DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

Does it?

Yes to the first part (registering) but not necessarily the second (being named as a legal parent if there was a prior surrogacy agreement in place.)

Though I agree genetics should be recorded in the baby's medical notes.

Para 1: Why does the BC have to be biological parent rather than legal one? Bio can be recorded in medical notes. Also what about when a donor egg is used?

Para2: If the baby has been entered into as a joint enterprise, then simpler o just record at the birth. It shows it was a joint enterprise and not a later thought.

Para3: But a father gets put on BC and is treated equally in eyes of law (except when other is breastfeeding). It also isn't an insult if the birth mother desires it.

For practical purposes, it has to be the woman who has the medical documentation to prove that this baby came from her womb, who registers the birth and is put on the certificate as the baby’s mother.

Philosophical discussions about what is the meaning of mother, is it a verb or a noun? Etc, are not really relevant.

If the mother’s lover wants parental responsibility and rights over schooling etc, she can adopt the child. Simple.
Not really simple if same-sex couples can't adopt.

I'm very much a mother.
But I didn't give birth to my AC.

So I would say there's a lot more to being a mother than gestating and giving birth. The day in day out caring by a female parent is also mothering.

A birth certificate is a legal document that should state the names of both biological parents, or, if one isn’t known, the name of the only known biological parent. It shouldn’t be used to validate the desires of a non-biological parent such as here the mother’s lover.

If the mother’s lover wants parental responsibility and rights over schooling etc, she can adopt the child. Simple.

Saying that they are both mothers and should both be treated exactly the same in law from the moment is birth is nonsense, and an insult to the mother who risks her life and health to carry the baby.

I agree in the main. When I look at my children and see their genetic similarities to me, I think ‘isn’t it amazing to be a parent’. When I look at them and feel the bodily aches and twinges from pregnancy and giving birth to them, giving those memories of them growing inside me or me breastfeeding them, I think ‘isn’t it amazing to be a mother’. I have the stretch marks to prove this. Men and fathers have nothing equivalent to this. Motherhood involves a lot more that just the provision of gametes, which is essentially all fatherhood is, which is why I lean towards the pregnancy and birth as most important as defining who a mother is.

Having said that, I don’t think there should even be this issue though. It’s a step too far, interfering with nature in that way. We really need to stop and think about it as a society asap.

Why though?

So a child knows its background? Certainly it has to be recorded somewhere, but maybe their own medical record is enough.

Why does a legal state document that e.g. you have to show when registering for school or getting a passport need the genetic info? Surely it just needs the legal parents?

I agree. A birth certificate is intended to list one or both biological parents, not people who are adoptive parents (that's a separate issue). A child has the right to know who its biological parents are, if possible. If a child is born to a woman who is in partnership with another woman that child is the product of its mother and whoever the father was, and that is the information that should be on the birth certificate, not the name of its mother's female partner. I know that sometimes the man named on a birth cert is not/may not be the father, but that is a different issue, because it is possible he could be the father - another woman cannot be a second biological mother nor should it be implied that she is. Children need the truth, not a lie that props up their parents' relationship.

I was more intrigued by the reference to “genetic” but I see what you mean now.

Personally I think the person who has birthed a child should be recorded as the mother. If the birth mother and the genetic mother are different people then the birth mother should still be listed as the mother on a BC.

I think children should have as much info as possible about their genetics AND (ideally) have two adults with legal parental responsibility.

(and I have raised a baby from birth to adulthood as a single mum and the only parent with legal responsibility so absolutely no shade on lone parents intended! We can manage and mitigate the non-ideal situations only if we first acknowledge the best case scenario)

Primary parental responsibility should always be with the mother and by mother I mean ‘woman who grew the baby inside her’ and if she relinquishes that responsibility it should be done carefully and without coercion unless she is proven to be incapable of caring for the child via the usual social services/family courts process.

Women (of any sexual orientation) who take on an active parenting role without giving birth themselves are incredibly important to the children they parent and those women should be able to achieve legal parental responsibility (and fill a ‘mother’ social role) whether they become parents via adoption, marriage/civil partnership or by planning a child with a female partner via donor insemination.

And all children (and future historians/genealogical researchers!) have a right to the primary facts of their birth (the date, place of birth and the woman they came out of!) being accurately recorded

And if we need an extra way to record genetic info (due to gamete donation) and parental responsibility info (because the legal parents are not the biological parents) then we should figure out the best way to do that, because the piecemeal, periodic updates have resulted in something that doesn’t really make much sense.

Clearly defining what we want to be recorded (and why those things should be recorded) will make it obvious if/when objections are made due to prejudice (and thus will prevent the current misunderstandings we tend to get stuck on when discussing these topics).

FWIW I believe that statistically (and anecdotally!) children raised by two women in a committed lesbian
relationship do well by all the usual markers used to determine such things (eg education, health, eventual adult employment etc) and as such there is no logical reason to deny female co parents* legal parental responsibility for babies born to their wives/female partners (and if the child’s genetic info is made available for health reasons and the anon donor’s identity is made available to the child at adulthood the recognised drawbacks associated with not being raised by both biological parents are largely mitigated).

*I haven’t paid much attention to similar stats for gay male parents partly because there isn’t much long term data. Women have been able to have and raise babies with almost no male involvement since the dawn of time (albeit usually battling both state and social disapproval) but historically men raising babies with almost no female involvement has been a much rarer phenomenon (and presumably still is pretty rare as surrogacy is largely a luxury service available only to the very well off).

The way a baby develops in the womb is largely dependent on the genetic material but it is also influenced by the health of the pregnant woman, what she eats, where she lives etc. This is what is meant by expression.

I can see an argument if a child is adopted by a TW with a GRC for that person to be described as a mother.
There would be no argument for a TW who actually fathered a child to be referred to as a mother.

(I guess I am assuming the adoption process would weed out unsuitable TW from adopting and therefore they would be more akin to old fashioned transsexuals than modern late transitioning men.)

I think the birth mother! The genetic mother may not even know that her egg has resulted in a baby!

As an adopter, I feel as if the term Mother needs to be something like
'the female birth parent or otherwise a legal or genetic female parent'

Then who would register the birth? Obviously I believe the mother is the one who gestates and gives birth and whose egg is fertilised. These novel practice of putting one woman’s egg in another’s womb muddies this. For the child, the woman who gestates and gives birth to it is the mother, and since all medical records confirming birth and gestation are currently used to confirm motherhood for registering birth, that shouldn’t be changed to suit people pursuing novel practises, but for future generations tracing ancestry, the genetic mother is going to be the significant one.

How is diet genetically expressed in a baby?

Let’s hope this never comes to pass, or it never comes to pass that we end up in some dystopia where couples have their little incubators at home, or whatever.

As a society we seriously need to push back against all of these novel practices.

I don't think she should be registering the birth in that case!

I was thinking more in the case where a woman donated an egg for another couple.

I wasn't ever asked for this, but anyway, of course there are records of egg donation, they don't do it themselves at home!

Diet for one.