I swear I went through and deleted them all before…wierdness.:smack:
Yeah, and Mark Twain used the word “nigger” a lot, too. Do you find that you endear yourself to people when you use THAT one?:mad:
I find a stark difference between racial epithets and a word describing the paternity of a child. Apples and Oranges.
They both have negative connotations. But you just go ahead and be all honorable over there. We’re impressed. Really.
Try this one on for size: Would you want to be called illegitimate? Would you like to be called a bastard?
If not, don’t do it other people. It really ain’t all that hard.
Your premise seems to be that being born out of wedlock is inherently bad. There are reasons why this was true in the past, mainly related to inheritence. Would you care to explain why it is a problem in modern society?
For example, twins were often looked upon as being evil. As far as I know, there is no stigma placed on twins today. Society no longer needs to stigmatize twins. Why is this still true in the case of a child born out of wedlock? And why is the stigma on the child and not the parents?
Nobody ever responds when I ask this, but I’ll give it another try:
CITE???
Why, I’m from Chicago myself. Not sure where the Hon. Virgowitch hails from?
The folks who keep the national birth statistics are the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the CDC. Interesting that the CDC simply uses the term “unmarried”, not the pejorative terms “out of wedlock” or “illegitimate”.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
So, yup. A third of all children born in 2000 were born to women who didn’t happen to be married.
Not, “a third of all children born in 2000 were illegitimate.” 
Like Dangerosa, I don’t feel like I’m cut out to be a parent, even with 10 husbands, so I wouldn’t (intentionally) try it alone.
And I see that the terminology issues are being taken care of in the Pit, so I just have this to add:
For my job (at a small non-profit which acts as a hub for local social service agencies–keeping them organized and abreast of each other’s activities, needs in the community, etc.) I do an annual report of statistics and demographics for my county. Typical stuff, dealing with age, race, health, education, etc. The purpose of the report is to help funding agencies (like the United Way) decide where social service funding would be best spent, and to help the service agencies beg for money a little better (as in, “Look! 14 percent of the local population are over 65! This is why you should fund our senior center!”).
But the thing that makes me twitch, just a little, is the fact that the statistics for kids born out of wedlock are included in the report. Such a concern just seems so . . . antiquated. In fact, the first year that I did the report (and was taking advantage of my Newbie License to renovate it a little), I tried to leave that data out (but my boss noticed it missing and asked for it to be included).
My take was that there are many people like Dangerosa’s friend, who have the financial means to raise a child on one income; plus, a child born out of wedlock could very well still live in a two-parent (and two-income) household, where the parents are not married for whatever reason, so “Out of Wedlock” does not, to me, necessarily equal “Economically Disadvantaged”.
Nonetheless, I still include Out of Wedlock stats in the book, because people still want to know, and still consider it a “negative indicator” in terms of the economic strength of the community.
I don’t know what my point is, here. I just like to share.
Oh, and along with the info provided by Duck Duck Goose, you can usually get the same stats at the state and county level from the state Department of Health and Environment. And again, you’ll find nary a “bastard” anywhere.
Please note that I am not implying in my above post that I actually have ten husbands.
That would be friggin’ exhausting. 
Whew, you sure had me going there for a minute. I had this mental image of you surrounded by 10 husbands, all of them begging you to make a baby with one of them, with any of them…
“Have my baby! Please!”
but that would be kewl, because then you’d have nine more people to change diapers
You’re right, DDG, that would be kewl. But even with the diaper changing, I still think I’d be the only person in the house who knows how to properly clean a toilet!
Around where I live? According to my handy Civil Code…
BOTH will.
Not “are likely to” inherit, will inherit.
And of course, while he lives and they are minors, he is fully obligated to support BOTH of them in such a way as to assure their health, education and safety.
What is considered “dishonorable” to beget or bear children and not accept the responsibility for them. It is a stain on the deadbeat father who is a louse or the irresponsible “let the State raise them” mother …sorry if your state still allows people to deny their own children… and too bad if in your social environment it’s the innocent who are targeted for oprobium and scorn.
And that would be a perfectly appropriate and sensible answer. If the little bastard dares to pretend to sit in judgement of his own grandparents, he’s asking for some attitude adjustment over mom’s knee, I say.
Your family’s points of honor are duly noted and acknowledged.
I’d agree that it doesn’t hold the same stigma. When see a woman with her baby I still assume she’s married though. I remember a conversation I had with a coworker once.
Her: Do you have any siblings?
Me: Yeah, I have a sister.
Her: Does she have any kids?
Me: She’s not married. (I figured I’d leap ahead and answer two questions at once. As I said I assume someone with a kid is married.)
Her: (Visibly upset) You don’t have to be married to have a kid!
Oh well.
Marc
Yeah, I always wanted to have a different name. My real name is boring. Why couldn’t they have given me a cool name? Darn them, and their choices that they made for me! They should have thought that maybe I’d disagree with their choices. In fact, they should never make any choice without my input. I’m going to start today, and be sure and get my children’s approval before I make any decisions, starting now.
Will they? Certainly? Why in the world would they care one way or the other about whether grandma and grandpa had a piece of paper? Or what if marriage doesn’t have the same importance for our grandkids, and instead they ask, “Mommy, why were grandma and grandpa married?” I’m telling you, it’s our duty not to marry, and spare our grandkids the embarassment of dealing with the fact that sometimes people actually do things they don’t understand or don’t agree with–sometimes even people they’re related to!
Gosh darn it, parents should make no choices whatsoever that might lead their children to disagree with them, or maybe be uncomfortable. We should be sure our families conform as much as possible to the norm. Yeah, that’s it! Because happiness can only be had when you’re like everyone else. We have a responsibility to conform, for our children’s sake, so they can grow up and conform, too. Because being different is just wrong.
What in the world is there to “hold them responsible” for? If children get the love they need, and food and clothes and shelter, they’ll be fine. Anything else is nice, but not neccesary. Should parents change to a majority religion to spare their children dealing with the fact that some people might make fun of them, or they might have to explain their beliefs? Of course not.
Here’s the plain fact of the matter: the only possible difference between a child born to married parents and one born to unmarried parents is in the eyes of the law. You can’t do any diagnostic test that tells you which kids’ parents stood in front of a JoP and which didn’t. And at least in the US, the law says there’s no difference. Insisting that there is is bigotry, pure and simple.
Um, yes.
My youngest child was a planned, much loved child and his father and I are not married, nor ever likely to be. I also have three grandchildren, and none of my children are married.
They are all university educated as well (as I am) and they are all atheists. They are all good caring supportive parents, as I am.
Your use of the archaic derogatory terms “bastard” and “illegitimate” are a product of religious fundamentalism in my opinion, certainly being married has no effect on inheritance in a legal sense in this country.
Fortunately, in Australia, the bigotry you have exhibited about parental marital status is not prevalent in the general population. Women are not required by law to even state if they are married, having the choice of titles, Ms Miss or Mrs.
But how would a child feel, knowing that the parents didn’t care enough about each other to commit to each other, even for a little while so the child would have some legal protection?
“Bastard” is still used in MA lawbooks, although I think the term is softened for use in actual spoken situations. The child is innocent no matter what the parents got up to.
If I knew that I was nothing more than the product of a night of fun for my folks, I know I’d feel pretty worthless.
Mehitabel, I would think that most of us are a product of a night of fun for our folks. It is up to us to determine what value we place on ourselves.
Virgowitch said:
Hark! She speaketh only Elizabethan English! I bite my thumb.