How will the abolition of mums and dads effect us and our babies?

[kfca]

Does anyone else mind not being recognised as the mother of their baby, if the law changes, maybe in the new year, with the marriage changes?
Will mumsnet have to rename itself as LegalParentAnet?

Oops, I mean, "There is irrefutable evidence that children are best raised by their own mother and father"

Are you going to give us a link OP?

The world is ending in a few weeks anyway, nae bother.

Nope, still don't understand your point. Should all children who don't have a mother and father (sorry, Legal Parent A and Legal Parent B) be assigned the missing Legal Parent immediately?

And WTAF does adoption have to do with it?

I remain baffled as to what you're actually trying to say. Honestly and truly. What changes do you object to, and why do you care if it doesn't affect you and your children?

Some parents are men. Some parents are women. Some parents are shit. Some parents are gay. Some parents are good. Some parents are straight. Some parents are abusive. Some parents are lone. Some parents are married. Some parents are in a partnership. Some parents are racist. Some parents are homophobic. I imagine there is little correlation between any of these states of parental being. Most parents do the best they can by their children, however they came by them and whoever they share their bed with.

I'm a parent that doesn't object (if they are actually going to change things at all and it isn't just the stirrings of pressure groups). The law may call my relationship to DD whatever it likes as our relationship is secure enough not to be damaged by the legal term for it.

Your views do count. If you don't like the idea of gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex.

Your post is so offensive I hardly know where to begin. What exactly is your expertise on adoption, that allows you to tell me that I have more vested in my biological dc than my adopted dc? And allows you to state as fact that "while they love their adopted mums and dads, it's definitely not the same"?

Adoption into stranger families is not THAT rare - there's quite a few of us here on MN, you know. Some of us even adopted babies, which you seem to think never happens. And while I would agree that adoption is not ideal, it's not for the reasons you think. My adopted child is a fantastic kid; I could not love her anymore if she had exited out of one of my bodily orifices. Because I love her, I would have preferred that she had not had to be separated from her birth family, preferred her never to suffer the trauma around her early life, or to face the issues she will need to process later. But my love for her - and hers for me - is NOT second rate. How dare you say it is.

And as for 'these changes' - you still haven't defined exactly what you're talking about, or linked to any evidence, so I for one am not sure what exactly you are objecting to.

I am a parent and I don't object. So you do know parents who don't object. Maybe you are just mixing with the wrong people in rl.

What I DO object to is your attitude to adoption. I bloody dare you to come and tell my family that the adopted children in it aren't real or proper family and don't count because they are a minority. You wouldn't be repeating that utter tripe in a hurry.

I expect there's also irrefutable evidence that children do best if they are a boy raised by upper-middle class Westerns white heterosexual married parents, with a private education and at least one university degree.

What shall we do with the other 90-odd% of the world population who don't fit the criteria though?

Your argument is completely illogical - you can't force all the world's children into a set of ideal circumstances. And there are many millions of children in the world who are being raised by a mother and a father in abject misery and poverty, while children of Western homosexuals are doing very comfortably indeed. It's all relative and pointless to compare one child's circumstances with another.

There is irrefutable evidence that children are best raised by their own mother and father

Prove it.

I don't know one parent who doesn't object to these changes

Me

While you are linking to the proposed legislation, could you also pop a few links down for your irrefutable evidence as irrefutable evidence is really rare in the social sciences so I would be very interested in seeing it.

I don't know one parent who doesn't object to these changes

What changes? You haven't even provided a verifiable source which shows there are any changes yet.

kfca You say "I don't know one parent who doesn't object to these changes".

Well, I think you have just 'met' however many it takes to make 8 pages of a thread, and as far as I can tell no one has agreed with you yet. And as MN is mostly populated by parents, I think that makes rather a lot of us who couldn't care less what we are called on official forms (and yes, I think the majority of us support equal marriage too).

I know a lovely couple who adopted a baby a few months ago. The fact that neither of them has a penis doesn't impair their parenting.

Wow op, you seem to be something of an expert in, er, well nothing so far. Go away.

Also, I love whoever wrote 'what you smoking homes?'

How does one link to figments of the imagination breathesslowly?

Well you're out of step with the opinion polls like ComRes etc , so I guess its not a very representative sample.

Thanks Devora. So at the moment, you couldn't have Legal Parent A, B and C, it seems? If a 3rd parent is on the scene, they couldn't become Legal Parent C, they could only become Legal Parent A or B, by having one of the current legal parents give up the status?

I can see why only being allowed two legal parents makes things more straightforward, but in complicated situations like yours it must be quite difficult to accept, especially in situations involving the death of one parent. I wonder if it would also cause problems in a hospital situation if 'only the parents' or 'close family' were allowed to see a child or sign off on a medical procedure.

OP, I'm guessing that somebody somewhere read something on the Campaign for Christian Marriage website, or the DM, said something about it in the pub, then there was a whole chain of 'chinese' whispers, ending in OP and her mates having a scandalised natter in the park, all "Did you hear? They're abolishing mums and huns!" and the others going, "Noooo!" then racing off to paste it up on Facebook...

So do you have any idea about what the ECM legislation says? Because it may help you to know that they haven't actually published it yet...

That's right, noblegiraffe.

Go on, OP, put us out of our misery. Tell us what it is you are TALKING ABOUT. Where did you get this information?

I feel like I've stepped in a puddle of crazy...

What a fab misrepresentation of Dawkins.

All kinds of wrong but I can't move past this bit "while they love their adopted mums and dads, it's definitely not the same"? - How do you know? How do they know? Where is the control study?
My DH and his sister were adopted as babies - they have one experience of childhood and parental love - the one they had with their adoptive parents...so how would they know it wasn't the same. Also the same as what exactly?

And then all the rest of it - there is some evidence (as in there have been studies) but it is far from irrefutable. And I don't object in the least, so there you've met plenty of parents that don't agree with you now.

Not entirely certain still what I'm not agreeing with in ti's entirety as it seems to shift about a bit. It is not explicit as it seems based on fabrication and a general dislike of 'the gay'.

at Gnu

WTF is ComRes?