Should The Term “illegitimate” Be Retired?

[apparent]

Today's families often are made of single parent or multiple fathers and/or unwed couples with children. Civil courts mandate child-support and public relief programs take up much of the slack. Like it or not, chances are some of your friends and relatives live this kind of lifestyle.

Is it fair to classify said offspring's as Illegitimate?

Edited June 12, 2008 by apparent

[cmotherofpirl]

All children are a gift of God, any other category is meaningless.

[CatherineM]

As someone who was illegitimate, in that my parents didn't marry until they had lived together for many decades and produced many children and grandchildren, although I didn't find that out until after my father had been dead for several years, I don't think the tag is apt. I may have been born out of wedlock because my father was a very stubborn man, but I was wanted and loved. I think children who aren't wanted or loved is a much bigger problem.

[ardillacid]

PC

[Justin86]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1569246' date='Jun 12 2008, 01:31 PM']PC[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.

[apparent]

[right]
Is marriage nothing more than a quaint old custom then, not to be taken seriously?[/right]

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1569246' date='Jun 11 2008, 11:31 PM']PC[/quote]
What's "PC," to not use the term "illegitimate?"

[picchick]

[quote name='apparent' post='1569404' date='Jun 12 2008, 05:23 AM'][right]
Is marriage nothing more than a quaint old custom then, not to be taken seriously?[/right][/quote]
To some it might be. For me I take it seriously. It is how I want to live. Marriage is a bond. I want that bond. Without it, the two can never be one. I think that it is harder to get past the idea that it is a quaint custum if you are not religious, though. But, when you have God, everything has a deeper meaning.

I think that any label for a child should not be used. I think that it could make the child feel less loved, needed, human if we were to say, "He/She is an illegitimate child. He is a love child." Who cares how the child came about? We should love the child and praise God because he/she is there. Terms or labels applied to a child, I feel, cheapen in some way the existence and place the blame on the child, maybe unconsciously or indirectly. However, it implies that the child should not have come about when in fact, the child's life is so important and people rejoice in his/her life.

Meg

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1569415' date='Jun 12 2008, 07:25 AM']What's "PC," to not use the term "illegitimate?"[/quote]

i second that.
i'm all for not being mindlessly PC about things.
but illegitimate implies they are unwanted etc etc, and that's from the historical understanding of it etc.
just like we don't call them bastards etc.
at a certain point.... it's not just being silly PC to second guess social conventions. at a certain point, it's the only humane thing to do.

extreme example. if muslims wer called scumbags.... we shouldn't be saying it's silly PC to not call them that.

it's debateable i suppose whether my objection is more like this hypothetical or more like other things that are silly PC.

i just dont' see, or i guess don't agree, how you can't see how loaded and wrong the word illegitimate is.

Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

I think its just a matter of language. The reality is that historically speaking a committed heterosexual marriage is the 'legitimate' place for children to be born into. While not uniformly followed, this is the ideal and the teaching of the Catholic Church: marriage is ordered toward the procreation and education of children. It doesn't say that sex is ordered toward the procreation and education of children, but marriage which implies sex. A child born outside of marriage is no less capable of being a child of God, of learning, of becoming someone important, of going to school (and they might actually have better access to scholarships if they work diligently), etc. etc.

I think really its PC semantics to argue over whether the term should be used or not. In my opinion, it's kinda like the word "q-ueer" or "gay." Used in the correct context, these words can retain their more original, less sexually-infused, meaning. Just because the evolution of the language has applied more negative connotations to the word doesn't mean that we should outright abandon it. If a child is born outside of wedlock, then he or she is illegitimate in the strictest sense of the word. If common usage of the word implies a more negative connotation, then use the word illegitimate sparingly and with proper caution. But I don't think there is a better word.

I think by 'getting rid' of words like this we could potentially be blurring the lines of appropriate procreation and subverting the singluar purpose of marriage. The word illegitimate should embarrass the non-married parents, NOT the child. Ideally, the subsequent marriage of the parents could 'legitimize' the child then we wouldn't have to use the word anymore anyway.

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1569422' date='Jun 12 2008, 07:48 AM']Who cares how the child came about? We should love the child and praise God because he/she is there. Terms or labels applied to a child, I feel, cheapen in some way the existence and place the blame on the child, maybe unconsciously or indirectly. However, it implies that the child should not have come about when in fact, the child's life is so important and people rejoice in his/her life.[/quote]

See I think we [i]should [/i]care about how the child came about. Words like 'illegitimate' arose in societies that had much more emphasis placed on the centrality of the family life to the success of the society. We don't have that as much here in the USA which I think is part of the reason that words like this become so 'negative.' The word ends up burdening the child instead of the parents. We should care that the child was born out of wedlock and we should promote the legitimizing of children just as we should promote sexual morality and the importance of marriage. Words like 'illegitimate' should draw our attention to these marital and society standards rather than the child themself. We live in a society that drastically underappreciates the value and importance of marriage...See my previous post.

