A bit of a rant this morning-the definition of "child"

Sorry if I sound a bit off this morning, I woke up with a headache, it's mostly gone.
But as I'm relaxing, I'm reading a news web site, and one article is about how in Liberia, they have (as the article puts it,) "child soldiers."

When I see or hear "child soldiers," first thing that comes to my mind is a little kid about the age of my nephew, (he's 9,) with a AK-47.

But reading further on, barely mentioned, is the fact that the "child" described is 16 or 17.

Exsqueez me??!!??

I see this in many articles, about teenagers in prison for serious violent crimes, (usually gang related,) the teenager is described as a "child."

By the strictest definition, I am a "child."
That is I'm the child of my parents. And I'm 43.

Sorry, but I don't consider a teen-ager a "child" like the headline writers want me to believe.

But I guess the writers want to grab my attention, (they succeeded,) so they use the misleading come-on.

Just my morning snarl.

I have two (and a 21 year old). They're children. They do not have the maturity, experience or wisdom to be considered 'adults'.

Ask your teenagers if they are a "child."

I'm positive you'll get a nasty remark back.

They are and they aren't adults.

The story could have more evenly been reported as 'teenage soldiers'. The actual choice shows how poor our media has become.

On edit: I recall the quote from "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson which illustrates the two uses.
Son - I'm not a child.
Dad - You're my child.

Back in the day, say approx. 50 years ago someone who was 16 or 17 and from a working-class family, was expected to go to work and help out with family expenses.

Today that same 16 or 17 year old, even from working-class families is viewed almost as an infant who is incapable of making his/her own decisions. I believe adolesence (sp?) and dependency is extended for too long in our culture. There is no reason a person of 16 or 17 needs to be viewed in the same light as an 11 year old. Although I am not a great defender of the NRA I think they are correct when they say the statistics regarding the number of "children" killed by guns is scewed because people who are 16-18 are counted as children.

In many European countries a "child" of 16 or 17 is actually in a vocational training program which leads to WORK.

A week ago on the Bill Maher show he hit the nail on the head. He said college now is what high school was 50 years ago.

is that there are "child" soldiers. Little kids, twelve years old, looking for aid and inclusion, and if they have to carry a gun around to get it, they will.

This article does a disservice by misleading readers about the nature of "child soldiers," IMO.

Found this in doing family history. My mother's father was put out of the English army during WW1 as he was to young, so he waited for his next birthday and rejoined.I do think that children were sent to work to learn a trade, many of our founding father's were out of college by the time they were 20. Now it takes longer to get ready for life and work, but our body is in better shape than ever. In western history this is a new thing.The child also rarely has to work as a child and in history they had to. You do not have to go back far to see that. We are looking at the rest of world through the eyes of the West and most MOST of the world does not live in that style.

"Child" makes for a more oh-my-god attention grabbing headline, but it is a bit of a stretch.

For an assignment in a feature-writing class I once referred to a teen-ager as a "youth". My professor took exception. Her opinion was that youth meant pre-teens. My take was that youth could mean anyone under 21, down to pre-pubescent. Amazingly the argument escalated and took up most of the period. I finally asked for a class vote and won. I don't know why she was so picky. I don't think she liked me very much. Maybe she thought I was being a smart-ass. Maybe I was.

Sadams "children" or "boys"...apparently the definition of "children" is very flexible...