Well I think the infant should grow up into an adult first. If s/he ever wants one, s/he will get it done later in life. Poor things. I mean, they are so tiny, and they have to bear with all that pain of getting tattooed.
Circumcision? I'd say "no" to circumcision too.
Both are like forcing your views down an innocent infant's throat... The infant has nooo idea about anything and can't say "no" to it...
I don't think they should put in such big tattoos as shown in the pic. What if the kid grows up hating it? It would leave a scar mentally too. A small one as a mark of love from the child's parents/loved ones should be fine.
I think that is ridiculous. For one babies have very sensitive skin and all the ink they use has so many different chemicals in it. Also the needles that they use, if they are not cleaned properly that could cause irritation to the babies skin and even an infection. Also the pain of getting the tattoo done. It's hard for adults to take the pain talk less of a baby. Let the baby grow up and decide weather he or she wants a tattoo and if he or she wants a tattoo let them pick what tattoo they wants. If I were a social worker and I saw a parent who tattooed their baby, I would take that child away from that parent.
It is wrong. The infant cannot give consent to something that will stay on them for the rest of their lives. It's something that everyone should choose for themselves. They're human beings. They can't be marked against their will like animals.
Dummy that shit is FAKE. &the only reason I have any view on circumcision is just cuz it's fucking painful when a guys dick is too big in girth which does have a direct correlation to circumcised vs uncircumcised and too-thick-dicks
Temporary tattoos - fine. I would think babies would be too squirmy to get a decent tattoo, plus the body tends to change too much; plus it's not like a piercing (hopefully fairly quick), or circumcision (health reasons, and done fairly quick - tattoos are a bit prolonged.) It's usually not cultural, so in general, I'd have issue with it.
"Well, we're all Cubs fans, so why not?" That's a dumb reason especially considering that the family likes the Cubbies, you can tell they don't make the best of decisions as it is... (ooooooh, snap! - Just playin' with you Cubbies fans - Just kidding around... with the both of you.)
On the other hand, I wouldn't have an issue with temporary tattoos... I think the temporary tattoos where you can write their phone number and name is an excellent idea.
They're kids, and something permanent like that should be your own choice. I'm not against tattos you've chosen to take yourself, but this kid has to live with his parent's decissions all life! Also let's not forget that the kid will grow, the skin will stretch, and the tatto may likely look off as a result. NOT good looking.
No to tattoos, for one I don't know how growing would affect the tat. But regardless, tattoos are meaningless if the person they are on didn't get to pick them themselves. Your just ruining your child's potential to make his own decisions about putting art of his body in the future.
Circumcision however has several benefits, such as a decreased risk of transferring stds and getting them. As well as a lower risks for their partners. So I'm okay with male circumcision.
I think it's extremely fucked up. The parents are physically scarring their child, who is unable to give consent, for their own gain and it will no doubt make the child susceptible to bullying as they grow older.
In my opinion for someone to get a tattoo they should be at least 18 years old. Our body are estimated to be fully grown at age 18 and if you get tattoo before that age, the tattoo will be warped as our body and skin grows and stretches.