KJK and the neo-nazis video

Just because a woman lied about who the father was, or didn't know, does not disprove the intention of the document. Hence why the father could have been left blank. And was.

If the information is not known or is not accurate it is far better to leave it blank than to 'lie'. If it is known and it is safe to add, then it should be added.

Relationship to the child can be and should be established accurately. There is absolutely no argument that parental rights should be established in law at the time of birth for any person that did not carry and give birth to that child.

Homophone? I heard she's been encouraging kids to do the Synonym Challenge.

Highly irresponsible.

Who said it's cool?

There are thousands of donor conceived people wandering about who aren't aware they're donor conceived. That's not right. Every child should know their genetic origins. If you choose to use donor gametes, you have a responsibility to be honest. U.K. egg tourism is a big industry and there are many prospective parents who choose to go outside the U.K. so they are not bound by HFEA rules around anonymity

Personally, I am not sure that it makes much sense to argue about what BCs were originally for because there are now so many more factors to consider, eg. egg donation.

oh I agree. I only said this in response to someone saying that genetics was the historical reason why the BC exists. It isn’t and never has been. It shows parentage which is not always biological (which has always been the case with the pater est presumption).

But if it’s cool for there to be a blank space then surely it’s NOT a genetic record for this child (or anyone else)? It’s not possible to be born without a male person providing sperm. All the BC can reliably tell us is the circumstances of the birth (date, place, name) and the name of the woman who gave birth to the child. Doesn’t say anything about genetics. Remember too that this is a public document - people might not want the general public to be able to find out if they were donor conceived (and there already IS a donor register which is private).

well we seem to have drifted from the main point which is that Posie is a right winged homophone, as evidenced by hahahah who needs evidence, she obviously just is.

Puncturedbicycle85 I wish you would stop time-travelling within arguments.

It is wholly anachronistic to bring egg-donation into your discussion about what BCs were originally for.

The "genetics" issue is different. Rights of inheritance and parental rights and responsibilities were around long before genes were discovered but they were still based on "genetics". Issues around information about inherited disease (expressed or carried) are also anachronistic if you are talking about the original reason for BCs.

It is ironic, of course, that the legal father had more parental rights than the mother, ie. in that any inaccuracies in the Birth Register were staggeringly more likely to relate to the father than the mother.

Personally, I am not sure that it makes much sense to argue about what BCs were originally for because there are now so many more factors to consider, eg. egg donation.

@Puncturedbicycle85
Well there’s the fact that BC have been around since before anyone knew what genetics was so the genetic argument is a modern one actually.
My understanding is that it was there to show who the parents were. Our forebears might not have known about genetics, but they had been managing to selectively breed animals for millennia because they had spotted that traits could be passed on. They just didn't know what the mechanism was.

(I seem to have a low-grade and persistent headache these days, from the time I spend bashing my head against the wall.)

Why can donor conceived children not have two certificates like adopted children? There's no reason why they couldn't have a 'social' one which reflects parental responsibility and another one which reflects genetic origins.

Women cannot name a man as their child's father if they're not married to him so women who do not wish to identify the father can still do that.

The gif search function really is all about the search terms you type in

There are thousands of donor conceived children born to single mothers by choice who have a blank space under father.

No. You are framing the truth to suit your own political aim here.

Egg donation? I believe that it should be noted that the egg was donated somewhere on the form. It doesn't need to have the donor listed, but it could if the mother wished to do so. It should indicate that there was an egg donation though. That is an accurate record of that child's birth. These facts should not be ever hidden from the child. The child can then go and seek details about the egg donor.

The registration of the birth of that child has become more complex and the documentation needs to represent that. If the document is not for the child and the record of that child's birth, then do explain what a 'birth certificate' is for as opposed to any other recognised certification of parental rights?

Well no, the pater est presumption was developed to protect children because it was well known that a woman’s husband was not necessarily the bio father of her child. The law specifically provided that a particular man be named as the father based on his marriage to the mother, NOT because he actually was the biological father.

Yeah but not before the days when people realised that someone’s husband isn’t necessarily the father. The legal presumption of husband as father was based on the fact that otherwise the child would be illegitimate. There was definitely awareness of the fact that someone who was not factually the father could be on the BC.
And how would you deal with egg donation? The woman who provided the egg would be the genetic mother but has no right to be registered as the mother. How would the registrar even know if the mother has conceived through donor egg? It’s not like it’s published in the newspapers. And are you proposing that sperm donors must now be registered as fathers (even though their records are already kept and accessible to the child)? Because I don’t think many men would donate sperm if so.
Equally, why should a blank space be tolerated on a BC? That would be genetically impossible too.
And in the case of lesbian mothers, often the second parent IS related to the child because she has provided the egg (the other woman carrying the baby). So why should a woman in that situation not be entitled to be on the BC if she actually is genetically related? Surely to exclude her would be to deny the child his/her genetic makeup?

Just because 'genetics' were not 'discovered' doesn't mean that wasn't what the certificates were based on.

What shit is that? Do you really think that is convincing?

Oh.... look... genetics wasn't discovered YET people had sex and were generally in societal arrangements that meant the father was the sexual partner..... but no..... birth certificates weren't there to register the genetic parents!!!

Of COURSE, it was not always the truth. But it was as close to the truth as the mother of the child acknowledged, and in most cases it was the truth. Or it was what the mother wanted to be the truth without genetic testing.

Good grief that is a desperate attempt.

It was sometimes a lie.... so that negates the intention completely.

That's actually almost beautiful in it's batshittery. So someone's belief is 'just inside their own head' and that makes it somehow not true? Amazing. Wait til I tell you what trans activists think about sex and gender

Aren't people's thoughts and beliefs by definition in their own heads? 😕

Obviously they were a bit of a blunt tool in the early days but that was before genetic testing, mass use of donor gametes and the rise of surrogacy.

Well there’s the fact that BC have been around since before anyone knew what genetics was so the genetic argument is a modern one actually. And it has always been known that whoever is on the birth certificate is not necessarily the father.

There is a very interesting discussion happening on Twitter at the moment. It does come back to the fundamental point of what a BC is for. It has two purposes - to denote parental responsibility and genetic origin. For many children, it does the former and not the latter.

Validation and living your truth. Those were the obsessions of that age. It

Well quite. If that wasn't the intention, what was. What's the point of it?

One for each nostril.

I personally find this "BCs are not and never have been a genetic record because there is no guarantee that either parent on there is genetically related to the child" to be a rather remarkable take of the purpose of a birth certificate.

So .... because some people lied on it, it was 'never intended to be a genetic record'..... I really do look forward to the evidence that being a genetic record was not the original intention. Because it seems that history is being rewritten with a modern framing again. This time to further vilify anyone who disagrees that the original birth record should have ever shown anything but accuracy about the true parents of the child. Even if an adoption certificate was then issued etc.

Please do substantiate your claim because there must be lots of evidence that I have not seen yet.

Two conch shells better?

Because it's a topic under public discussion at the moment. Perhaps in your eagerness to pin shit on KJK, you didn't know that?

There are lots of people who agree that non-parents shouldn't be on birth certificates. But if it has implications for legal parent/child relationships being affected, then it's an issue. Which is apparently the case in Italy with lesbians where this has originated.

Birth certificates in general come under discussion, because lots of men want to falsify their own in order to validate their feelings. And quite a few trans people want to falsify their children's, for the same reason.