Age Restrictions For Body Modification

I thank Con for her response and after reviewing her second round, I still maintain that the current restrictions on tattoos and piercings stay in place. Before I get to her round two presentations we must first see how the premises have changed. I made clear that Con was operating under the false premise that those under 18 could not get body modifications. Con seemingly agrees as her position is now that under 18 individuals should not need a parent's permission to get body art. Also, Con seemingly agrees that those under 18 can express themselves, but some expression, tattoos and piercings, require permission from one's parents. Lastly, Con has dropped the American idea of freedom from the argument. She does mention some rights near the end so I will address those point by point. Con begins by claiming those under 18 are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves concerning piercings or body art. She does not mention a minimum age here, but I don't think she supports small children choosing to get body art. So we can look at 15 year old teens and above. Con may be correct that many 15 to 17 year olds are perfectly capable of making these decisions, but capacity to make a decision is not the threshold. No matter how mature a child may be, the parent is responsible, legally, for his welfare. (Some exceptions occur in the form of emancipation, but I will avoid it unless the instigator presents it). Con makes clear she is drug free (excellent!) and has college ambitions (Again, this is great) but Con, the parents of a drug free college driven minor are still responsible for their child's welfare. Because the parent is responsible, legally, for a child they should have some say so in the decision. No amount of maturity can relieve the parents of this responsibility. This is indeed a restriction on freedom, but one the law is willing to recognize due to the parents being responsible for medical treatment and well being of the minor. We have similar rules concerning a driver's license; a 16 can get a license in most states, but a parent must sign for it, and will be ultimately responsible. http://web01.dps.louisiana.gov... Maturity is not the threshold; legal responsibility is the crux of this situation. So long as parents are responsible, they get a voice. "Why can a drunk adult decide they want a tattoo but a teen who is in their right mind cant?" Again, false premises pervade this statement. A teen can get a tattoo in some states with a parent's permission and tattoo artists are under risk of a fine if found tattooing a drunk adult. http://tattoojoy.com... All states are different, but I did not find one that had laws concerning tattoos without a provision prohibiting an artist from providing the service on an intoxicated adult. Inherent risk: The only aspect of inherent risk I presented concerned artists who would not perform some modifications on minors because they are still developing physically. The artist is protecting herself, not necessarily the teen. I fully agree that everyday life includes a degree of risk. Walking, on steps or not, includes risks, but not walking on steps carries an inherent risk (fire drill!). Eating fatty food, or any food for that matter, carries an inherent risk, but not eating does also. In these cases both action and inaction carry a risk so a permission slip for one or the other would not be appropriate. The guy at the fast food counter cannot know the diet of a minor, cannot know the allergies, or what amount of calories a person may need due to a medical condition. I have seen some crazy diets so the refusal of say, a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (go large!), may be detrimental to a minor requiring a substantial amount of calories in one sitting. Businesses have no way of knowing what a person requires and could be doing as much harm by refusing food, fatty or otherwise, to a minor. Tattoos and piercings do not fit in this category. Walking home in the snow could be as dangerous as sitting at the school for two or three hours waiting for a ride. We have no way of knowing so the same reasoning above applies here also. As for sports, minors do need permission slips from parents to play. My school required a physical also. Sports, unlike walking and eating, are optional activities carrying an inherent risk of serious bodily injury. Parents have a say so here. "Every human being has a right to their own body." Fine, but so what? The law in the US does not recognize this right and this debate is about restrictions (laws). Neither adults nor minors in the US can legally do as they please with their bodies. Adults/minors cannot legally ingest certain drugs, attempt suicide (I love this law), or sell their body for sex in most states. Minors cannot legally do the latter in any state. Minors cannot take nude pictures of themselves legally. No ma'am you cannot do what you want in reference to your body and stay within the laws of the US. You may feel you have a right, but it is one the law does not recognize. "The government or your parents cannot force you to become an organ donner (sic)". The government can't, but a parent can refuse to allow an un-emancipated minor to be an organ donor, and make the decision after death for the minor: "The new law also allows a parent or guardian to revoke an anatomical gift or revoke a refusal to make an anatomical gift by a deceased minor." http://www.legis.state.wi.us... "[T]hey cannot force you to recieve (sic) medical treatments which you disagree with." Wrong on both counts: http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us... Exceptions exist, but for the most part a parent can approve, over a minor's disagreement, medical treatment. The state can step in over parent's objections in some cases. "[N]o one should be able to take away the right to do with our own bodies as we please. That should include our appearance, not just our internal organs." As I have shown, neither minors nor adults have a legal right to "do with [their] bodies as [they] please; therefore, it cannot be taken away. Minors do not have full rights in reference to organ donation either. Both of these statements are based on false premises. "They cannot control our haircut or color, the clothes we wear, or the make up i (sic) put on. So how come they can control our tattoos and piercings?" A minor's parents can, with little interference from the state, control all of these things. Minors do not have unfettered rights concerning their appearance. If a child refuses to listen to his parents and continuously violates rules established by parents, then the state can most definitely step in. http://www.djj.state.ga.us... We have unruly child laws for such occurrences. Reasonableness of the rules established, not the child's reasonableness, is the standard. "If the age restriction was removed, and I was refused a tattoo by an artist, then i (sic) could legally sue because of age discrimination. The artist is denying me a service which i (sic) could legally obtain based on nothing more than the number of times i've (sic) been around the sun." Yes, you could sue. You can sue now. You can sue a potted plant in this country. You will not win. Industries are allowed to self regulate. Piercers already have http://www.safepiercing.org... These rules are not governed by law, but by self regulation. Con is the instigator, and has supported her position with faulty premises. I have shown each area of support cannot hold. At this point, Con has provided no legal basis for voters to remove restrictions on laws concerning tattoos and piercings. Legal responsibility is the standard here, not maturity.