DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

None if she is married/in a relationship with the birth mother. Same as for a heterosexual couple.

Yes and as the mother of a lesbian and one who is absolutely not homophobic, I think if you see everyone arguing here that it’s important to have biological parents on a birth certificate as homophobic, then you are paranoid because for most of us, that is not what this is.

That isn’t to say that the legal changes in Italy are not related to homophobia, though if this is about surrogacy , that may be a red herring as well.

But this discussion is about putting the interests of the child first and working out what information is important for the child to have. If you can’t put the child before your own sexuality and relationship, then you are not doing that child justice.

I agree. The birthing mother influences how genes are expressed in the baby.

In what way?

If you birth a baby and go through pregnancy, you are a mother too and just as much right to be on the certificate as the one who provided the egg.
What about those who have IVF type procedures then? Using donated eggs?

I think the figure is really high the amount of men thought to be raising children who they don’t realise arnt biologically there’s

if they didn’t have to be financially responsible I also think the child has a right to no

And then the birth certificate, which is a legal document required by the state, showing who the legal parents are.
Exactly. The certificate is about registering the child and recognising who is responsible for it. Sure, the child should be able to find out their genetic heritage later on but that's a private matter.

And when registering a child’s birth, the mother takes medical documentation to prove she gestated and gave birth to the baby. Proof of parenthood. What sort of proof would a woman who donated an egg take to register the birth?

The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure.

There could be an argument for the child's medical records to be the place where their genetic history is recorded.

And then the birth certificate, which is a legal document required by the state, showing who the legal parents are.

In the case of surrogacy, there would need to be an upfront (pre-conception) legal agreement showing the carrying mother conceived as part of surrogacy fully intending the legal parents to not include her.
The 'birthing mother' would have to be present at registration and if not on the certificate provide records showing up front legal agreement on this.

Why? Do you think birthing mothers shouldn't be on the birth certificate? Sounds dystopian!

Not to mention DNA tests all round to prove paternity sounds bloody dangerous if say someone was married and having an affair, or had a one night stand with someone they knew nothing about, or were raped....

and the rights of a child
also I no this is a feminist board but I have a son and men shouldn’t have to raise or be financially responsible for a child who is not there’s
and are we seriously saying that true perterinty should be hidden from a child and a man should be made legally responsible for a child who’s not his to save the blushes of a mother who’s having an affair

should we go back to adoptive parents being able to lie about their children being adopted to save my blushes

all the studies say that children do better when they know who their biological parents are and they do much much worse if they find out they have been lied to and this especially worse if they find out during their teens

So carrying a baby to full term, and giving birth counts for nothing then?

Absolutely not. No man can be a mother.

I actually think DNA tests should be done before fathers are allowed on birth certificates
Sorry, just reread and it wasn't DNA tests all round for fathers, just if they wanted putting on the birth certificate
Still though, married man and wife, the man would be just as much a parent as she - why should she have to prove who is the Dad in order to have her husband on there?
Still sounds potentially dangerous in some circumstances, what would happen if it was found out they weren't biologically theirs?

I’m not going to look up the law again, but I think that change was made in 2008, so you are incorrect that it would have said “parent”.

That’s exactly what this discussion is about. Changing it from “father” to “parent” changes the understood meaning from someone who is likely a biological parent to someone who is, instead a legal parent, and who in some cases, could not possibly be the biological parent.

Whether that change is in the interests of the child is what the discussion is about. A judge recently stated that the birth certificate was for the benefit of the child, so potentially significant changes will inevitably lead to discussion about who this change benefits, or whether the change might actually be detrimental to the child.

Legal changes are brought in. Much of the time they function well enough. Sometimes they have unintended and unconsidered side-effects, so reviewing changes as people become aware of them is a normal part of the process.

Realistically, the most common use of a birth certificate now is proof of identity. What then should it contain a record of and why?

I agree. The birthing mother influences how genes are expressed in the baby. She's not "just" a carrier for someone else's DNA.

They can have a genetic mother and a biological mother.

I disagree. Motherhood is not as clear-cut as fatherhood. The gestation and birth is hugely significant, probably primary, in defining a woman as a mother, the way that the mother and baby are ‘one’ during this time and even after the birth and breastfeeding. Motherhood is not simple gamete donation like it is for fatherhood.

We have lesbian couples who are legally both parents, just like me and my husband are.

they are not though you and your husband are the biological parents
one of the mothers is not biologically related
i am an adoptive parent I had my child from birth I am not her biological mother 🤷🏿‍♂️but I am her mother the two are not the same if it’s just samantics and words don’t matter why can’t a man in a dress call him self a women

Well in that case if only one mother is on the bc, the birth mother would be missing which is not acceptable or desirable imo.