Baby body with a tattoo.

Image via Wikipedia

So, this mom allows her 10-year old child to get a tattoo of his brother who died after being struck by a car.  He wants to commemorate his dead brother with a tattoo.  What’s wrong with that?

Well, there are two things are wrong with that.

One: The law requiring that one must be 18 years of age before he/she can get a tattoo.

Two:  The Georgia authorities for putting this mother in jail.

So, the 10-year old kid already has a dead brother.  Now, he’s got a mother in jail.  Well, I don’t know what scars more, a tattoo or a child losing his mother (to the ridiculously inept and strict system)?  Yes, I absolutely know which is more scarring and it’s not ink!

I personally know people who were old enough to get tattoos and later had them removed.  Why?  Because they are different people now.  Some even stated that they had no idea that what they were doing was stupid.  (I’m not saying that getting a tattoo is stupid.  I’m saying that some people who get tattoos are not in their right mind.  Like the fact that I’ve got a tattoo of Spider-man shooting a web onto the crack of my a$$.  I thought it was a cool gift to myself at 30 years old, but I’d take it back if I could…)

What makes the age of 18 the age of sensibility for a person to decide to permanently mark his body?  (It’s not even permanent anymore, so what’s the big deal?)  I’m twice that age and I know I’m still not sensible!

Laws are hard and fast.  But, isn’t this case different?  Shouldn’t the laws be there for guidance of the public, not to define life as black or white?

I’d love to hear what you’ve got to say…


Read the article here: