Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

Right so what your actually frightened about is what I am a gateway to. But what I actually am is a porridge making, maths homework practicing, bath time singing, lost my keys, normal sort of mother. Redirect your fear to the children who are being harmed (in bio and non bio families).

I am not in favour of removing birth mothers from birth certificates in cases of adoption from birth.
It doesn't need to be hedged as a choice between respecting the importance of birthing a child and recognising the importance of being registered as a non-biological parent on the birth certificate. I am sorry, my last post probably made it seem too much that way, like one over the other and you have helpfully made me clarify that.

We need to keep asking what are the most useful things, for the child, to have recorded at birth? Who grew you is important. Who raised you is also important. Who is your next of kin is also important.

I don't think the distinction between an ID document and a practical record of responsibility is so clear either. This is who you are, is another way of saying, these are the people you are related to. Being related means more than biologically related. Eg. Being a parent is a type of relationship that is non necessarily about biology.

Anyhow, your argument about recognising birth mothers says nothing about removing me, so again, thankfully we agree. Until somebody can articulate why my children are better off without me on their birth certificate, hopefully our family can sleep soundly!

@mumarooni I think our opinions are pretty much diametrically opposed when you say this:

I do not agree with your earlier comment that children are best raised by biologically linked adults, in fact I refute that completely.

I don’t think there is any possible way to reconcile our views.

To me, your view is the gateway view, which ushers in the Brave New [transhumanist] World, where all meaning and connection through biological relationships is disparaged.

According to this both women can be on the birth certificate since 2009 if a sperm donor is used (rightsofwomen,org.uk)

If you are the civil partner or wife of the birth mother
Child conceived after 6 April 2009
If your civil partner or wife conceived a child after 6 April 2009 through artificial insemination (at a clinic or at home), you and your civil partner/ wife will be the child’s legal parents and will both have parental responsibility. This is true whether the sperm donor is known or unknown. You should ensure both of your names are registered on the child’s birth certificate, for the sake of clarity.
If your wife or civil partner conceived a child after 6 April 2009 through sexual intercourse with a man, you will not automatically have any rights to the child.
Child conceived before 6 April 2009
If your wife or civil partner conceived a child before 6 April 2009 you will not automatically have any rights to the child.

@HorribleNecktie

”if the certificate is a record of who has parental responsibility at birth”

That is not what a birth certificate is for.

A birth certificate is an identity document. A unique record of who a unique person, a new citizen of the nation, is. Their name, their date and place of birth, the woman whose womb they grew from (just in case there is another ‘Stephen Jones’ born on the 15th August that year in Tooting - so they don’t get confused with him), and it’s is not essential, but the child’s father may also be recorded to further identify that person.

The fact that the parents use this identity document, belonging to the child, to prove that they are the parents, doesn’t mean that this is the purpose of the child having the identity document.

it is a practical document from the moment they are born to confirm whose family they are in, who has what sort of access and responsibility for them.

If this is true, why is it that mothers who gave birth in homes, knowing they would be giving up their baby for adoption, still registered the child’s birth and are therefore named as it’s mother on their birth certificate, to then soon after have the family who adopts their child register their adoption?

What a pointless bit of admin. They could simply hold off registering the child’s birth until a family are found and these new biologically unrelated people could register the birth, be named as it’s parents, get parental responsibility, etc, all rolled into one.

“I think this phenomenon is overstated by yourself and others, to normalise the divorce of biological meanings from the words ‘father’ and ‘parent’.”

That is not what I am trying to do. However I don’t understand why the husband of a woman would be automatically included on a birth certificate of her child when the wife of a married woman would not be, if the certificate is a record of who has parental responsibility at birth and not an accurate record who contributed their genetics to the creation of the baby. Why should a woman’s wife have to formally adopt the child they planned for?

@TangledRoots we agree on quite a lot. I agree with you that the birth certificate is for the child not the parent. I agree that it is a record of (an aspect of) who they are. But it is not just a certificate for their genetic ancestory tracing, it is a practical document from the moment they are born to confirm whose family they are in, who has what sort of access and responsibility for them. It is in their best interests that the people who chose to bring them into the world, who wanted and planned for them, are listed there as parents whether or not biologically linked. Because those parents are of much more use to the child/infant/newborn than some sperm donor/absent father etc. I do not agree with your earlier comment that children are best raised by biologically linked adults, in fact I refute that completely. I think any research showing this will be more about problems with the social care sphere than anything about forms of parenting. It is not adequate to ask lesbian mothers and non-biological fathers (eg sperm donor) to go through adoption processes, because processes would be lengthy and depend on someone else saying they are worthy. That feels risky in an environment with rising homophobia. How is that possibly in their best interest, when they have known me since the day they were born? They deserve security given by society recognising I am there parent, unrefutably. They should be able to trace their genetics but right from the moment they are born it is in their interests to have 2 caring committed parents who want them on their b/c if possible. Not all kids get that, because not all families work like that, but why deprive them of it for the sake of putting biological relatedness on some higher level of 'truth' about who they are, linking them to people who may be uninterested in any sort of responsibility and care. Yes, putting some info about biology as well is fine, in case they want access to that info later. but talking about children, and what they need before they are adults, they need their parents at birth to be legally recognised.

Plenty of women register their husband as the father of their child when that may not be the case.

Really? Plenty?

I think this phenomenon is overstated by yourself and others, to normalise the divorce of biological meanings from the words ‘father’ and ‘parent’.

The legal assumption, is that the woman is made pregnant by the man she is married to and/or that the man who shows up to register as the child’s father, is not lying.

