Lesbian couple sign joint birth certificate

[onebatmother]

Proud moment for anyone interested in these kind of milestones.

Ok I've just checked at it it's illegal to knowingly change a BC with information you know to be incorrect. So what your friend is planning to do really is a crime.

the reason i put what did above is because i think that children do have a right to know they have a different genetic heritage to their parents and have been conceived using donated egg and sperm.

I guess the question is what the 'birth certificate' is for. Is it determine the child's biological heritage or is it to determine parental responsibility?

Katz - children do have a legal right to know. Anyone can contact the HFEA and if they are over the age of 18 they can be told if they were conceived using a donor through a clinic. If conceived in the past few years they may also be given the name and last known address of the donor as well.

Naturally if a woman gets pregnant outside of a clinic setting and chooses not to tell her child who the biological father is then the child will never know - but that's always been the case.

A birth certificate is to say you are YOU and you were born on a certain date and who your parent/s are...it's not a pedigree!

Well, doesnt that make a nonsense of 'birth certificate'. The whole function of a birth certificate, for the last 150 years, has been so you can write down the genetic birth parents, the actual biological father and mother, of someone.

Since writing two lesbians names on a birth certificate clearly makes a nonsense of that concept (since neither of them produced the sperms), we pretty much might as well abandon the whole idea now.

I know, lets have ownership certificates instead, much more appropriate for this application.

Have you ever had sex with a woman Linctash? Not an inflatable one.

Birth certificates are not about biological parents at all, and never have been. One birth parent, yes. But where the father is concerned, there is not and there has never been any requirement to demonstrate any biological link with the child. Can you imagine if every father were expected to be tested before he could be on the birth certificate? And in fact is wasn't uncommon for a pregnant woman to marry a man who was willing in order to "legitimise" a baby conceived outside of marriage, even if he wasn't the biological father of the child.

If it is to be about genetics, then the whole system needs to change.

LG;

You have really suprised me lately....the company you keep is shocking....

I used to think you were ok....now you laugh along with the total cretins....

Keeping track of christenings , marriages and burials was invented by Henry IIX for taxation reasons, and was exactly about who the biological parents were in order to track liability.

They switched to births, marriages and deaths in 1841 when the records were centralised and the Bishops Transcripts ceased.

Its ALWAYS been about biological parents. The ability of women to lie about the father on a birth certificate is another matter entirely, but doesnt detract from the orginal and primary purpose.

I don't think you can accuse anyone of being insulting when you are using words like "retarded"

Who gives a flying fuck about birth certs? If this move helps non-trad couples, brilliant, why would anyone else care about it? It doesn't effect them in the slightest.

It cannot have been about biological fathers. It is still not about biological fathers. As a record of biological parentage it is massively and systemically flawed.

Children conceived by donor egg/sperm can track down their bio parents but only if the parents decide to tell their DC. If they don't, their children will never know.

Forcing every child to have a DNA test to prove their origins is an Orwellian concept

"Ah, coolfonz, I see the insult mode of debate is still the only one you do. I love it when posters fire the first insult, because then its open shooting after that.I suspect your asking me that question because you want to know what it like. Well you'll just have to wait till you get the chance, then you'll know. Im sure you'll find someone suitably blind and mentally retarded to do it with one day."

That's a no then.

on the other hand, knowing your genetic roots might help you avoid certain genetic diseases in later life.

Personally im very pleased they kept track of genetics in the past, tracing you family tree is very rewarding. If your birth certificate has nonfactual information about your biological roots on it tho it certainly makes it impossible, and makes it pointless to keep recording the information.

"By Coolfonz Tue 20-Apr-10 23:33:38

That's a no then. grin "

I suspect my kids will be fairly suprised and amused by your logical fallacy.........

Except that you have no idea that the family tree you are tracing is accurate, thats the point.

Your great granny's dad wasn't the man on her birth cert, thats one branch you have totally wrong. Or your nan's mother was actually her granny and her mother was actually her older sister but it was a family secret......etc etc.

Birth certs don't necessarily track your genetics and never have done.

Exactly runnybottom. And in decades/centuries gone by when divorce was pretty much restricted to the upper classes, there must have been huge numbers of babies born to mothers who either knew their husbands weren't the fathers or weren't sure.

Even today, a birth certificate is no guarantee of anything other than a commitment of the two people whose names appear on it to parent that child. Which is how it should be

"By runnybottom Tue 20-Apr-10 23:39:20
Except that you have no idea that the family tree you are tracing is accurate, thats the point. "

Its as accurate as you'll ever get. The point of tracing genealogy is you cant prove anything unless you have two or more references to a fact.

Id go with the accuracy of my family tree much more than the accuracy of Jacqui Smiths second home expenses claim......

Great news and a move forward.

As a former host surrogate I've had to register three children as legally mine and my husband's who have no biological link to me at all. I would have loved to have named the biological dads as the legal fathers from the start but because I'm married that wasn't permitted unless my husband had lied to say he didn't agree with the IVF treatment I'd had.

But as someone else said above if I am married it just assumed that DH is the father of my child, even if we met 3 months ago, have only been married for a fortnight and I gave birth a week ago. That has feck all to do with genetics or biological parents.