How could anyone still describe a child like this in 2013?

It's a word I hadn’t heard used with its original meaning in a long time. A very long time. But when it was recently used to casually describe my nephew, well, I lost my banana.

“Well, he’s a bastard, isn’t he?”

Technically, that is true. My smart, handsome and funny nephew was born out-of-wedlock.

This person didn’t mean anything offensive by her comment - she gave an accurate summary of the legal circumstances surrounding his birth. But it was hurtful nonetheless.

It got me thinking about how much the context of the word has changed over the years and why this person has hung to its originally meaning at a time when it’s barely recognisable or even necessary.

After all, being born out-of-wedlock doesn’t make a person different - they don’t have horns growing of their head or green skin. What does it actually matter?

Growing up, I didn’t know that the word bastard was an insult to those born out-of-wedlock; I thought it was an insult to anyone who acted like a jerk. It can be even in an endearing way: “Good on you, ya bastard!”.

The word has been almost fully reappropriated, with its original meaning something that belongs to Medieval times when questions surrounding birth had major consequences for who would inherit property and businesses. It was part of the social sting of being illegitimate and therefore, unwanted.

My nephew, like the millions of other people born out-of-wedlock, is very wanted.

According to statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last year, one in three babies are born out-of-wedlock in Australia. In 1990 that figure was just 22 per cent but by 2010 that shot up to 34 per cent and is expected to continue to grow.

It’s a trend that is occurring across the world. In the US last year, more than half the babies born to woman aged under 30 were also outside of marriage and in the United

Kingdom, a record 47.5 per cent of babies born in 2012 were to unwed women. If this rate continues, that figure will reach 50 per cent in just three years.

The trend caused an alarmist reaction in some, with a handful of conservative MPs claiming that these so-called ‘bastards’ will be exposed to more family breakdowns and disadvantage.

It’s an idea that’s as cruel as it is insulting.

There’s no legal or social reason to separate babies born via marital status; de facto couples are legally recognised and have the exact same legal rights and obligations as their married counterparts. Likewise, their children are not disadvantaged when it comes to their legal status or rights.

The status of two people who bring a new life into the world is becoming more and more obsolete. We live in a world that is finally starting to recognise that families come in all different shapes and sizes and that the nuclear family is just one of those options.

What matters are good intentions, not whether rings have been exchanged.

People are who obsessed with the marital status - or lack of - of the two people who have made the child in question even have a range of words and terms, that, although still bizarre, are a lot less severe. “Love child”, “gift from god” and “non-martial child” are all options, although my favourite remains ‘‘child’’.

My sister and her partner have been together more than 15 years and have another child, my niece, who was also born out-of-wedlock. They may get married one day, but they may just continue down the path that has so far been more successful than many actual marriages.

Perhaps we should focus less on formal traditions with origins so murky that it’s hard to distinguish how they came into existence and concentrate more on giving people equal treatment.

I know it’s a radical idea but I hope it cottons on. Because the next person who calls my nephew a bastard will be treated as one.

What do you think? Do we need a new term for babies born out of wedlock? Have you ever heard someone refer to them as "bastards"?