It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Maslo
I dunno, if the name is really degrading or offensive, then I can see how some regulation can make sense. However, this case is a nice example of how even sensible regulation tends to degenerate over time into overreaching stupidity. A list of approved names, really?
Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Mods if this is in the wrong section pleas move.
Really?
Is this what we in the U.S. and Canada are headed for?
A government agency telling us what we can and cannot name our children.
Anyone else uncomfortable with the State having this much say in your personal life?
I have no idea if this is connected with the UN Agenda 21 or not but in my humble opinion this is just wrong.
worldnews.nbcnews.com...edit on 3-1-2013 by RedmoonMWC because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nanocyte
I mean, if a parent wants to name their kid something like Pigvagina or Cockwaffle, it's undeniably in the best interest of the kid to force them to choose a different name, especially since the kid has no choice.
Originally posted by CaLyps0
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
Hell no f the government
I have the right to name my child anything i want
Its MY CHILD not theirs.
Germany
If the office rejects your proposed baby name, you may appeal the decision. But if you lose, you’ll have to think of a different name. Each time you submit a name you pay a fee, so it can get costly.
Sweden
Enacted in 1982, the Naming law in Sweden was originally created to prevent non-noble families from giving their children noble names, but a few changes to the law have been made since then.
China
Most new babies in China are now basically required to be named based on the ability of computer scanners to read those names on national identification cards. The government recommends giving children names that are easily readable, and encourages Simplified characters over Traditional Chinese ones.
Originally posted by eXia7
It seems kind of harmless at first, but if you had tons of people with generic names like "boy or girl", could you imagine the logistical nightmare those types of names would cause for paper work?
Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
So you are all fine with the government doing this?
Sad state of affairs.
Americans want comfort and "security" over freedom.They have proven it time and again. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 60% of Americans would support an approved names registry.
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by MikeNice81
Americans want comfort and "security" over freedom.They have proven it time and again. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 60% of Americans would support an approved names registry.
Something like a "list of names" has absolutely nothing to do with comfort, security and freedom. It's a question of preventing people from doing stupid things that could be a detriment to their kids. Sure naming your kid Applesauce isn't (on the surface) the same as a pregnant woman chugging down a six pack, but naming your kid something stupid like that will set it on a path in life that could be bad for it.
Does my "freedom" to name my kid something stupid trump its right to be taken seriously in life?
Originally posted by blackcube
All for it. These parents want name their child just for THEIR amusement, they thinking just for themselves and don't caring about their child. These type of parents should be denied the right to procreate because they are thinking that a children is more like a puppy than a human being.
Originally posted by Jess117
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
I wasn't aware of how many on here wouldn't mind having the government step into their personal lives. It sounds like a good idea at the time, but... I mean seriously, these are the people who created the so-called fiscal cliff and "avoided it". I think they have enough issues on their hands as it is.
Originally posted by antonia
I don't get the arguments here. Did any of you read the article? The name isn't even remotely offensive. I don't understand why the government doesn't just let her use it.
Originally posted by antonia
I don't get the arguments here. Did any of you read the article? The name isn't even remotely offensive. I don't understand why the government doesn't just let her use it.