Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
And, of course, they couldn't be replaced. My point is that the word "replacement", however offensive to some, stresses the point that there is a void in the family that, in their opinion, needs to be filled. Having a family is of the utmost importance to many and if, for instance, an only child was taken from them, I can understand their wanting to have more children. I wouldn't see it as trying to replace the lost child and it's doubtful that they would see it that way too. They would be, IMO, trying to have their normalcy, their family, again. They would always revere their child's memory but having more children doesn't detract from their child's legacy. If anything, it enhances it because it's a testament to the impact that the child made on their lives.
That is exactly the point some of us have been making. This couple, who chose to have more children after losing their three were called "sicko" (she was anyway) for wanting "replacement children." What Pomtzu and I at least have been saying is the are not "replacements" nor is the action "sicko."

It offends me to see this couple labeled in this way.
Thank you for understanding.