Remember the gang member who forced his seven-year-old to be inked with the gang’s symbol? His defense attorney is attempting to use proof that circumcision is more painful for a child to get his client off.
And look who just opened the door for a whole new war over “to circ” or “not to circ.”
Parents who read about the quarter-sized paw print tattooed on the seven-year-old boy’s hip to represent the Bulldogs, the Fresno street gang father Enrique Gonzalez is a member of, were outraged over what’s been labeled child abuse in worldwide media reports (including comments here on Babble).
But take most of the arguments against tattooing a child: the pain, the lifelong scarring. And you’ll see exactly why Gonzalez’s attorney opted for this route: they’re the exact same argument used against circumcising little boys.
Smart attorney for clouding the issue at hand. But are any of you buying it?
Even those who disgree with circumcision are willing to debate medical necessity (and yes, they come out saying it’s NOT medically necessary) and able to look at some science. There is no scientists calling for tattoos to reduce STD infections or studies extolling its virtues.
The boy, by the way, is having the tattoo removed (more pain the kid has to go through). Do you think circumcision and a tattoo on a seven-year-old compare?
Image: Fresno Bee (Gonzalez and his alleged partner in crime)
More by This Author: