Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

Two things. Firstly, this whole discussion should be child centred. This discussion, in my opinion, is about naturally conceived children and children conceived through unnatural medical intervention and how they both should have the same rights - the right to know the truth about their biological parents, to have relationships with them if possible, to be able to trace their genealogy and the right to have an accurate recording of who they themselves are on their birth certificate- whose womb they came from and whose genes they carry - their genetic mother and father.

Secondly, since it is pretty new to use donors and unfortunately, the ethics surrounding donor gametes to create human beings has not been considered up until this point in the rush to meet and exploit adult demand and scientific curiosity, it means that these things need to be sorted out asap. Because if not now, then when?

The birth certificate should continue to have the mother who gave birth, without question, this is key for identifying who an individual is, but where a donor egg has been used, I believe there should be an additional section of the birth certificate to clarify this, for the sake of the child, and to have the name of the genetic mother, (although this woman would not be the ‘legal mother’) written there. This would be the same for all mothers who have used donor eggs, of all sexualities.

I don’t believe people who are neither genetically related or who have not given birth to the child should be on the child’s birth certificate. In the case of using donor sperm, then that person should be named in this new optional ‘donor’ section, I am imagining, as the genetic father.

Now, because the nature of a heterosexual couple conceiving a child naturally means that a woman can deceive a man about his paternity or a man can lie about paternity, it means there is a loophole for heterosexuals, when registering a birth, which enables couples to deceive or lie about the paternity of the child if they choose to, without compulsory paternity DNA testing, for registering births. I don’t believe that there should be compulsory testing. People should continue to be trusted to be truthful.

The fact that nature and biology enables heterosexuals to deceive about paternity when registering a birth, if they choose, this should not be framed as a ‘right’ for heterosexuals to fabricate and deceive on a birth certificate, which lesbians should also have an ‘equal right’ to. The goal is for the truth and accuracy of the child’s identity. The child’s rights are paramount.

@Triplemove thanks for explaining that and sorry for being flippant. I find peoples responses very frustrating and it caused me to jump too quickly, I'm sorry.

Two things. Firstly, this whole discussion should be child centred. This discussion, in my opinion, is about naturally conceived children and children conceived through unnatural medical intervention and how they both should have the same rights - the right to know the truth about their biological parents, to have relationships with them if possible, to be able to trace their genealogy and the right to have an accurate recording of who they themselves are on their birth certificate- whose womb they came from and whose genes they carry - their genetic mother and father.

Secondly, since it is pretty new to use donors and unfortunately, the ethics surrounding donor gametes to create human beings has not been considered up until this point in the rush to meet and exploit adult demand and scientific curiosity, it means that these things need to be sorted out asap. Because if not now, then when?

The birth certificate should continue to have the mother who gave birth, without question, this is key for identifying who an individual is, but where a donor egg has been used, I believe there should be an additional section of the birth certificate to clarify this, for the sake of the child, and to have the name of the genetic mother, (although this woman would not be the ‘legal mother’) written there. This would be the same for all mothers who have used donor eggs, of all sexualities.

I don’t believe people who are neither genetically related or who have not given birth to the child should be on the child’s birth certificate. In the case of using donor sperm, then that person should be named in this new optional ‘donor’ section, I am imagining, as the genetic father.

Now, because the nature of a heterosexual couple conceiving a child naturally means that a woman can deceive a man about his paternity or a man can lie about paternity, it means there is a loophole for heterosexuals, when registering a birth, which enables couples to deceive or lie about the paternity of the child if they choose to, without compulsory paternity DNA testing, for registering births. I don’t believe that there should be compulsory testing. People should continue to be trusted to be truthful.

The fact that nature and biology enables heterosexuals to deceive about paternity when registering a birth, if they choose, this should not be framed as a ‘right’ for heterosexuals to fabricate and deceive on a birth certificate, which lesbians should also have an ‘equal right’ to. The goal is for the truth and accuracy of the child’s identity. The child’s rights are paramount.

How is it not rewriting biology by having two females on the birth cert and excluding the actual male in the equation?
As you said, we all know two females can’t become parents without male input.

do not believe that people who use complicated methods to obtain a child should have the same right to simple documentation as those who conceive without the added complexity of donor parentage. It’s complex. The documents should show it. Why shouldn’t it?

Because straight couples can easily hide their use of donors, it puts a discriminatory onus on homosexual couples despite the issue actually affecting far more children born to heterosexual couples.

it’s all or nothing, for everyone.

The birth mother will still be recorded as mother but the wife/partner will be recorded as the other parent I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) - I honestly don't understand your issue with this?

I know, right? 🙄
none of this bothered certain posters until they found out lesbians were doing it.

I think gamete donors should not be encouraged to think they are not parents to a child because the process was done in a different way. Even if they never have anything to do with said child.

Why? A sperm donor is not a parent, he is a sperm donor.

Children can easily understand that a kind man donated his sperm so his/her parents could have a baby but the kind man is not their parent.

Much more confusing for children to tell them they have a biological parent who wants nothing to do with them.

How is it not rewriting biology by having two females on the birth cert and excluding the actual male in the equation?
As you said, we all know two females can’t become parents without male input.

How is it not rewriting biology by having two females on the birth cert and excluding the actual male in the equation?
As you said, we all know two females can’t become parents without male input.

Like the eggs know the woman's a lesbian 🤣

From what I've read they would go down as a 'parent' not as the father. I don't think anyone is saying the female partner would replace a father and everyone knows you need sperm to fertilise an egg so it's not rewriting biology it's simply acknowledging the other female as a parent.

No as sperm is still needed to fertilise the egg - perhaps having a way the third person on the certificate but not instead of is the answer

You dont think ghe person who gave her egg and raised the child should replace the donor?

It may seem insulting to you.

To me, as a mother who actually gave birth, it is incredibly insulting to dismiss the physical sacrifices such as pregnancy vomiting, genital tearing, stress incontinence, post-childbirth womb infection, and pure pain I went through, by suggesting that a lesbian who has never been pregnant should be recorded on a birth certificate as a mother. She is not one.

This kind of lobbying is just another example of the anti-woman movement promoted across the world at the moment. You can recognise it by the way it dismisses women’s experiences and biological realities. Most importantly, it also tells mothers that we are no longer allowed opinions about matters concerning our bodies and that someone else’s feelings are far more important than our own.

Its not insulting, its bigoted and deeply
seated bigotry at that. Due to some lgbt issues, some think that the pendelum has swung.

The one who gives birth is legally the parent, regardless of DNA. This is a useful thing because in my country (which has basically the same law) this has worked very well as a backstop against illegal surrogacy arrangements. It means the woman who was pregnant and gave birth has some legal rights.