DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

@TangledRoots - yes I agree. But for those children to who it applies, their genetic origins should be recorded. There used to be a lot of people who didn't tell their children they were adopted and the vast majority of children who were donor conceived in the first wave weren't told.

I'm sure there are still thousands of children who aren't aware that they're not genetically related to their mother or father.

We are not plants spreading our gametes on the wind or waiting for insects to fertilise us.

We are not mouth-brooding fish.

We are not birds where females release eggs through her cloaca and then the parents take turns to incubate them.

We are mammals. What all mammals have in common is that the females give birth to live young, gestated in her womb, through her vagina and then feeds them milk produced by her mammary glands. This is the nature of mammalian motherhood.

Come off it.

The vast majority of children have birth certificates which reflect their genetic origins. There doesn’t need to be a revisit for everyone, only those people who use donors.

However there needs to be an ideal standard that reflects biological accuracy, and the natural family as closely as possible- not adding people who are not biologically related to the birth certificate and that any parental responsibility bestowed by a combination of birth certificate and adoption certificate is shared by a maximum of two people, otherwise you could get polyamorous communes and so on, where all the adults want to be on the birth certificate or adoption certificate, with shared parental responsibility for the child, which would in effect mean that no one had parental responsibility for them.

Again, the birth certificate is meant to show who the biological parents are.
Again, this is your opinion. It's not necessarily correct and it's not necessarily what they should be used for. Hence the discussion.

There are so many children now whose birth certificates do not reflect their genetic origins.

If the birth certificate isn't to reflect that, what's it for? I've used my children's to prove my 'ownership' of them - that I have parental responsibility and can make decisions on their behalf. But once a child becomes an adult, that purpose is gone and the document is supposed to be a record of heritage and origin.

I really think we need to revisit the whole thing. They no longer reflect the needs and reality of modern families.

Again, the birth certificate is meant to show who the biological parents are.

Yes, men who are not the fathers are on the but also yes, that's wrong as well

I agree that it would be a different certificate.

The birth certificate is the child’s identity document not an adult’s proof of ownership of the child.

Its arse-backwards to look at the birth certificate that way.

I know that the word ‘identity’ has been thoroughly abused of all meaning in recent years, but philosophically ‘identity’ and ‘identical’ mean ‘that very thing’ not ‘similar to’ or ‘feels as though it is’ or ‘self-defines as’.
The identity of a thing is that which makes it clearly and distinctly what it is and that it is not something else.
The way we establish a person’s identity is the spacio-temporal location where they were born, their given name, and the mother whose womb they came from. All those things make it clear we are identifying one unique individual who can’t be confused with anyone else.

What are you even on about?
This is a really interesting thread with lots to think about, it's been going great so far so don't know why you're acting like you're in a playground.
If you have a problem with a poster, take it to dms instead of polluting the thread.

I’ll quote my own previous response to you:

Father = provider of small gametes.
Mother= provider of large gametes + possessor of the womb within which the baby gestates, and the body which supplies the stable conditions and necessary nutrients to grow to eventually be born from.

If a baby only has the mothers gametes, but not the more important, from a relationship perspective, experience of growing in her womb and being born from her, then it doesn’t have a mother in the truest sense. It merely has a female gamete provider and a father.

The important thing, is that although some people use novel methods of conception, the majority will continue to have sex and give birth to their own offspring and have both genetic parents at the registration of the birth.

We shouldn’t have to change the system for the majority, forcing paternity tests, or changing the meanings of words, etc, just because a minority use donors.

The birth registration should reflect reality as faithfully as possible and for complicated conceptions, this will mean complicated registrations and additional admin.

Then that child is ‘motherless’ in the truest sense. It is a child of a machine. Brave new world baby factory. You could also clone humans too. That means that people could be genetic clones, born or machines with no mother or genetic ‘parents’ either.

Not really a road we should be going down.

With the DNA uniting it sort of comes apart and then winds back together with the two separate halves - the ‘double helix’ not a triple helix.

I think it should be:

Mother: The one whose womb the baby came out of and has the medical records to prove it.

Father: The one who registers at the birth or is married to the mother and honestly believes himself to be the biological father, or it is left left blank.
Although leaving blank could cause genetic bewilderment for the child, there can be situations where a woman is highly promiscuous or has been sexually attacked and doesn’t know who the father is, also, there needs to be an agreement from the father that he is indeed the father, so the mother can’t just name a man on the birth certificate as the father, without his presence or consent.

In the case of the use of a donor and additional section is added: Genetic non-responsible parents:

Genetic donor mother: Woman who provided the donor egg. The medical documentation proves this.

Genetic donor father: Man who provided the donor sperm. The medical and/or legal agreement proves it.

If people are fine with non-genetically related husbands being listed

No, those of us who have said it should be a biological parent are not ok with that either clearly !

If that’s the case, then where conception is assisted by IVF, the mother is a Petri dish.

It’s just silly. The mother is the one whose womb bore the child.

@Thatgirl1981 my post was in response to a question asking what benefits could there be for a child in having all legal parents put on the bc. I'm quite aware that UK law doesn't recognise three parents - that's why I put it in my post. The point was that there are in fact some benefits to the child in having a non-bio parent recorded. Because we couldn't do this, my dd has no claim for support or inheritance from one of her parents.

You can't have read my post very carefully if you think I have a husband 😃. Or indeed if you think I haven't given my adopted child as much info as I can about her genetic heritage (not much) or think adoption is something to be ashamed of. My point was that the bc is quite a public document, one we often use for ID purposes, and therefore we don't want genetic ID on it. My dd is not ashamed of being adopted, but equally she doesn't want to have to explain it every time she buys a student travel pass.

I really love Posie’s work for women’s rights but she’s not speaking from being informed here about what the effect on women (whether LGB or S, married, civil partnered or single or LTR) or children’s rights would be if only biological parents on BC.
And what does she mean by biological? Does that include genetic or gestational biological links?

Her milkshake again eh Mushy?

We aren't even talking about her and yet here you are.

Absolutely! But of course there's the ever crushing and over arching #bekind and it would happen anyway, let's just facilitate it.🙄

I agree with Posie.

Posie is quite clear on who should be on the birth certificate.

I disagree with her stance. The parents are those who are caring and bringing up the child. Sure add biological parents, but also should be room for those who also are there during the child's life.