Baby could become first person born in England or Wales without a legal mother

DailyFail: He says forcing him to register as the child's 'mother' breaches his human right to respect for private and family life.

And being pregnant did not?
Kind of blows the gender thing themselves, so what is this person complaining about?

Can't have it both ways.

*Millions of children have no citizenship or legal identity globally because mothers in many countries cannot register a birth alone. That is why it is a feminist issue and a human rights issue that the birth mother is the primary piece of information to get a baby a legal birth certificate.

That someone should start a legal case against such an important right as the birth mother being what allows legal registration is selfish beyond belief, given how important that principle is to establish globally for all children.*

I didn’t know that

I love this board, every day’s a school day.

Picasso "?... gave her explanation about being goaded and frustrated. You are also telling us about your feelings about posters who are goading and frustrating you. Quid pro quo?"

I agree with you, up to a point. To be fair, I was referring only to the post P made upthread earlier this evening, not to anything previously said in other circus, so keeping it directly about this thread.

I don't think she's posted anything retracting that one, and I'm still genuinely interested to know if others on this board think it's ok to say the person in this case "should not have children"

"I challenged you for going straight to Section 28" - sorry but that wasn't me, I didn't reference it at all. But that's a whole nother argument, so maybe let's agree to disagree, before I get bashed about for derailing.

Imagine the implications for child trafficking if birth certificates with no mother recorded become legal.

Sorry thread moved on since I started posting.

Jamieandwordswo, you've explained what I've been trying to work through in my head, why the birth mother's identity is the key information on a birth certificate.

The mother on the birth certificate is the birth mother.

Ok, so what about donated eggs - does anyone know what goes on birth certificate in that scenario? I've got a couple of people I could ask but it seems an intrusive question to just drop on them.

The person who carries and gives birth to a child is the mother. It is biologically impossible to be any other way. A man can't birth a baby out of his lady penis but a woman is given the specific equipment so she can.

It comes down to what is the purpose of the birth certificate. And why do we record parent's names on them.

They have never been purely records of biological fact. The mother's name is biological fact, but the father's name isn't. No proof of paternity is required before registering a birth. And babies with no father's name on the certificate still have biological fathers, who may or may not fulfil all or part of the social role of father.

Children, (apart now from those born from donated sperm) have never had the right to know who their biological father is, because biology doesn't make that clear.
The only incontrovertible biological fact is the name of the woman who gave birth to them.

The purpose of a birth certificate is to give the child a legal identity. An identity not in the feelz sense but in the sense of having legal rights to citizenship.

Millions of children have no citizenship or legal identity globally because mothers in many countries cannot register a birth alone. That is why it is a feminist issue and a human rights issue that the birth mother is the primary piece of information to get a baby a legal birth certificate.

That someone should start a legal case against such an important right as the birth mother being what allows legal registration is selfish beyond belief, given how important that principle is to establish globally for all children.

So as long as that bits right the rest is OK to be wrong?

No, of course not. If the wrong father is on the birth certificate, and this is known, as far as I know they can be removed from the certificate.

In surrogacy the birth mother is the mother on the birth certificate

The birth mother is always on the original birth certificate, even in surrogacy cases.

This is true, but isn't the mother listed always the mother?

So as long as that bits right the rest is OK to be wrong?

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine the birth mother, not necessarily the biological mother. (E.g egg donation). It sure about surrogacy though?

I'm sure I read somewhere that 15% of fathers listed on birth certificates are not the biological father, not to mention those that are not listed at all

This is true, but isn't the mother listed always the mother?

They are hardly factual evidence anyway. I'm sure I read somewhere that 15% of fathers listed on birth certificates are not the biological father, not to mention those that are not listed at all.

Are the rest of you really ok with Posie saying that? Do you agree with Posie?

Posie gave her explanation about being goaded and frustrated. You are also telling us about your feelings about posters who are goading and frustrating you. Quid pro quo?

I challenged you for going straight to Section 28 as that is a massive over statement, in my mind. I left it at that.

I know some posters here do throw out labels but most of us skip and ignore those really and concentrate on the conversation. I agree with you. Labelling is pointless and unnecessary (and the point of the GC argument), the most productive tactic to use here is an imaginary mute button when it happens.

The concerning thing is, whichever way this is explained to the child as they grow up, in whatever age-appropriate ways, it is likely to be telling them something that is a fiction, and outside reality, particularly if the story is 'your dad is a man, and he was pregnant with you and gave birth to you'.

Exactly.

Gay couples don't lie to their kids, they explain things in an age appropriate way. Women who use sperm donors don't (or shouldnt anyway) tell their kids that they conceived them on their own, they explain things in an age appropriate way.

If you want to lie on your own child's birth certificate to validate your own feelings, then how are you going to explain any of it to them when they are older?

Out of interest actually, because I don't know, what does go on the birth certificate of the child of a gay couple?

I'm not familiar with what gets recorded on a birth certificate when the baby's biological father is a sperm donor.

I'm a solo mum by choice using a donor and the father is left blank. The ID release comes from the HFEA if DS chooses to find out when he's older.

If I was in a couple with a sperm donor then the father on the certificate would be the parenting father. There is no reference to sperm donation at all (same with egg donation, and I also presume surrogacy?).

In theory a couple could not tell their child their biological background and the child would never know. So I think this puts in to question what is the purpose of a birth certificate. Is it to identify the parents or the biological parents. If the father's biological details don't need to be given then do the mothers? Should we be putting reference to biological parents on BCs (even if it's only stating 'donor' but then the child will always know and can contact HFEA).

E.g biological mother (me), biological father (donor), parent 1 (me) parent 2 (blank)?

Ignore me if the certificate says birth mother or anything like that. I'm going from memory that it just says mother.

And what SomeDyke said. It's basically lying on someone else's birth certificate.

Sheesh, not trying to start a bun fight. I asked what people thought and did they agree. Since when is that not allowed?

SomeDyke makes a good argument there.

I can't see how it could be justified to have a birth certificate system that allowed a genetically female birth parent who carried the child to be recorded as father.

But then, isn't it possible already to have mother and mother on birth certificate for example, for a married lesbian parent couple? Does a certificate in that case show which mother is genetically the parent?

And what happens for donated eggs? The mother on the birth certificate bore the pregnancy but is genetically uninvolved.

Or where the mother certifies birth with father not present or unknown and chooses not to include his name, meaning the child has no record on their certificate of their genetically make parent.