Posts
Sarah and I were chatting this morning and somehow the conversation turned to war, and then it was only a matter of time before the concept of "collateral damage" came up. I really dislike that term. I think it glosses over the reality that people die. We are talking about the weak and infirm, the young and the elderly, men and women in their "prime" years. Their friends and families bear a great burden of grief after losing them, so can we think of something less dehumanizing to say than "collateral damage"?
Another term that bothers me is "love child". Think of the implications of such a term. Are children born to married couples children of dispassionate morality? Is it love or lust that drives the unmarried couple to their deed? I suppose it would not be very "sensitive" to refer to such a child as a "lust child", but why do we feel the need to euphemize? I suppose this comes from an attempt to maintain polite conversation. In one sense I think it most unfair to a child to be labeled according to the sin of his parents. Perhaps we ought to refer to the parents as lust parents and call the child simply a child. Not all unmarried couples can be described as "in lust", as some really do love each other, but a major part of love to me is the commitment and what better way is there to show commitment than to get married? I suppose what bothers me most is the suggestion that only the "illegitimate" children are the products of love. That's just not true.
So there are my really random thoughts (from a very single person) for this Saturday night. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I do not hear the word 'lovechild' very often. Is is it a slightly dated word?
Not a good word, I agree.
God Bless
Matthew
It probably is dated, which would show just how much I'm not "with the times". I am glad you agree that it is not a good term.
I fully agree with you, Angie.
It’s grotesque pinning terms like that on people. Like you said, it’s dehumanizing.
Sadly, that's just the way language evolves. The term "bastard" originally used to just denote someone born out of wedlock as a matter of fact. Over time, however, it came to be associated with the behaviour patterns of one raised without a father's discipline and example. (As I recall I read this in Studies in Words by C.S. Lewis) I think it's rather telling as to the effects of sin on children especially, and it's easy to see why God hates fornication and adultery so much.
Sadly, I think the term "love child" is being replaced by "child" as it isn't unusual anymore for children to be without one of their parents.
The term "love child" is - if I'm correct - is from my mom's hippie generation.
One term that really bothers me is people calling an unborn child a "fetus" or an "embryo" to verbally lessen its humanity.
Interesting, Tim. Good comments. "Bastardized" and "unadulterated" are near antonymns - think that's any coincidence?
Carey, I think the concept behind that phrase is a little bit older (a child of passion is how they might have said it), but it is possible that the exact phrase is that new.
Aha... okay.
Post a Comment