When a parent loses a child, and gives birth to or adopts a new one, why do I almost never hear of the parent naming their new child the name of the one they lost?
by 
Egao No Genki
ANSWERS: 47
-
Probably because no wants to remember their lost every time they call their new childs name.
-
I just recently lost 3 year old daughter, Lincoln Grace. If I have more children I would not like to name any of them Lincoln because I can't replace her.I think also that it would be very hard for the child to carry on that burden and to feel like their life isn't important enough.
-
Most people wouldn't want to keep reminding themselves of their loss each time they call out that name, and that name was picked out for the 1st child the new child needs their own individual name.
-
The new child is not a replacement for the first child, it is a new child. To do that would make the new child feel that all they are is a replacement for the first child. Also, it is healthy to remember and talk about a child that is lost. It would be confusing referring to the deceased child.
-
Its almost like an insult to that child's memory, as if you're trying to replace them. its important to remeber a child, but even when it dies to not give away it's identity to another. all humans are spereate and should (if one can control some things) have their own names (even though some names are common and poeple end up with the same names often)
-
My best friend plans to incorporate her son's name as her next child's middle name. She wants to do that to help her son's memory continue to be a part of her family while also allowing both children to have their own identities.
-
An important part of having a child is choosing the name just for them. You can't just give that name to your next child if your child dies. You never forget the child you lose and it would be heartless I think to give away their name as though they just didn't exist anymore. Ihad a stillborn baby boy over thirty years ago and it still hurts as the anniversary of his death nears.He is part of my family and as such has his own name.
-
A baby isn't like a pet. You can't just have another one when one dies, give it the same name, and keep on going.
-
They're 2 seperate people - I wouldn't do it because it would almost be like erasing the life of the one that died. And the one living would likely feel that they're just a replacement. I may use the name as a second - or middle name. But I wouldn't call them both by the same first name.
-
A new or adopted child is not and never could be a replacement for a child you have lost. Maybe to have the lost childs name as a second name would be a way of including them, I know if it had been possible to have another child, that child would not have been used as a copy for my little boy that died. I also think that the new child would, when older be upset by being named for his/her dead sibling.They would feel that they were only second best and not worthy of being loved for themselves as an individual. IMO.
-
There's a difference between naming a child after a friend/sibling/parent of yours, and naming them after one of their own siblings. You can quite obviously differentiate between John, your uncle, and John, your son, whereas when two siblings are named the same thing - well, you're naming one after the other and basically it looks like you don't realise they're two different people. (If you really needed to incorporate the deceased's name in... that's what middle names are for!)
-
Because in a sense that would be like trying to replace the child that they lost. And I believe that a child could never be "replaced" by another.
-
A parent will never get over the loss of a child (inclduing a miscarriage). A new baby does not end that loss. Also, ligistically, how would you differentiate between the two kids of the same name. "adam #1 or #2" "original"?? Growing up my friend had a series of dogs all named pepper. It was always hard to figure out which dog they were talking about. So, besides being weird it would be SO confusing.
-
Because each child has their own identity and another child could never replace the one who was taken away. I lost a child when I was young. It was devastating but I would never dream of giving my children the same name. It means more to me then a gold fish.
-
Of course, why would you name your child with the one you lost, it's like comparing, substituting, your present child with the previous one and replacing the previous one to the present child. It's like you are bringing back the one you lost with the present one. It will never be fair to the present child and previous child. And that is just plain weird.
-
i think because it would almost be like replacing the child they lost and they don't want to do that
-
why would you
-
because it's too painful?
-
Because no child can replace the one the parent lost.......a slight possibility for John Doe III though. On second thought...no
-
Because that would be kind of creepy.
-
As much as they love their new baby, it doesn't feel right to give them the same name. Naming the baby the same name might feel like they are replacing the child they love so dearly, and might be uncomfortable for both the child and the parents.
-
Probably because they are two separate children with two separate identities. A new child can't replace one who is lost to us.
-
the same reason why most brothers and sisters dont have the same name...
-
YOU CANT REPLACE SOMEONE THAT YOU LOST. A NAME WONT BRING THAT PERSON BACK. SOMEPEOPLE THINK THT IT'S HOLDING ON TO A "TRAGIC" MOMENTAND WANT TO MOVE ON BUT, NOT FORGET TEH PERSON.
-
If I wanted to honor that child I might make the middle names the same, but how weird would it be to say something like "Oh yeah my son Steve died". Um...which one? My sister lost her 3week old baby and name her Kaela, her son was born after so obviously she wouldn't have used her name. I think it would honor the child more to NOT use their name, you can't replace that child because you name another the same thing. I had a miscarriage and I named the baby Grace, even though she was never "born" I could not call any of my other children by that name, even though I really wanted to use that name, it just isn't right.
