Age Restrictions For Body Modification

We share some common interest in TV shows it seems as Law and Order is a staple for me (cheesy detective lines and all). After reading Pro's position I stand in refutation the points provided by my opponent. I wish her good luck and (according to her profile) congratulations on her engagement. Definitions: Body Modification: I will accept that any piercing (ears, nose, tongue, [expletive], eyebrow, [expletive], bellybutton, forehead, etc) to be covered under body modification. In addition, any permanent tattoo will be included. Con presents a case of legal age discrimination in reference to body modification. Her position is that such laws are unfair as they are based solely on age and such a criterion is counter to American principles of freedom, as the freedom to do what one wishes with her own body is reserved, in the case of body modification, to those "of age". I reject Con's premise that body modification is reserved for those over the age of 18. I reject Con's premise that age is a criterion for expressing one's self. I reject Con's premise that American principles are violated in respect to body modification laws. 1. Children and teenagers can, with approval from their parents, get certain piercings and tattoos. The laws vary from state to state. . http://www.ncsl.org... As we can see from the list that most states allow for body modification so long as a parent is present, or signs off on it. Some modification is not done on children because their bodies are still growing and developing. The artists will refuse certain modifications due to health issues that occur with modifications on developing bodies. In addition, circumcision in males is a form of body modification that parents approve all the time. Children and teens are not prohibited from some modifications; they just need a parent's permission. Con's first premise is false. 2. I can find no law in the US preventing those under 18 from expressing themselves, only that certain expression of self needs to be approved by a parent. Body modifications require care, some more than others, and the parents will be responsible for that care, not the teenager. If a parent allows a piercing to become infected, or approved a tattoo from a shop where any reasonable person would have said no, then the parent, not the teen, is responsible if the teen experiences problems requiring medical care. When certain forms of expression require care and consequences can fall on parents in addition to medical costs, then they, the parents, should have a say so in the matter. Freedom of expression is not unlimited in the US and is more limited in teenagers due to legal requirements on parents and parents are ultimately responsible for their child's health and welfare. Freedom of expression is not reserved for those over 18, but expression is limited for minors due to the reasons I stated above. Con's second premise is false. 3. Con's third premise is that American principles are violated by these laws and she is mistaken. No one has a Constitutional right to a piercing or tattoo. The laws regulating such matters are, rightly, left to the states. The state can and does make laws pertaining to child welfare and so long as parents can be held responsible for their child's welfare, they can regulate to what extent the child can express themselves. I see no violations of American concepts of freedom in allowing the state and parents to regulate certain behavior. Con's third premise ignores another party to this subject-the artist. The artist can be fined for performing some actions, but they have a wide range of discretion in determining what art they will do. Some artists refuse to tattoo teens and the state does not interfere. Some artists refuse to paint gang symbols or racial tattoos and the state does not interfere. The artist has substantial freedom to self regulate and decide how to proceed as do parents. These are the people the law will hold responsible, not the teen, so they have more freedom in decision making. Con's third premise does not examine the whole picture and I see no violation of American principles when examining all involved parties. We will do it anyway and it would be less safe. The fact that a teen would allow a friend to stick needles in his body is further proof that this decision should be left to someone more responsible. The age restrictions Con gave are not wholly accurate as I have shown. The teen just needs a parent involved. I fully agree such practices as self piercing are unsanitary and unsafe, but what is the trade off? If tattoo parlors are allowed to modify teens without the teen's parent involved, is the artist now response for post modification care? Does she have to pay the medical bills if something gets infected? Children cannot be bound by most contracts, only the adults so consent forms and medical waivers will not be valid. Do you realize the level of responsibly an artist takes when tattooing an underage person without parental consent? In addition to the above points, the parent would have substantial footing for a lawsuit if something goes wrong and the artist will be the one affected. Allowing teens to be tattooed without consent brings several more factors into play that Con is not addressing. Many artists, much like they do now, will not perform certain modifications, including tattoos, on teens and many would still refuse if the laws were changed so teens would be forced to the less than savory parlors. Many problems can occur when tattooing teens and piercing them. I still do not understand how a non medical person can ask a 12 year old girl to remove clothing so some piercings or tattoos can be performed without a law being broken. Do you see the danger in this voters? Many states have specific health code laws concerning parlors but a once a year inspection does nothing to stop the exploitation of minors. The teen may be able to get a more sterilized modification, but we are opening the door for much more. We cannot legislate against stupid, and a person, teen or otherwise, who takes the risks associated with self piercing or allows a friend to do it will simply have to suffer the consequences. I am not willing to open Pandora's box on this subject, not for tattoos which can be obtained when a teen becomes legally responsible for his own actions and care. Age restrictions should be kept in place on this non medical matter.