2006-09-24 22:25:27 · 69 answers · asked by Hachi 2 in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ Other - General Health Care
come on people, it's not me... I'm 19 & I don't have a baby. I'm just curious!... and you could try stating reasons why!
PS. I'm not really a tattoo fan
Thanks for your answers.
2006-09-24 22:40:48 · update #1
I'd say...NO!!!
2006-09-24 22:30:30 · answer #1 · answered by b97st 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As the babies skin grows the tattoo would stretch. Why would anyone want to give a baby a tattoo? Also, I don't think you would find any tattooists out there that would inflict that upon a baby.
The child welfare groups would have something to say on this and I'm certain that they would take any child in to care that was put through this.
But to answer your question. If there were no laws then yes babies can have tattoos.
2006-09-24 22:31:34 · answer #2 · answered by Tabbyfur aka patchy puss 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they can temp ones lol !you can tattoo anything from cattle to your azz at any age dead or alive but your azz would end up in jail for child abuse, along with the mother and so would who ever did this to them. This would be so extremly painful and harmful to the child.Not to mention if you tatted someone so young when their skin stretched it would ruin the tat and look horrible.They would suffer medical probs. I think a child should not be branded like cattle is at birth and should wait until the legal age which is 16 with consent or 18 without parent. That way it is done professional and your child will not get sick. The ink i self at such a young age and how lil they weigh will result in infections, cause probs with allergy's later in life and possible poison to the blood stream because the skin is not thick enough yet and well practicaly be tattooed down to the bone.
2006-09-24 22:34:16 · answer #3 · answered by goddesscarpediem 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can not get a tattoo by law unless you are over the age of 18 or with a consenting adult. It is unfair to tatoo a baby who cannot tell you if they may not want one. Besides, the tatoo would stretch as the child gets older and look terrible. I would strongly advise against this.
2006-09-24 22:28:47 · answer #4 · answered by butterflykisses.ie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that any tattooist would wish to get involved, as there is a danger of being prosecuted for grievous bodily harm where there is any doubt as to the consent of the person receiving the tattoo. Clearly a baby is not in a position to consent and any adult trying to inflict a tattoo on a small child is conspiring with the tattoist to commit an act of serious assault. Parents are allowed to consent to operations which are for the health and welfare of a child, but not to acts of mutilation.
2006-09-24 23:27:13 · answer #5 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Some African tribes will give their children Ju Ju scars. These are, as well as protection, used to convey wealth, since the more scars you have, the wealthier you are. I am not sure at what age this occures, but I believe it is as young as possible, so as to afford the maximum protection (Mud is used to colour the wound). These scars are typically applied to the face.
Typically though, I would advise against tatooing babies. The risk of infection in a baby with limited imunities.
2006-09-25 00:35:28 · answer #6 · answered by Alice S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aside from the fact that giving a baby a tatoo would basically be child abuse, think of the practicality. As the baby grows and their skin stretches the tatoo would grow and deform completely....not a good look.
2006-09-24 22:53:24 · answer #7 · answered by frostiemugwai 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've known babies born with interesting birthmarks but never one born with tattoos. Surely there is some law against defiling people below a certain age. Tattoos are painfull and anyone who has them must be able to take a lot of pain. Like my mum always said, where there's no sense, there's no feeling.....
2006-09-24 22:30:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would class giving a baby a tattoo as severe child abuse which, in much the same way as having a baby's ears pierced, should be outlawed.
What makes parents think they have the right to maim their children?
2006-09-24 22:34:44 · answer #9 · answered by Phlodgeybodge 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been watching your questions and this is a sick one. Usually your questions are good. I don't know what happen this time, but thanks for the two points. On this subject I feel that if it's legal for a child/baby to get a tatoo then it must be about the mark of the beast. (666) may God help you.
2006-09-26 05:05:29 · answer #10 · answered by datalov3 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't even think of it! How can a grown-up subject a baby to the pain of having tattooes done to him? Besides, a baby cannot tell you whether he wants it or not. It is just too unfair to impose something like this on him. It is no different to child abuse.
2006-09-24 22:29:14 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