Facebook Pixel

Comment Reply

This is a really interesting post, Susan, and makes me think.

I don't buy the fact that the family thinks it's just freedom of expression. I think that somewhere in there there's a bit of a "gotcha" element, a bit of a destructive ego, and they're using their kids to make a point. It seems very unfair to the children, who wouldn't know until they are older the horrible history those names carry.

Let's say for a moment that the argument for taking the kids away was that their names would almost certainly cause them harm, and that it was in some way linked to abuse or neglect. I can't see how you could draw a line. Would you then take away kids named with names that parents consider non-traditional but others consider ridiculout? What about celebrities, who name their kids River, or Apple? What about truly convoluted spellings?

When I worked at a newspaper, we ran birth announcements as a matter of routine. We got one one day where they named their baby girl "Placenta." We thought it was a prank, but we checked it out and it was the truth. The mother had heard the word at the hospital and thought it was pretty. Does that add up to child abuse?

It seems like a difficult -- and not really appropriate place -- for the government to insert itself, with no ability to make a consistent base of need or enforcement.

January 22, 2009 - 9:33am

Reply

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy