The parents are doing what they think is best to help their children. We certainly arrange for all kinds of medical pain for our children to help them. If this were more than just a small little tattoo, or if the kid wasn’t smiling and running around a minute later, I’d be inclined to agree with you. As it is, I’m not too upset (no nightmares here).

And I was ready to be all mad, but, it just doesn’t seem any worse than getting a shot.

just seems like cultural differences to me. are you equally disgusted by circumcision? if not, that would be pretty hypocritical, esp. considering that’s carried out on infants that are unable to consent.

tattoos don’t really hurt that much, and the kid seemed like he wanted it.

ps. i think circumcision is just as ridiculous, as are all invasive procedures done without consent on children in the name of religious and cultural beliefs.

hmmm…it’s not like getting a shot, but given the differences in Egyptian vs American culture, I’d say it’s roughly like piercing ears. Yes, it’s a “vain” reason, but it’s culturally accepted, over quickly, and certainly some children ask for it, even if they may be shocked by how much it hurts. Since we are talking about Egypt, think about the dichotomy—If you are a Coptic child, male or female, you will likely have a small tattoo on your wrist. If you are a Muslim boy in Egypt part of your foreskin will be sliced off by a cleric, with the pleasant side effect of damaging sexual pleasure for the rest of your life. If you are a Muslim girl in some of Egypt your genitals may be mutilated and sewn half-shut for the stated purpose of making sex painful for the rest of your life. Yeah, I’d take the tiny tattoo.

I would venture to say that ear piercing is almost worse than the tattoo. The tattoo only takes a minute, you’re in, you’re out, throw a little aloe on it and you’re good to go. The ear piercing though, not only do you have to sit through it once, but you have to do it a second time. This is infinitely worse, because you know the pain that is about to happen and you just have to wait for it.

But wait! Don’t these tattoos tie these children to a culture of violence??? Isn’t it like the gang tattoos??? Nah, that’s different…

Please tell me, seriously, you are not comparing the violently persecuted Coptic Christians, to street thugs who bond together to more effectively run drugs and commit other assorted crime.

wow, that makes you sound so smart and tolerant Mistress. Its true that in the United States, certain tattoos, especially the pawprint a California man was prosecuted for tattooing on his son, are associated with violent criminal street gangs. BUT, this isn’t a video from the US. It’s a video from Egypt, where a tattoo is associated with the nonviolent law-abiding Coptic minority. If you can’t grasp the difference between a tattoo that marks a young American boy as a violent gang member and a tattoo that marks a young Coptic boy as a member of his legal, nonviolent, faith, I just don’t know what to make of you.

Thanks for making my point better than I ever could, Jenny. Either the rights should belong to the parents to cosmetically and permanently alter their child’s person or it does not. Not talking about health or function, just to brand them. You’ve stated the “gangs bad, religion good” rationale before. I just wanted to highlight that you only are against inflicting this type of pain on a kid if you disapprove of the group that does it.

um, I still don’t get the comparison of a criminal gang with a religion, and, yes, Virginia my plebian little brain does still think that a peaceful sect of Christians is a better thing to be tied to than a gang of violent thugs. It’s not that I approve of the religion and give them carte blanche to do whatever they want to the kid—it is that I do recognize the right of parents to allow their kids to alter their appearances, so long as the best interests of the child are met. The intent of the Egyptian man was to tie the child to a peaceful close-knit law abiding community that both the man and his son believe follows the path toward eternal salvation, while the man in CA intended to tie his son to a criminal gang to show how hard he (the father) was and to make it pretty impossible for the boy to join a different gang. Which man do you think had his child’s interests at heart? I have never said that parents have no rights when it comes altering the kids appearance for a non-medical reason. That would be silly. What about kids with birthmarks, which pose no medical threat? Of course the parent should be able to allow that child to have the birthmark removed, if it doesn’t place the child at undue risk, and if the parent feels this is a decision that the child won’t regret later. The child here is not at undue risk, it is reasonable to assume, that as a Copt, he will be reasonably satisified with having a cross tattooed on his wrist. The child in CA, if he did actually ask for the pawprint tattoo, though, will almost certainly regret it, it places him at totally unneeded risk of being targeted by rival gangs for as long as he has that tattoo. Honestly, your inability to see the differences in context is astounding.

Yes, I’m gladly consistent in that my opinion doesn’t depend on who’s inflicting the pain. There are people who cut off their daughter’s clitoris because they *know* they have their child’s best interests at heart. The gangbanger thinks tattooing his child provides protection by his gang from rivals… he may also think he’s doing it in his child’s best interest. But it’s easy for Jenny to not even fathom the gangbanger’s choice might seem valid within the context of the reality that he lives. How can you claim, Jenny, to know what’s in another’s heart? Oh, you don’t have to… “gang bad, god good.” Rinse, repeat. Methinks Waldo’s consistency hobgoblin has found tighter quarters, Jenny! Nonetheless, it’s all tribal bullshit to me, but I call it bullshit. I don’t subscribe to moral relativism for the Christian’s version of marking their child because religion is more palatable.

I already denounced circumcission, as it has lifelong physical consequences. Tattooing has lifelong social consequences, and yes, the lifelong social consequences of being tied to a peaceful like the Coptic church are inherently better than the lifelong social consequences of being tied to a violent street gang. The pentagram vs. cross tattoo is more relevent than the pawprint vs. cross, and I would support the right of a peaceful Wiccan community to offer their children similar Wiccan tattoos, if the context was appropriate. You are focusing on WHO is providing the tattoo, instead of WHY and what the effect will be. I’m not saying for a minute that I, an Catholic of Mexican American descent, would ever put a tattoo on my kid, cross or otherwise….I am saying, though, that a momentarily painful ritual, which is not otherwise harmful, must be looked at in context. This man might look askance at me for piercing my daughter’s ears when she wanted it done, but both he and I are honoring the reasonable (within our cultures) wishes of our children and keeping their interests at heart.

Yes, my foolish consistency is that a symbol which says to the child ‘I am what God wants me to be’ is inherently better (though to a nonbeliever, not worth the moment of pain) than an equally painful symbol which says to a child ‘I’m a thug for life’.

wow…both of your arguments have provided me food for thought…

Culture is no excuse for child abuse.

There is NO SUCH THING as a “Christian child,” “Jewish child,” “Coptic child,” etc. Children are too young to make up their minds about religion. At most, you can say a child has “Christian parents.” There is no way it should be legal for any kid to have a tattoo for any reason, but particularly not for the parents to brand the kid as property of a religion that they cannot understand or consent to.