DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

What benefits are these? Control of the narrative? Falsification? Convenience?

Whats so bad about having legal parental responsibility but not being named as a parent on the birth certificate? What real harms are there? Why is this so bad?

I think it’s becoming obvious that some people just object to two women being on the birth certificate in any capacity.

Doesn’t mean that it is NOT

That is not true. The origins of the word mother relate to ‘womb’.

Separating genes out, splicing the meaning of mother to mean ‘provider of gametes’, ignores the essential function and pretty much the definition of motherhood- to gestate and give birth to live young. There is no male equivalent, but that doesn’t mean that it is vitally important.

Why though? For what benefit? You just keep stating you don’t think it (female partners being registered as parents on the BC) should happen, but don’t seem to have any reasons, even though there are clear benefits to the child and birth mother. So who exactly benefits from this?

But what you said was:

It should be a matter of course that non-related individuals who want legal parental responsibility go through the same process

Surely that absolutely covers the husband where sperm donation has been used.

I am not really focussing on the Italian situation in this or specifically thinking about lesbians. In Italy I believe it should be legal for the lesbian partner to apply for parental responsibility. That’s what needs to change.

With regard to sperm donation where the father on the birth certificate is not the biological father I would imagine it would be easy for the registering couple to simply not disclose it, so even if the Italians wanted to strip non-biological fathers from birth certificates, they wouldn’t have any way of knowing. Whereas if the wording ‘second parent’ is used instead of ‘father’ it would be easy to search for in a database.

The system needs changing as soon as changes are made in technology, doesn't it?

I saw an interview last week where a man found out in his 50s that he has 600+ siblings because the man running the clinic that helped his parents to conceive, substituted his sperm for his father's.

As soon as the technology changes the official documentation needs to follow.

This is the thing - gamete donation seems like such a ‘small thing’ doesn’t it? But it has huge consequences. I don’t think we as a society have properly thought it through.

Progress has been pushed by people desperate to have children and clinics happy to exploit that desperation.

There is an issue for sperm donation for fathers. That’s something that takes some thinking through.

Why does it take any more thinking than the Italian situation? It's identical - a non-related spouse gets automatic recognition in a situation where the mother has used donated sperm. Why would it be different for men?

The mother - mater is the one whose womb - matrix the baby emerged from. The donor egg doesn’t change that fact.

There is an issue for sperm donation for fathers. That’s something that takes some thinking through.

It should be a matter of course that non-related individuals who want legal parental responsibility go through the same process.

Including husbands of people who've had IVF with sperm donation? What about women who used doner eggs?

It should be a matter of course that non-related individuals who want legal parental responsibility go through the same process.

It’s very clear and transparent on BCs already that the wife/partner is not the mother, but has legal parental status, how does making them go through an adoption process to have the same outcome (legal parental status) benefit anyone?

This thread mostly tells me that many people don't understand what a birth certificate is or does. Now you presumably have been somewhat educated and understand it isn't a record of gametes that made you I can't understand why anyone would support this move by Italy. If you want to go and begin a campaign to remove (for example) husbands of people who've have IVF with donated sperm then fine but I don't see why some Italian lesbians should be at the front line of having their families potentially devastated.

Well I don’t personally agree with that and that’s not how the law works in regards to lesbian parents using sperm donors, the children have the right to know who their donor is legally, so not sure why this is being used a reason to deny the wife or partner of the birth mother from being registered as the legal parent on a BC.

It's when people say the child doesn't need to know their genetic history all they need to know is 'x' that I struggle with. Agree with pp who say too much is being centred on adults feelings and emotions. A bit like those who focus on 'parental rights' and eskew parental responsibilities.

Thank you for your insightful and informed posts Elsiebear and NicCage.

This is why I think a birth certificate should reflect the biological truth as transparently as is possible.

Which means the most key information is 1. The baby’s name and 2. The mother - ‘mater’, ie, the woman’s whose womb - ‘matrix’ the baby was born from, 3. The date and 4. The place of birth.
Not essential, but the biological father (if present at the registration and/or married to the mother) is normally included. PPs have eloquently explained why they should not always be included.

And in a situation where donor gametes are used, the genetic mother or father should be registered as ‘additional information’ for factual accuracy, without conferring any parental rights upon them. This extra information is only necessary because modern interventional methods of conception, using donors, has skewed the definition of what mother and father has always meant, and it is only fair that the birth certificate should equally reflect all the information a non-interventional conception would show (which includes genetic parentage) and not obscure the truth.

People who are not biologically related do not belong on the birth certificate. Just because historically some men might claim to be a father when they aren’t (to make an ‘honest woman’ of the mother) or because the mother may have been unfaithful and doesn’t want to disclose it, those who partake in this probably unlawful deception don’t change the intended meaning of the named father on the birth certificate to now be ‘anyone who shows up to claim paternity or is married to the mother’. The intention is that it should be truthful and accurate, that the father really is the father - biologically.

People who are not biologically related don’t belong on a birth certificate and they should apply to adopt as a step parent. That way it is clear and transparent. They are not a biological parent, but they do have legal parental responsibility.

If the truth about parentage is fudged on the birth certificate for the convenience, control and sentimentality of a couple in one situation, surely should be the same for everyone? That way lies surrogacy, GRA, genetic bewilderment, etc, etc.

And how does having a woman registered as a parent m on the BC prevent children from knowing their genetic origins exactly? Children born from donor sperm have the legal right to information about the donor, so this does not in anyway prevent them from knowing where they came from genetically. If you think sperm donors should be legally documented on a BC as the father then that’s a whole other argument, but having a woman’s wife or partner on the BC as a parent does not prevent anyone from knowing who their biological parents are.

It isnt naive absolutism to think a child should have the right to know who their parents are.

If that document isn't recording the actual biological parents then what is the point of the document?

OK then. Let’s imagine that men’s genetic contribution had to be recorded on a child’s BC. No ‘leaving him off because he’s abusive’ any more- since many posters on here are naive absolutists saying it’s the child’s right to know via their BC. Imagine that info is all put on the BC. A public document that you might need to use to access a school, join a doctors surgery, or to show an employer.

So if genetic parents are included what do you think would happen to women’s free choice on abortion? What would it do to levels of Domestic violence? Femicide? Child abuse? infanticide? Mother and child homelessness? Relinquishing children for adoption? The numbers of willing donors of sperm to help other people, including single women and lesbian couples?

Society just isn’t ready for full genetic disclosure. It is highly unlikely that there would be adequate social supports to housing and the benefits system or emotional support to help to these women and families, just from a completely practical standpoint. It’s would be very dangerous for some women and children.

If the motives are about actually caring that the child has some way of tracing their biological parents how is that anything phobic or anything ist at all?

It is possible to actually just care that a thing that exists to document a thing actually documents the thing not a different thing without being a phobe or an ist.