Taking the time to see what Child Restriction Laws would mean!

Has the process of researching this issue resulted in changing my views?

       Researching child name restriction laws has opened my eyes to a broad range of restrictions that can be seen all over the world. Countries like New Zealand, Germany, and Sweden all have laws that reject names that may cause offence to a reasonable person. That is a law that I have stood for at the beginning of my research. I have a personal connection to this argument, having come from a family full of Gaylords and Gaylenes. I know for a fact that all of my brothers and sisters were destroyed by these names. I never really put much thought into other naming restriction like a name can not be too long or a child’s first name must indicate what sex they are. In countries like Japan and New Zealand the governments have pre-selected names where parents must choose their child's name or they can submit a name to be added to the list. There are many other restrictions around the world that I never even imagined, and I am happy to have the freedoms that America provides for its citizens. I stand on the fence because it is too difficult to decide if we should lose freedoms that have shaped this country over a child’s name.

Would I advocate the same solution now as I did at the beginning of my research? Why or why not?

       I still do stand for a naming law that would restrict names that may cause offence. I do not agree with giving the government the ability to intrude on our freedom of speech rights by rejecting a parent’s wishes to name their child. The last thing I want to see is the government imposing on the due process clause in the fourteenth Amendment, depriving Americans of their freedoms. It is difficult to draw a line on what names would be allowed and what names would not be permitted. I still believe that someone should have the authority to step in when a parent is trying to name his or her child something that is clearly inappropriate or causes offence. Some parents cross the line and nobody is going to tell them they are making a mistake and I strongly believe that someone needs to have that authority.

What have I learned that has allowed my arguments to become more substantial and compelling?

       I have learned that fear and anger are the driving point behind not passing a law that would restrict parents naming rights. No one wants to give up their freedoms and we should not have to. Most people want to give their little bundles of joy a unique name, they want them to stand out and be one of a kind. That is still possible even with the restrictions I would like to see put into place. My goal is not to stomp on the creativity of parents who want to change a name from Jaden to Jayden, which does not hurt anyone. Names like JoyceLynn Aryan Nation or Dewanna Bonner are names that I would like to see an end to. It is difficult to stand in front of a group of people and persuade them when I have a past that leaves me in a biased mindset. Just knowing that now opens my mind a little bit in an attempt to understand the opposing side to this argument. I cannot say that I see exactly what the other side sees, but I see main problems with my solution, which would leave Americans on the chopping block. By allowing the government to take some freedoms may lead to us losing more freedoms in the future.

What have I learned about the process that has allowed my argument to become better received and accepted?

       I think the most important thing I have learned throughout this whole semester is that being biased is like being blind in some aspects. At the beginning of the semester I took offence when my argument was looked at in what seemed to be an ostracizing view. I believed that my argument was not something that should be laughed at or not taking seriously. After discussing my argument with some people I realized that I could not be taking serious with the way I was going about it. I still do not know the best way to persuade someone in understanding what this argument really means. I still have issues where I let my troubled past make me look like I am angry about my situation and just want to see a change. I want my audience to know of my past, but in a way that would show them why we need to have child-naming restrictions in the United States. I have been screaming about how Gaylord has affected me since I was a young child, and I am tired of screaming. The time has come to grow up and to realize that screaming will do nothing. I have to acknowledge the other side of the debate and try to figure out a solution that would benefit everyone, not just me.