-
The second child is not a clone and hopefully not a replacement. Each child deserves to have his/her own name; being named after someone generally involves the name of an older relative or friend, not a sibling.
-
To me it ivalidates both lives. It says the lost child is replaceable and the new one is not good enough to be their own person in my opinon. It tells the new child their sibling is more important than them. So much so they don't deserve their own name.
-
I am going to name the next child after my son who died in utero three weeks after conception (if it is a boy). Is there anything weird about that?
-
It's a cultural thing...These days we tend not to do it, but, in the past, it was common. I am a genealogist, and often come across families in the past who lost child after child, and just used the name again for the next one. It makes for difficult tracing, as sometimes you don't know if the child is your ancestor or not, unless there is a notation that the child died. Naming patterns differ from era to era and culture to culture.
-
I actually know someone who had a child die at birth..2 years later she had another boy and named him the same name, even the middle. That child was never happy, he just wasn't right. I think always knowing that you were named after the kid they really wanted but, it died, and then you came along,so we named you his name,,let the name go with the babe.
-
Well it's not a 'replacement' child (well it shouldn't be), each child is different. If a parent wants to name them the same out of a tribute/homage that's fine, but not to make it look like it's a replacement.
-
I agree with what everyone is saying that the new child will never replace the child who was lost, but I think it goes also with the fact that it would bring up painful memories.
-
I have the same name as a stillborn child my mother had several years before I was born. It was strange seeing my name on her tombstone.
-
because a lot of times the children they adopt already have been named (I was one of those) and they just changed the middle name instead of the whole name.... also, who wants to name the child after the one they just lost? I wouldn't, I would want to remember my lost child by not giving that name to another one, because the other one doesn't replace the one I lost, so why give out that same name again?
-
Because they already have a kid with hat name, although they aren't living anymore they have already given the name to the kid.
-
Because that would imply they're replacing the child, by having a new--Which they're NOT. They're having an entirely different child. Not a replacement.
-
Because the new child is not the one they lost!!! Taking that baby's name is like extinguishing him/her from existence.
-
because they don't want that baby to lose its identity, it will always count as one her babies...this might be a little dif. answer to your questions but you will get the point, if a woman got pregnant 4 times but had two live kids and two misscarriages, the doctors will always say you had 4 pregnancies, so even if the embryo didn't come to full term, it still counts. I hope my answer solved your puzzle.
-
It used to be done quite often, especially if it was the eldest boy and he carried his father's name. I think now we have a different cultural understanding about these things.
-
you can never replace the child you lost and to rename another child the same would feel like replacing them...
-
BECAUSE AS BEIGN PREGNANT ANY MOTHER WILL ALLREADY HAVE A IMAGE OF THEIR BABY IF YOU ARE A MOTHER THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND, IS A ATACHMENT YOU HAVE WHEN YOU KNOW RIGHT THEN AND THERE IT VARIES IN SOME PEOPLE SO WOULD FEEL THE BOND FROM THAT FIRT PREGNANCY TEST TO THE MOMENT OF THE FIRST HEART BEAT OR THE SONOGRAM TO EVEN THE FIRST KICK BUT IT STILL THERE THE HOPE THE WONDER THE IMAGE AND TO LOOSE A BABY ALL THOSE HOPE AND DREAMS ARE FLUSHED ALL OF A SUDDEN LIKE IT WAS NOTHING IT WAS A BABY NOT JUST AN ILLUSION THATS HOW I SEE IT.
-
The thing is that was/is the name of the child you already had so I'm not really sure that people would name two of their children by the same name because they are different people, I have heard parents bringing the name of their lost child in to a new one such as for a middle name
-
They are two different people. The new addition cannot replace the lost child.
-
Because that is a diffrent child and can not be expected to replace the one they lost, just give the parents joy.
-
because your name is chosen uniquely for you by your parents. they put thought into naming the bubby they lost and that name will always signify that child to them. when they have another child it will be another individual and therefore will also get their unique name. you cant just replace them and try to pretend it never happened. how would that child feel if they found out they were named after their deceased sibling......my guess is unwanted and simply a replacement for the baby they really wanted.
-
Thats a cold hearted question. Im too shocked that anyone would ask it. The death of a child is impossible to explain to some without empathy.
-
maybe they just dont want to be constantly reminded of the one they lost
pearllederman RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC