Lately there have been in the news two different stories about parents trying to give their children unusual names. In this story a couple tried to name their child 4real. Their name of choice was rejected and they instead chose the name Superman. In this story a couple is petitioning to name their child @. (as in the symbol from e-mails). In the first case, the name got rejected, and in the second, as of now there is no answer.

Do you think a country or state have the right to limit the names given to their children? Or do you think in some cases, as in the ones above, the names are so pathetic that there is no problem whatsoever with the police/courts limiting the names to be chosen?

I think that given names should contain only letters, no numerals or symbols, but I'm not sure that the First Amendment has room for such a commonsense but arbitrary limitation and if I have to choose between curbing idiots and permitting freedom of expression (however idiotic that expression), I'm going with freedom of expression.
I DO think, though, that children given willfully stupid names should be allowed to sue their parents for willful infliction of emotional distress and that they should be permitted to amend their birth certificates when they choose a reasonable name for themselves.

What about punctuation? Should parents be allowed to include meaningless hyphens and apostrophes? Should they be able to misspell pronunciations or mispronounce spellings? Should they be allowed to name their child Placenta because they think it sounds pretty and are too uneducated to know what it really means?

quote:

Originally posted by Elexina:
Should they be allowed to name their child Placenta because they think it sounds pretty and are too uneducated to know what it really means?

Uneducated? Not so fast, Elexina! They may be classicists, and well-educated Christian ones at that:

"placenta f.: a cake . In Cato 'de re Rustica'at 76, Horace 'Epodes' at 1, 10, 11 and by others; as an offering see Biblia Vulgatae Editionis [the bible in Latin, revised by St Jerome]in Jeremias at c7 v11 "

A Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short, first edition (1879)

What better than to name your child after something small, sweet, holy and fit for God?

Fit for the god to eat??? Oh, well, why not? It's no sillier than a lot of religious conventions.

Actually Placenta is kinda neat. It's like the Mother Goddess. Of course the Judaic-Christian-Muslim tradition has demoted her, lest women become uppity and think they should have equal representation in the array of gods or something. After all, it is a well-known fact that the womb is like the earth, and is barren until the seed is planted. The seed is a little homunculus, and if planted in fertile soil will produce a human being. If the seed happens to 'take after' the mother's side, well that's okay, because it is also a well-known fact that the soil chosen for planting can affect the attributes of the crop plant.

When will religious Fundies get around to realizing that Mendelian experiments were just another of Satan's plots, and that genetics be removed from the science curricula and replaced by O.T. biblical reproductive theory?

Seeds rule! The egg is a myth, unless laid by a hen, for human consumption!!!

Trust me, this child was not named after a cake. Her mother overhead the word in the delivery room and thought it was pretty and named her that, not knowing what it meant.

I did not know the other definition of the word, though, thanks Fred! It could be a pretty name, just like Cialis or Lavitra could be, except that there are certain connotations...

No! No! Cialis and Levitra are Boys names!

It seems that parents have the right to name their babies whatever they want to. Those names mentioned do seem rather silly, but our names might sound silly to them. It's probably a mind thing.

The only problem I have with SYMBOLS being used as names is...what do people call @..."at"???

Or that weird symbol Prince was using for awhile. Parents need to think of how their children will be addressed and/or viewed when they give them untraditional names.

I have no problem with people naming their children whatever they want. If anything it makes them strong in life. Although I do think a lot of names are stupid these days. People will get used to it and eventually a lot of people will name their kids Apple or whatever.

I have room to talk, you know what my parents named me? They named me Ronchie, yes Ronchie Strong. sounds like Raunchy huh, and to have Strong as my last name.
Yes some names are weird or even maybe an underhanded stoned thought by the parents, but the law shouldn't tell you what you're going to name your kids.

When I have kids, all I want is the middle name opportunity. The wife can have the first name since she gave birth to the kid.

If it's a girl: Sunshine

If it's a boy: Ronchieboy ( just to pass on the misery )

quote:

Originally posted by gizmogram:
The only problem I have with SYMBOLS being used as names is...what do people call @..."at"???

@? They say it in French: 'Arobase' [ pronounced 'arrow-bahz']. Think of it as a boy's name. If the boy has a sister she can be Esperluette: that's & , the ampersand, 'and'. Just think, if the parents were called Pound (as in Ezra Pound) they could have two children @£ and &£ ( @+&£ or @&&£, for brevity)

Placenta does sound nice. The doctors of years ago gave the placenta that Latin name because of some fancied resemblance it had to a flat cake or placenta.They have since named part of the brain 'seahorse' (hippocampus), so there's been no stopping them in their strange borrowings from that ancient tongue (Both placenta and hippocampus are formed from Greek and so 'borrowed' by the Romans, but that's another story !)

It would be funny to name a kid Fonsworth Butterfinkle stinkerbottom

Yeah, I bet the kid would find it hilarious. I would have you arrested for child abuse. Of course, we're forgetting, though, about "Pilot Inspektor Lee."

lol