Baby Names

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

I just read an article about how New Zealand has banned parents from naming their child "Lucifer."


Do you think the government should have the right to say what a parent is allowed to name their child?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My friend told me that his mother forbade me from commenting on baby names when she heard I suggested the name "Buckshot" for my friend's son.

 

[Archer]

Well I wanted to name my second son Braxis (dragon nothing to do with WoW which I have never played) but my wife told me no Oh the government?

It is the will of the majority. If they don't like it they can vote them out of office.

I complain, I *****, I moan and I groan about what the US government does but the voting majority is to blame for our problems because they are blind to the facts and only believe rhetoric (I hate to admit that).

So the people want it and they will have it.

It is great when they do what you want but when they do not they are evil. It works both ways.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Depends. If it would conflict with filing records and such, then yes.

 

[bobhikes]

edit(sorry not mine copied from a news site)

illegal Baby Names

Last summer, the New Zealand government would not allow a baby boy to be named 4real. Several months later, a judge in the same country re-named a 9-year-old girl who was listed on her birth certificate as Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii.

The idea that a baby name could be "illegal" may seem odd to those of us in the U.S., but it isn't anything new in many countries around the world.

For instance, Denmark is quite strict when it comes to baby names. The country has a list of about 7,000 pre-approved names (4,000 for girls, 3,000 for boys) from which parents may choose. If a parent wants to deviate from the list, they need to get special permission, which isn't easy.

(Venezuela -- known for unique baby names like Britnishakira, Edigaith, Madeinusa and Taj-Mahal -- was on the verge of enforcing an ever stricter list of about 100 names last year. The proposed law didn't pass, though.)


Other countries don't draw up lists of specifically approved names. Instead, they create guidelines regarding the types of names that are prohibited. Examples of such guidelines include...

• No names over a certain length (i.e. 100 characters)
• No made-up names
• No brand names
• No androgynous names (i.e. names that aren't clearly male or female)
• No formal titles (i.e. royal or military)
• No names with non-letters (e.g. numbers, symbols, punctuation marks)
• No names that could subject a child to ridicule

What do you think: should a government should have the power to veto a bad baby name? If so, how "bad" should the name have to be before the government is allowed to step in? What if the name is non-traditional, like "Ikea"? Or unpronounceable, like "Gfbnp"? Or potentially embarrassing, like "Ugly"? Or potentially offensive, like "Hitler"?

 

[Archer]

• No brand names
• No androgynous names (i.e. names that aren't clearly male or female)
• No formal titles (i.e. royal or military)
• No names that could subject a child to ridicule

Okay but this is a bit restrictive.

 

[ChristineES]

I just read an article about how New Zealand has banned parents from naming their child "Lucifer."


Do you think the government should have the right to say what a parent is allowed to name their child?

The government should stay out of what people name their children. If people want to name their child something weird, that is their business. I wish I could talk parents out of some of the names they pick out and try and remind them how school children can be cruel and the child is stuck with that name until they are of age (18), but that would not be my business either.

 

[bobhikes]

Okay but this is a bit restrictive.

Sorry not mine a news article of what actually happens in the world.

link
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art7400.asp

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The government should stay out of what people name their children. If people want to name their child something weird, that is their business.

But it's not just their business; it's the child's business.

A child isn't the property of his or her parents; the child is a person with their own rights. Normally, it's presumed that the parents will safeguard those rights, but if the parent fails in this duty, it doesn't mean that the child should have no rights at all.

Now... I think a name would have to be pretty extreme before the government should step in and overrule a parent, but I don't think that we should necessarily say that it should never happen.

 

[Archer]

Sorry not mine a news article of what actually happens in the world.

link
Illegal Baby Names - Baby Names

Oh I know it was not you:yes:

 

[Archer]

A child isn't the property of his or her parents; the child is a person with their own rights.

But the line between where the child's rights end and the parents accountability is vague to say the least.

Almost all children are picked on for something.

So traditional names?

Bertha, Prudence, Gretchen, Howard, Barthamule.........................

Really there are a lot of names I do not like mostly because they are ethnic identifiers and can prevent some people from ever even getting an interview.

Lucifer is not necessarily a bad name.

 

[bobhikes]

But it's not just their business; it's the child's business.

A child isn't the property of his or her parents; the child is a person with their own rights. Normally, it's presumed that the parents will safeguard those rights, but if the parent fails in this duty, it doesn't mean that the child should have no rights at all.

Now... I think a name would have to be pretty extreme before the government should step in and overrule a parent, but I don't think that we should necessarily say that it should never happen.

I would agree completely

 

[ChristineES]

But it's not just their business; it's the child's business.

A child isn't the property of his or her parents; the child is a person with their own rights. Normally, it's presumed that the parents will safeguard those rights, but if the parent fails in this duty, it doesn't mean that the child should have no rights at all.

Now... I think a name would have to be pretty extreme before the government should step in and overrule a parent, but I don't think that we should necessarily say that it should never happen.

I did go on to say things to that effect, about the kids later in the same post, that the poor things have to live with an awful name. But I still don't think the government needs to get involved.
Not trying to sound sarcastic, but babies can't come up with their own names. And maybe they should let a child change his or her name a little bit younger than 18- particularly if they are teased unmercifully about it.

 

[Archer]

Naming a child is a big decision which should be left up to the parents.

Government should not be getting involved... however their actions do not shock me at all anymore.

Well I do believe in some restrictions.

First and middle names:

F___ Government
Di__ Head
Little Nigga
Nazi Child
Goto Hell

Ye;s I do agree in principal, but there are extremes.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

I agree there are extremes, but the government shouldn't decide that someone can't be named something. If someone is going to name their children names like the ones up there ^^^^^^ Then they shouldn't be having children anyway.

 

[Archer]

I agree there are extremes, but the government shouldn't decide that someone can't be named something. If someone is going to name their children names like the ones up there ^^^^^^ Then they shouldn't be having children anyway.

I agree but they have children anyway.

10 Strangest Names EVAR!