for a variety of reasons.

If you're implying we're off topic in any sense then stop shilly-shallying and explain why you think it.

spot;1249506 wrote: Thank you Mustang.

What we're discussing here is the Original Post. The defence lawyers, quoted in the Original Post, said the tattoo was no more or less abusive of a seven-year-old than circumcision or ear-piercing. Some of us agree, some disagree for a variety of reasons.

If you're implying we're off topic in any sense then stop shilly-shallying and explain why you think it.


I'm not implying no such thing Spot. Lon's thread also had some good information pertaining to this subject matter, which was worth revisiting.

Mustang;1249520 wrote: I'm not implying no such thing Spot. Lon's thread also had some good information pertaining to this subject matter, which was worth revisiting.


and I thank you for that Mustang, as I had visited it for the first time today.:guitarist

Mustang;1249520 wrote: I'm not implying no such thing Spot.If you say so, though I don't believe it. If people would just talk openly about their gripes instead of weaseling around like this we'd have far less confusion and niggling here.

IMHO, I think it is wrong to permanantly disfigure a boy or girl...piercings, tatoos, circumcisions(unless for medical necessary reasons) etc. These kids should be allowed to make that decision for themselves when they are of legal age. I also agree that this is child abuse in the form that this child could be put in harms way from rival gangs if the tatoo is to be seen, which happens in the boys locker rooms in later years. Plus, as this boy grows, how is that tatoo going to look? All deformed and stretched out? Let the kids be kids, and when they are adults, then they can make the bodily disforming decisons on their own.

I believe this father should be punished, not even so much for the tatoo itself, but for the child endangerment that most surely will happen.

The father is going to be punished. But the judge thought he should not be jailed for life. See OP.

spot;1249547 wrote: If you say so, though I don't believe it. If people would just talk openly about their gripes instead of weaseling around like this we'd have far less confusion and niggling here.


People? Gripes? Weaseling and niggling?

Where are these assumptions coming from? Upon what information are they based?

Very inaccurate perception and over analyzation of the statement I had made to you: "I'm not implying no such thing Spot. Lon's thread also had some good information pertaining to this subject matter, which was worth revisiting."

Again, I didn't see this thread conversation as 'off topic.' Believe what you will Spot.

spot;1249439 wrote: But you're still against tattooing children? Or circumcising girls?

Sounds like cultural bias to me. A bit of "I know best and nobody can change my mind".


Of course I'm against tattooing children...you have to be over 16 yrs in this state & as for circumcising girls that is done for cultural reasons...sexist mostly.

I wonder how this poor chap's sentence will compare with the disgusting Christians in BBC NEWS | Americas | Jail terms for faith healing pair who each pulled a sentence of one month in jail for each of the next six years. For faith-based murder.

Tattooing a 7 year old with a gang sign is obviously regarded as worse in the US.

spot;1249748 wrote: I wonder how this poor chap's sentence will compare with the disgusting Christians in BBC NEWS | Americas | Jail terms for faith healing pair who each pulled a sentence of one month in jail for each of the next six years. For faith-based murder.

Tattooing a 7 year old with a gang sign is obviously regarded as worse in the US.


That is not a common sentence here.

Peg;1249751 wrote: That is not a common sentence here.


Can the gang member in California hope for a similarly uncommon sentence, do you suppose? Or is lightweight one-month-a-year sentencing a class + race + religion thing round where you live?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of uncommon sentencing. I prefer it to inversely reflect wealth and influence when it happens, though.

qsducks;1249433 wrote: How about we agree to disagree, because I'm not going to agree with you on boys being circumcised & you can moan all you want about how unnatural it is...its your opinion & I also have the right to voice mine whether anyone likes it or not.
There is a lot of statues at Caesars Palace in Vegas that have no problem being uncircumcised.

When I have a little more time, I'm going to have to see if the judge in that case hands out unusual sentences and if there is a pattern. I'm curious.

YZGI;1249794 wrote: There is a lot of statues at Caesars Palace in Vegas that have no problem being uncircumcised.


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl...but at the same time John Ashcroft when he was the big DA in Washington DC had all the women statues covered up so no one could see their boobs...prude.