Should The Term “illegitimate” Be Retired?

[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?

[picchick]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1569877' date='Jun 12 2008, 05:43 PM']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.

"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.[/quote]
(I combined your two quotes.)

To people who can understand the two different connotations of the word, it is fine to use so. However, to the ignorant population who can only see the negative connotation, it is not fine. I understand how you say that we need to care about how the child came about. I agree with you. However, I think that as society changes like you said, the word also changes. I agree that we need to promote the legitimatization of a child through marriage. However, in a society where a child is a burden, the word illegititamate loses it original purpose. I am not thinking about the parents at this point but the child. I believe that terms like "love-child" "[mod]edit--language--hsm[/mod]-child" "illegititamate-child" regardless of the sentence brings about a negative connotation regardless of the sentence it is used in. Even if your intention is to bring light to the context of the conception of the child, it still implies burden on the child.

"The fact that a child lives implies that the child should be alive." This is a skewed way to look at things especially in todays pro-choice, anti-child view. This anti-child view, regardless of whether a child is a live or not, shows that children are a burden, they cost money, they require care, etc. Within the view of an anti-child view, illegitimate means that they were a mistake and they should not have come about.

I think that it is great that you think the way you do. However, I don' think it is a view that the rest of the world shares. We need to keep in mind the rest of the world and the way they would take the word.

[quote name='apparent' post='1570404' date='Jun 13 2008, 08:12 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]

Again, I think that this is putting it on the child. When you combine the word with the child instead of with the parents, it puts the word on the child.

The condition should not be a mark of disgrace on the child who is being born obut on the parents for having sex before marriage in the first place.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1570459' date='Jun 13 2008, 09:09 AM']I think that it is great that you think the way you do. However, I don' think it is a view that the rest of the world shares. We need to keep in mind the rest of the world and the way they would take the word.[/quote]

I suppose I still cling to that naive notion that mature adults are capable of legitimate (pun intended) linguistic exchange with neither concealed nor overt pretensions packed into each word because of the rest of society misusage of language. If people are truly incapable of meaningful conversation then perhaps it is just best to start removing apparently irreconcilably offensive words from the common vernacular. My perennial fear on this issue is that such removals will only undermine and obfuscate the important institutions (such as marriage) that these words should call our attention to in the first place. But I suppose if I 'face the real world' then institutions like marriage in the view of the rest of the world have taken on a completely different connotation than I personally hold so perhaps I should throw that word out too and accept civil union as the defining term for the institution.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Veridicus

[picchick]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1570479' date='Jun 13 2008, 10:32 AM']I suppose I still cling to that naive notion that mature adults are capable of legitimate (pun intended) linguistic exchange with neither concealed nor overt pretensions packed into each word because of the rest of society misusage of language. If people are truly incapable of meaningful conversation then perhaps it is just best to start removing apparently irreconcilably offensive words from the common vernacular. My perennial fear on this issue is that such removals will only undermine and obfuscate the important institutions (such as marriage) that these words should call our attention to in the first place. But I suppose if I 'face the real world' then institutions like marriage in the view of the rest of the world have taken on a completely different connotation than I personally hold so perhaps I should throw that word out too and accept civil union as the defining term for the institution.[/quote]

Ok, you are now throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Use the word illegitimate if you wish. However, some adults will not know the original meaning of the word. I am talking lay people.

What are other offensive words? I think you are misunderstanding me. When we combine the word with child we put the blame on the child. They should not have come about then we wouldn't know that the parents were living in sin. This is what the word illigitimate implies to me. It puts no blame on the parents for having sex out of wedlock.

Removals will not change the state of important institiutions, the keeping of such words will not change the state of important institutions. Yeah, maybe you will have to expend more energy to use more words to describe what is going on but it will put it in a positive light. For example, "You know for the benefit of your child you need to get married." "Children are a precious gift and they need to support of the stable family found in marriage." This puts the responsibility on the parents.

Could you explain how the one word illigitimate is going to change the state of child rearing that education and positive discussions cannot?

Meg

[Veridicus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1570486' date='Jun 13 2008, 09:43 AM']Could you explain how the one word illigitimate is going to change the state of child rearing that education and positive discussions cannot?

Meg[/quote]

I don't think one word will change anything. The point I trying to make is that it is PEOPLE, not WORDS that make meaning. The word illegitimate can be used in an appropriate context at an appropriate time for approriate reasons. If we get rid of the word 'illegitimate' then we'll just have another word that carries the negative connotation. We have to change the way people speak about eachother first...the words are secondary. Education and positive discussions are the onyl way to change how people think and speak and approach eachother. I am NOT arguing that 'illegitimate' can be used as a derogatory term; I AM arguing that it is not restricted to this singular meaning. I'm telling you words only have as much meaning as people give them...that's why word meanings change throughout time. I don't think we should be throwing any words outa the lexicon for any reason and this word just happens to be the word sitting in the guillotine at the moment.

Seriously, I know where you are coming from and I'm not trying to argue that 'illegitimate' has a negative connotation. I'm just saying that connotations are the result of people not words. Change the people not the dictionary.

Peace Meg,

Todd W.

[picchick]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1570496' date='Jun 13 2008, 11:07 AM']I don't think one word will change anything. The point I trying to make is that it is PEOPLE, not WORDS that make meaning. The word illegitimate can be used in an appropriate context at an appropriate time for approriate reasons. If we get rid of the word 'illegitimate' then we'll just have another word that carries the negative connotation. We have to change the way people speak about eachother first...the words are secondary. Education and positive discussions are the onyl way to change how people think and speak and approach eachother. I am NOT arguing that 'illegitimate' can be used as a derogatory term; I AM arguing that it is not restricted to this singular meaning. I'm telling you words only have as much meaning as people give them...that's why word meanings change throughout time. I don't think we should be throwing any words outa the lexicon for any reason and this word just happens to be the word sitting in the guillotine at the moment.