The fact that a child lives implies that the child should be alive. Words cannot change this regardless of their connotation. Life ands its dignity are gifts from God which don't depend on who our parents are and how we were born. No more than being a child of divorced/annulled parents means that 'I should not have been.' They were never married, but it would be a heck of a burden if I let the reality of their 'lack of marriage' somehow impact my approach to life.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Veridicus

[dairygirl4u2c]

...

Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

I think I was 25 or 26 when I found out I was illegitimate, and my first reaction wasn't embarrassment. It was, "wow, my parents were flower children."

[dairygirl4u2c]

the word gay is a good counter analogy to my scumbag analogy.

i can see if one is big on the family unit etc etc family values etc, that it's just describing the objective reality of their situation. i can see better how it could be viewed as silly PC. and, i wouldn't necessarily be against using it sometimes with caution.

but, given the loadedness of it, very rarely and spartingly. and given the loadedness, i don't see how something else can't be used. make up a word: yipla. yipla means someone who is not part of a normal family unit. illegitimate has too much potentiality for double meaning etc, and that's the key problem with its continue existance.

but even illegitimate if used, not as a way to describe them generally or whatever. which is why many here dont' like people being called gay, cause teh ydon't like that they are being labeled as a person by their orientation.

but i think being called gay though.... can classify their orientation. to be fully analogous to the counter point.... it'd have to be something like sexual mutants. sure, that word could be used to describe them. but it's too loaded. gay to me isn't so potentially double meaning etc.

so.... sometimes, in specific sitautions, you could use "sexual mutants" but not as a general rule to describe their orientation... if referring to their objective situation contrasted with normality etc then sure, just not their orientation. just like as a rule, to describe one's parentage etc, they shouldn't be called illegitimate.

so i don't think it's just semantics in the sense of it being insignifant language points ultimately. the double meaning has baggage to it, and that semantical sense is significant.

Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

I think the counterpoints are moot. Language changes. If we invent a word like yipla to have a specific context to mean "born out of wedlock" and no other connotations...then if 10 years, it will have accumulated further connotations by the inappropriate use of the public. The reality is that in a serious discussion between adults the usage fo the term illegitimate is perfectly acceptable. The usage of the word itself will imply the connotation of the word.

"The child is illegitimate and her mother is out of contact with the biological father."
OR
"Despite the fact that the child was born out of wedlock, the subsequent marriage of her parents legitimized her and this will provide a more stable environment for her to grow in"
OR
"Though born an illegitimate child, he graduated valedictorian from high school and summa cum laude from the ivy league school."

These sentences state the objective reality of the illegitimacy of the child without forcing a negative connotation on the life or worth of the child. When I wrote them I did not intend an negative view of the child...at MOST I used the word to demonstrate that his/her beginning was more challenging than being raised in the 'nuclear family'...but this is just reality. 'Illegitimate' is just a word and like any other...it has multiple uses and connotations...its all in how you use it. I think it is silly to even discuss abrogating words from the lexicon simply because common society uses their most negative connation the majority of the time.

Peace,

Todd W.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well i agree that talking about removing a word from language is silly as it's not going to happen, probably.
i think for the most part i agree it's somewhat pointless. but i think it can be okay to talk about for learning, in terms of generality and theoretically. and, i mean, i suppose change has to start somewhere, and when it does occur, it's at grassroots levels like this. but generally it's probably pointless i agree.

even if yipla formed a negative connatation though, it would only be as bad as the word gay. it wouldn't be like saying "sexual mutant".

i think saying gay is much better than were we to say "sexual mutants". i think these analogies are completely analogous, and you're essentially saying.... "if we used gay instead of sexual mutants, then gay is only going to become a bad connotation eventually"

i think saying gay instead of "sexual mutant" is significant... if you don't, then more power to you.

Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1569940' date='Jun 12 2008, 06:12 PM']i think the change is significant... if you don't, then more power to you.[/quote]

I think we're kinda going right passed eachother. I think the 'change' of the word illegitimate from implying an out of wedlock birth to implying that someone should not have been born outright [i]is [/i]significant. The whole point I've been trying to make is that 'illegitimate' is like any other word and its all about the connotation based on the way its used in a sentence...not about the word itself. Perhaps we should start at the grass roots level by speaking with more charity and not using any words to carry such terrible connotations. Any word can become a bad word if used with the intent to do so.

"You're just and illegitimate brat." This is inflaming and derogatory and implies a very, very negative connotation. It's all about how its used.

[dairygirl4u2c]

duly noted.

[apparent]

fillius nullius
At common law an illegitimate child was a fillius nullius (child of no one). Isn't that a stupid law or definition?

The condition of being born to unmarried parents was once considered a mark of disgrace but is now the norm.

Edited June 13, 2008 by apparent

[Veridicus]

[quote name='apparent' post='1570404' date='Jun 13 2008, 07:12 AM']fillius nullius
At common law an illegitimate child was a fillius nullius (child of no one). Isn't that a stupid law or definition?

The condition of being born to unmarried parents was once considered a mark of disgrace but is now the norm.[/quote]


...point? Beyond simply stating the now general normalcy of an abherrent child-rearing situation?