Wow! That IS amazing when you think about it.

what if it was the father who raped her... should she be forced to carry his baby? don't see the logic in making someone "responsible" when a potential life is involved. if a woman wants an abortion, she will find a way to get one...it's barbaric to live in a society without legal abortion.

Actually, no she can't. I admit, I'm a little ambivilent to this story. I really don't care that he gave her a tattoo. What irritates me the most is people who's arguments and rationales are based on falicy. To set the record straight, in South Carolina, a minor cannot receive an abortion without at least one parent's concent. Please, if you're not sure about the "fact" you are about to post, look it up. In this day and age, it's a really simple thing to do...
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/south-carolina-law/south-carolina-abortion-laws.html

That is very true , maybe not legally but she definitely can get an abortion if she has connections....

I seriously doubt a 14 year old would be able to get an abortion without parental consent. Nice try though, I like the way you tried to sneak your close minded opinion into this post.

Uuhmmmm no..i think the MAJOR reason a person needs to be licensed to give tattoos is the risk of disease..and that should be regulated by the state.....esp when your stupid enough to be doing tattoos on children without a license.

It is also easy to look up proper spelling.

ambivilent = ambivalent , falicy = fallacy, concent = consent,
rediculous = ridiculous

um, let's be real here, there is hypocrisy on both sides... you just refuse to see your own.

we don't? i think most parent's who leave their children in cars to "cook to death" are prosecuted for child endangerment and neglect at the very least. not sure where you are getting your information...

All the cases I have heard of concerning children left in hot cars that died resulted in some sort of penalty to the person(s) that left them there. I don't think that was a good example of what you are trying to say.

That is a very valid analogy.

You make a valid point.

finally, a valid and sound argument that isn't backed by information that is not true

whats valid by this argument?? lol Is nobody thinking about the fact this man has no license and is not regulated by ANYONE and the disease he could be spreding?? I have never had my childs nor any of my friends had their childrens ears pierced at home...so not seeing the same point..no to mention if the child chooses to take them out they can...tattoos are FOREVER and at 14 what u want now isnt what u want at 20...than 30.... and esp not what you want even later on....SO yeah not the same in any sense.

He's in jail for using an instrument that pierces human skin. If he had used a piercing gun on his child he could be jailed, Think it through.

everything is valid. the reason you need a license is for health purposes. the spread of disease/infection is the concern, which is why your license comes from the department of health, not the department of not making bad decisions. is it stupid? maybe. but that is not the point from a legal standpoint. parents have been peircing their children's ears for decades. most likley before there were peircing pagodas at every suburban shopping mall. these home peircings can become just as infected as a tattoo. i'm not sure how you have never heard of a parent peircing their child's ear before, but it certainly happens. you have every right to think that a parent should be neither peircing nor tattooing their child, and maybe you're right. the point is that the two are certainly similar enough to compare in light of the article, which soley speaks from a legal/licensing standpoint. it's not the health dept's responsibility to decide whether or not she will like her tattoo 10 years down the road, it's their responsibility to keep her tattoo safe. for the record, her father could have taken her to the licensed tattoo parlor and gotten her a legal tattoo with his parental concent you know...

You are so right Mr. Austin , I was thinking the samething...

I don't know if anbyone's saying its ok. In fact I think tattooing is stupid to put it bluntly. But when you consider common sense comparisons like that same girl being able to obtain an abortion without parental consent and that there are piercings and other body-modifications people do even to their little babies with no police intervention, one has to wonder why this particular "crime" gets such interaction. Its a fair question.

it is a fair question. but can we stop saying that this girl can get an abortion without parental concent, because that is just not true and it is driving me crazy

Now here is a guy so out of it he thinks a state is in a state......state of anguish I guess.