So far, out of 120 people who voted in our Patch Poll, 59% of you voted "No" and suggest that parents shoudn't be allowed to get their children tattoos, 25% suggest the opposite. Why did you vote Yes or No? Or do you think the law is a bit too rigid?

There are a couple of reasons I voted "no".
1. A tattoo is not a "need", nor is it "necessary" for the well-being of a child.
2. I, personally, do not see or feel that a tattoo is in the best interest of a child.
3. A child, him/herself, may not fully understand what a specific tattoo means; and, as the he/she grows up, may actually resent having received a tattoo at an early age.
4. In my opinion, there are much better ways for a child to "remember" something or someone. I find it much more meaningful if one learns it, feels it and remembers it in his/her heart.

I voted yes.
It's all about freedom. Nobody else's person, property or rights were violated. Are we going to keep our freedom, or just let the government control everything we do? People should have the freedom to make poor choices.

I think it is so wrong in so many ways. What type of Mother or any parent think it is ok to tattoo a child just because he wants to honor his dead brother? There are other ways to honor a dead family member. I know the last commit is all about freedom, but what type of example are you instilling in your child? If he wanted one, he could have waited until he was 18 to get one. You are right David Borden, it was a very poor choice & it is against the law & she should be held accountable for her actions on a minor! How can you say her rights were violated? No rights were violated except her young child. If he wanted to drive a car in honor of his dead brother, would she let him do that too? Please, remember there are laws to protect everyone out there & if you break the law you get punished.

People bring out the word "Freedom" every time even when their actions cannot be justified. Come on now, use some common sense and good will, you can't simply make the case by saying everyone should have the freedom to do whatever, and even poor choices. It's like saying we should live in a world that has no rules, and that's as wrong as it can get. It doesn't take much knowledge for one to realize that children are NOT "bullet-proof" to influences and aren't fully developed to make their own decisions, and it's simple as that why there are strict laws in place to protect them. Just because the adult thinks it's her "freedom" to make the decision and the child wants it at the moment, it doesn't mean tattooing a child is okay.
Now, should we all just blame on the mother? No, the tattoo artist should've known better too and know exactly what the law says about tattooing children. He/she could have prevented anyone from violating the law by simply saying "no, we can't tattoo a child."
There is no absolute freedom, and no one can have all the rightful freedom he/she can have if others don't follow the rules. Think twice, respect the law, and have common sense, please.

Why not simply write the brother's name on the kid's arm with a Magic Marker?
(cheaper, fadeable AND renewable)

On the other hand, where do you stop with control of the parent's choices for their children? Okay, so tattoos are bad for kids. Most (but not all) will agree. How about other body mutilations -- like piercings all over the body -- lips, belly buttons, cheecks, tongue? What age do we allow these? How about pierced ears? How young -- many parents decide their babies should have their ears pierced for purely cosmetic (not necessary) reasons. While I oppose allowing tattoos on kids, I am worried about where the "CONTROL" STOPS. Then comes the question of spanking and other forms of discipline (whipping in the wood shed?). The government (THEY) are getting in the act here, and I believe appropriately in some cases. But where does it stop? Most believe beating is bad. Many believe spanking is bad. Hoiw abouit one swift swat on the bottom of a dressed child to stop a bad behavior? Not so simple.

Grandpa Pete