Seriously, I know where you are coming from and I'm not trying to argue that 'illegitimate' has a negative connotation. I'm just saying that connotations are the result of people not words. Change the people not the dictionary.

Peace Meg,

Todd W.[/quote]

Ugh...I had such an awesome post. Now my internet connection deleted it. >

We are on the same sheet of music. I meant my post not in a challenge but more as a clarification for my mind. I am sorry if it came off as such.

I know that you are not arguing the fact that illigitimate has a negative meaning to it. I understood that from the beginning. However, I think that to the outside world, the other meaning directed towards the marriage is not really known. Maybe we do have to teach the meaning of the word in the context of the marital situation. Like you said, people need to change. I never want the word to change. The word is the word it is. You cannot change the meaning of it.

I guess I am approaching this debate in this sense:
In healthcare we use a lot of medical terminology. However, in nursing school they taught us never to whip out medical terminology when discussing things with a client. They will not understand us and our teaching wil be ineffective. So we have to use the simpliest, clearest way of discussing their condition and what they need to do.

The same can go for situation. Use the simpliest clearest way to discuss the marital situations in rearing a child and the morality that goes a long the same lines. I fear that using illigitimate will shut people's minds off immediately and they will not hear the message we are trying to teach.

I apologize if I said some unclear things previously. You're cool with me Todd

Pax, brother.

Meg

Ps hopefully this will post because it is hard to repeat things over and over

[Veridicus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1570509' date='Jun 13 2008, 10:28 AM']I guess I am approaching this debate in this sense:
In healthcare we use a lot of medical terminology. However, in nursing school they taught us never to whip out medical terminology when discussing things with a client. They will not understand us and our teaching wil be ineffective. So we have to use the simpliest, clearest way of discussing their condition and what they need to do.[/quote]

You are definitely right about that. The medical approach has to be a very reductionistic approach to communication. I think that will be a challenging thing for me personally (I'm starting my first year of medical school at IU August 11...). I just have always been reticent to 'dumb down' language too much. There is a perfect way to say everything...but if no one gets it...then nothing has really been said at all...sometimes it's best to adopt the commen-denominator approach.

[quote name='picchick' post='1570509' date='Jun 13 2008, 10:28 AM']I fear that using illigitimate will shut people's minds off immediately and they will not hear the message we are trying to teach.[/quote]

In the most applicable sense I think you are right. I am speaking for the ideal situation (which I think I must do a lot..) where both individuals are adults without agendas discussing the fact of the parenting situation. Words with widely recognizable negative implications should definitely be avoided especially in a medical or evangelizing setting. I have learned that if I open my big dumb mouth and assume I can be as honest as I want to be I ususally just get myself in trouble.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Veridicus

[iheartjp2]

Seeing as the term "illegitimate" was primarily a legal term that kept inheritances and kingships in the right families, it's hardly any use today other than to put a mark of disdain on someone who is born out of wedlock. If you want a term for a child that was conceived outside of the bond of marriage, you can simply say that they were born out of wedlock. The term "illegitimate", whenever it's used, is attached to the child him/herself and therefore does cast dispersion on the child, making him/her feel ashamed when really it's the parents who should be.

[add]

The term "illegitimate" or someone who is born out of wedlock really has no relevancy in today's lifestyle. Look at the gay-marriage debacle for instance. Divorce, child custody battles, forced child support; all are a way of life for so many. Finally, the whole separation of church and state thing is eating away at any semblance of morality in common law and or common sense.

It's like an old friend once said "back in the 1950's people were a lot more civilized. Ain't it the truth???

[mommas_boy]

I h[i][/i]ate "illegitimate" as a descriptor for a child as much as I do "invalid" for persons with disabilities.

[misereremi]

The elders in my family still use the term ‘illegitimate’ and it still has implications- no illegitimate child can be named after an elder or get inheritance. I respect them and Church teaching but I won't use the word myself.

I have seen the dark side of stressing the illegitimacy of children in certain cultures. If a child is known to be illegitimate, he/she will be treated as inferior and a permanent reminder of dishonour. I know many people born out of adulterous relationships who are treated harshly as if it were their fault. Many mothers fear the shame and dishonour, so rather than giving birth to the child and facing the wrath of their families, and a child who is ‘marked’ for life, many abort their children.

In my own experience, when I was pregnant with my son, my unborn baby was referred to as a [mod]edit--language--hsm[/mod] and illegitimate. (I make NO excuses for myself, I sinned and caused scandal and took responsibility- we had been engaged for 4 years hoping for some people’s blessing and in the end we messed up.) The label ‘[mod]edit[/mod]’ did punish me in as much as I had to hear my child being humiliated even when in the womb. I didn’t mind anyone insulting me, I deserved all the labels, but it was like my child was carrying a cross for my sin. I was very angry about this at the time, and thought those people were a bunch of hypocrites. I thought they were all out for protecting their honour rather than caring about the stability of a child who needs married parents.

But I realized how terribly I had offended God, and I turned to His Church and she forgave me through the sacrament of penance and allowed me to get married with His blessing. Despite being married shortly after his birth, some people (not Catholics) still refer to our eldest son as ‘[mod]edit--language--hsm[/mod]’- as in ‘he’s doing so well despite being a [mod]edit[/mod]’. I have explained things to my son, and I have asked his forgiveness many times for having to hear hurtful labels like that, when he’s innocent- and as far as Church teaching goes, he is legitimate. So yeah, that’s been my experience with the labels ‘[mod]edit[/mod]’ and ‘illegitimate’.