Late to this but I suppose this argument hinges on what a birth certificate is actually for- is it a record of your biological parenthood (both biological mother and father) or is it a record of the child, and who has parental responsibility for them at the time they are born?

Plenty of unmarried women do not register the father of their child on the certificate because they either don’t know who he is or because they don’t want him to be listed because that gives him parental rights. Plenty of women register their husband as the father of their child when that may not be the case.

So, as it’s not an accurate record of fatherhood I don’t really understand why the partner of a lesbian Mother could not be listed on the birth certificate as a second parent. It’s not creating any kind of fiction (ie that the child was magically conceived by two women with no male involvement).

I’m in favour of lesbian parents both being listed but I do think that that there should always be a place for genetic father (whether known or just sperm donor).

“these rights should be removed from existing parents”

I only recognise the word ‘parent’ to describe biological (genetic and/or birth giving)parents, legally adoptive parents and step parents.

I believe only the first kind of parent (genetic and/or birth giving), should be documented as a baby’s parents at the registration of its birth. I don’t believe it is about the parent’s ’right’ to be on the birth certificate, it’s about the child’s right to have the truth about their identity on their birth certificate. If people other than their actual biological (genetic and/or birth-giving) parents want legal parental responsibility, then there is an adoption process and certificate for that.

People who are not biologically related to a child should be named on a child’s birth certificate as it’s parent(s).

Yes.

I disagree with this. I think all people are entitled to a birth certificate which tells them the truth about who they are. Using donors impacts upon the ability of a birth certificate to document the truth, and this needs urgent consideration, tightening up, it’s overdue. It definitely doesn’t need the official assumption of biological parenthood to be completely (or even partially) scrapped. That is not in the child’s best interest at all.

The word 'mother' should and does always describe the woman who bore the child

🤔@SapphosRock - Do you now disagree with the title of your own thread?

I’m finding your vagueness around what points you are responding to and what points you are making hard to follow. It would be much easier if you quoted to know what you meant.

”It is central but nobody disagreed”

Come on, how is anyone meant to understand that vagueness?

I imagine, reading back, that the point you claim ‘is central, but no-one disagreed’ is my saying this “divorcing the biological meaning from the words ‘mother’, ‘father’ and ‘parent’… well that is a biggie, to put it mildly.”, which doesn’t actually make any sense to say is ‘central but no one disagreed’.

This whole thread is about the ‘right’ to divorce the meanings of the words ‘parent’, ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from the biological relationship they describe. I, for one am strongly disagreeing with it.

This thread title poses this claim:

“Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates”.

Since the only two people whose names currently must, by law, be recorded on a baby’s birth certificate, are both the baby and the mother who bore it, (the sexual orientation of the mother is not relevant), then the OP is clearly talking about someone other than the woman who bore the child being on the child’s birth certificate there.

In essence, the OP’s central argument asserts two things:

1. The word ‘mother’ describes someone other than the woman who bore the child.
2. People who are not biologically related to a child should be named on a child’s birth certificate as it’s parent(s).

These assertions from the OP divorce the words ‘mother’ and ‘parent’ from their understood biological meanings very nonchalantly, as though it’s no biggie at all.

I am saying this is a big deal and shouldn’t be lightly glossed over.

It is central but nobody disagreed

Blamelessness?what is it you would like to blame lesbians for?

I dont think same sex couples can claim any kind of superiority at all, as this thread proved they have to fight for rights handed out to opposite sex.

Have you really not seen the ‘lesbian superiority’ or the ‘lesbian blamelessness’ arguments being used on the thread at all?

As to the second point, it is absolutely central to the argument posed on this thread.

I know I boiled it all down in a way that may have sounded a bit flippant in my exasperation, but it’s still the bones beneath it all.

The post about lesbians being better than all, which doesnr reflect the thread at all.

Re your second point nobody said otherwise

I don’t know which particular post you are referring to here, however, I stand by them all, none are unfair and none are disingenuous.

I don’t mind if you think badly of me. It’s no biggie in the scheme of things…. whereas divorcing the biological meaning from the words ‘mother’, ‘father’ and ‘parent’… well that is a biggie, to put it mildly.

@TangledRoots given the excellent, intelligent, articulate posts on this thread, I think your post is really unfair and disingenuous

How do they manage to have a child together'?

Quote fail ^^ that was responding to Triplemove

You’ve missed the point too.

Some lesbians want to divorce biological nature from the meaning of the words ‘parent’, ‘mother’ and ‘father’ so that people who are not biologically related to the child can officially be included on their birth certificate. I don’t not think this is a good idea because:

1. A child has the right to a birth certificate which documents who they truly are as faithfully as is possible.
2. A child is best looked after, either by their biological parents, other biological relatives if their parents don’t have capacity, or biologically unrelated people who have gone through an adoption process to verify their commitment, sincerity and capacity to have legal parental responsibility for them.
3. If you officially allow some people to register biologically unrelated people on a child’s birth certificate as their parents (bypassing the need for the adoption process) you allow anyone and everyone to. This is not in the child’s best interest because of points 1 and 2, furthermore there are harmful people who would be delighted with this divorce of parenthood from biology and to be allowed to be named on a child’s birth certificate so they can claim ‘parental responsibility’ without any adoption process.

So I say hang on, hold your horses. This is a big step officially allowing biologically unrelated people to be named as a child’s parents on their birth certificate for life. It is a big step to officially say that parenthood has no basis in biology and nature. It may seem like ‘just a little thing’ but it’s not, it’s a big thing.