Naming children - should the state step in?

bynmdsue said:
I think the state already has some say. I believe in the US you cannot name a child "5", but "Five" is okay.
Click to expand...
I knew a guy in college whose middle name was just "F". Didn't stand for anything.
 
Architect said:
I despair at some of the names children in my daughter's class have, and mentioned this to my father - contrasting it with the normal names of my classmates when we moved back to Scotland circa 1977.
Click to expand...

Why would it even bother you that they have unusual names? I assume you're being hyperbolic in your description of "despair," but still.
 
crimresearch said:
How often would be acceptable?

Being honest would require discussing the claim which has been has been made that the government should *never* tell people what to name their children under any circumstances. 'Never' automatically includes those names or any others.

We have zero evidence that people capable of creating children (which again, by definition includes them all... meth heads, white supremacists, severly mentally ill, et al.) will magically control themselves at any certain point on the naming spectrum. The OP documents 'Hitler' and 'Aryan Nation' from current events.
Click to expand...

So the real issue is that the parents are racists? The names are just something we'll use as the excuse to break them up.

What if someone decides that raising kids atheist is just as harmful?
 
I honestly dont think that the goverment should step into the naming of children unless in such cases you stated.

I actually know someone from Russia who callled their child Genotype and then a long number. Although thinking about it the child would be called Gino as an abbriviation so it might not be as bad as i think it might be.
 
Travis said:
So the real issue is that the parents are racists? The names are just something we'll use as the excuse to break them up.

What if someone decides that raising kids atheist is just as harmful?
Click to expand...
The real issue was spelled out in precise detail. Your absurd fallacies are amusing but useless.
 
Travis said:
Let's be honest here. How often does that happen even when it is allowed?
Click to expand...

Ahhhh.... Atheism or any other process of belief is harmful only when taken out of context similarly with names they can only be harmful if taken out of context.
 
dafydd said:
They used to control the names here in Belgium, but now it's a free for all. I'm against it. A name that exists in another culture is fine but I know two unfortunate kids by the names of Frodo and Heavenleigh.
Click to expand...

I just blushed when I read that. When I was a kid, I was reading a VC Andrews novel and the name of the girl was Heaven Leigh. I so wanted to name my kid that, but then I grew up and realized that my child wasn't just a plaything, this was a human that was going to grow up with that name.
 
Mostly I don't think a state needs to have an agency to regulate names. I think child abuse laws would probably already be able to deal with a situation where a name was or could cause severe emotional distress. Family Services or it's equivalent in most countries would likely or should I say hopefully be notified by the child's doctor or at least their school if they see Stupid Drunken Accident on their admittance forms.
 
I have a cousin who was saddled with the name "Jor-El" (yes, after Superman's father). He goes by "Joe" now.
 
ZirconBlue said:
Who is to decide what constitutes a "burden"? Or, for that matter, "bizarre"?

Today's "bizarre" name can quickly become popular tomorrow, and more diverse names are a plus in my book.
Click to expand...

I think "Number 16 Bus Shelter" might catch on any day now. :D

More seriously, I agree with you to a point, but I also think there are some names that we can safely conclude will not become popular tomorrow. Because they are stupid.

While I don't know if the government is particularly well suited to this function, it is difficult when you hear a kid's name and immediately can't help thinking, "That poor kid never had a chance." Of course, if a kid's parents would even seriously consider naming their child "Number 16 Bus Shelter," then the kid is screwed whether or not the government vetos it.
 
Last edited:
ZirconBlue said:
Parents have the right to "force" their children to do all sorts of things. Until actual harm is demonstrated, I see no need for the state to get involved in determining what is or is not an acceptably conformist name.
Click to expand...

That legal standard is a good one because it applies no matter what we're talking about. Parents can be abusive with their diet, housing, clothing, punishment, etc - but that doesn't mean parents should have to get pre-approval for all those things.

The government is the worst offender with respect to naming things - look how many acts are passed with the title being completely contrary to what the act is doing, or the terms of law it creates which mean the opposite of the plain english definition. My wife is currently enjoying "permanent" residency that lasts... two years.

You betcha a name can be abusive, and if parents are outrageously abusive with their name it would be surprising if that were the only abusive thing they did.
 
T'was a time, a couple decades back, that a Norwegian citizen tried to change his name to Harley Davidson, after his favorite motorcycle. He had to change it to "Davidsen," as "Davidson" is Swedish.
 
Grew up Catholic in the Boomer years. Every last girl in my school was named some variation of "Mary-," be it Mary Catherine, Mary Jane, or just plain Mary. My Mary, named after her great-grandmother, was, I swear to God, the only Mary in her elementary, middle, or high school. A phone call to any of them meant they knew who I meant after two syllables.
 
Freddy said:
I think "Number 16 Bus Shelter" might catch on any day now. :D

More seriously, I agree with you to a point, but I also think there are some names that we can safely conclude will not become popular tomorrow. Because they are stupid.

While I don't know if the government is particularly well suited to this function, it is difficult when you hear a kid's name and immediately can't help thinking, "That poor kid never had a chance." Of course, if a kid's parents would even seriously consider naming their child "Number 16 Bus Shelter," then the kid is screwed whether or not the government vetos it.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that "Number 16 Bus Shelter"'s parents named him (her?) after the place he/she was conceived.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Why would it even bother you that they have unusual names? I assume you're being hyperbolic in your description of "despair," but still.
Click to expand...

Because in several cases the names - one is even spelled wrongly - speak volumes for the educational levels and short-sightedness of the parents.
 
Craig4 said:
I'm not sure that the state should step in on naming. I am sure that the child has the right to consider the emotional pain from such naming when choosing the parent's nursing home.
Click to expand...

'Of course I'm not mad that you named me Hitler, but we just can't take care of you in our home any more. So here I have the brochure of this place called Auschwitz...'
 
jiggeryqua said:
I'm personally baffled that some people decide on a name before the child is born, and most before a name is needed, without waiting to find out who the child is.
Click to expand...

ZirconBlue said:
So, what? They don't get a name until they're 18?
Click to expand...

Well that's one number, certainly, although you'll note I didn't use it. I don't know if you have or have had children, but even a quite distant parent ought to have some idea of the character of the child long before they were 18.

But a name isn't needed at birth: "Baby [Surname]" will suffice. I suppose you'd need a name when starting school, but that's plenty of time to meet and get to know the person you're naming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom