KJK and the neo-nazis video

[niandraladesand]

Just wondering if anyone here has seen this yet and what you think of it

The child has the right to know where they have come from. If you watch programmes like Long lost family, you can see how important it is to know your parentage.
The birth certificate is for the child.
There are alternative certificates for same sex couples and adoptive parents. It is possible to have both.

IMO putting the child's needs and rights first is fundamental to parenting.

How many lesbian mothers do you know who have opted to put their child's sperm donor on the child's birth certificate instead of their partner?

Like it or not lesbians have equal rights and are able to do exactly the same as straight couples who use a sperm donor.

The birth certificate is the child's right. A baby is not a validation tool to be exploited for whatever agenda, they are a human being with their own rights. I'm not naive, I understand that not every birth certificate is a paragon of pure truth. However, for a parent to think the birth certificate is there to provide them with affirmation, completely ignoring the only one who matters in that situation, is a massive red flag. Sexuality has nothing to do with it before you dish out accusations, selfishness does.

I'm lesbian and in full agreement that a birth certificate belongs to the child and its first job is accuracy and reality, and children conceived by a donor have the right to know who that donor is and to have accuracy in their biological heritage that is a priority over the adults' wishes in the situation. The issue is parental responsibility, which is crucial, and it means as many pp have said that we need these days to have two certificates: one that gives the child's actual biological parentage, and the other that records adults with parental responsibility. In this sense yes, a gay couple are the child's parents and named as such, but the child's reality is not hidden under nice discretion to avoid upsetting adult feelings about parenting.

I asked this on the other thread but nobody has been able to answer.

Please can someone explain how it benefit's a child to have her mother's rapist recorded on the birth certificate?

What's that got to do with anything. We're talking about donor conceived children.

If it is so essential for children to have details of their biological parents on their birth certificates, I assume this is still the case if the mother is raped?

I'm really appalled you're using rape victims as some kind of gotcha.

I have a friend who would like to have the name of his mother's rapist on his birth certificate, as his mother died without telling him the name of the man who raped her.

Friend is now in his 60s and he still doesn't know who his father is. It's had a profound effect on him.

He's aware of how he was conceived but even so feels cheated out of his own family history.

I assume then you feel that there are circumstances in which it is ok to deny a person (who will be a child for a very small part of their lifetime really) the name and identity of their parent?

As a lesbian and a rape survivor I have biases and I am not a supporter of men's rights or rapists' rights. Yes even the rights of these men to be on their biological child's birth certificate.

In that situation you put "unnamed" in the box. You can record the information separately for the child to access at an appropriate age. That is being honest and preparing for the child's questions at a future date.
I listened to a solicitor talking about this on the radio the other night and my understanding is that it
is currently possible to have a separate document that records the birth mother's partner as "parent".

SapphosRock · Today 09:05

If it is so essential for children to have details of their biological parents on their birth certificates, I assume this is still the case if the mother is raped?

There was the case of a child conceived by the rape of his young mother in Rotherham whose father was deliberately involved in the child’s life by social services. It was appalling. I am not sure whether or not the law was changed after that.

Rapist fathers probably do end up with parental rights (especially as most rapes cannot be proven even though they actually happened). The mother can decide not to name the man on the birth certificate in order to delay them getting parental rights, but he could most likely get it through a court if there was ‘no proof’.

If they were married to the rapist then he’d automatically have PR.

is currently possible to have a separate document that records the birth mother's partner as "parent".

It's not a separate document, it's the birth certificate. My own kids have this. You think this right should be removed from lesbians? Like it has just been removed for lesbians in Italy?

Is there not the option for the mother to leave blank in this case? If not there should be. The mother's rights should always take precedence over the rapist's rights.

How is it hidden? Where the couple is lesbian and have used a donor, the child has a right to find out details of their donor at 18. We already have the system that people seem to be arguing for. Nobody is being deceived about anything and children are not being denied information about their genetics. The risk for deceit is far higher for heterosexual couples where the parents can opt not to tell the child they are donor conceived or where incorrect information about the father can be recorded.

I thought there was already a thread running about lesbians and a child's birth certificate? Might be good to keep the discussion over here? Although I'm happy to keep this batshit thread bumped with all the nuanced takedowns of the saddos who have KJK so clearly lodged inside their heads.

It's the child's right, not the parent's right. That's the point. You are supporting the right to deny a person their own information so that you can express disapproval at an adult by denying or confer their being on a birth certificate as a prize for the right kind of parents and people.

Hence as I said above, the need to separate the information the person has an entitlement to about their origins, and parental responsibility. I don't agree in adults making the birth certificate reflect what they want as an extension of their feelings and identity rather than it being something that belongs to their child free of the control and editing created by adults' biases and feelings and wishes. YMMV.

I don't mean that to sound uncaring about your experiences, I fully understand why you would want your rapist to be denied the privilege of involvement with your child or to have to tolerate the sight of his name on your children's documents, but it should be about the lifetime right of the person to know their origins and names uncomplicated by their parents situations.

In such sensitive cases perhaps situations such as for adoption about sealed information the child may access if they choose after the age of 18. The point is that I feel the situation needs to evolve and separate this information regarding parental responsibility and child's biological parents as things are very much more complicated and getting so very fast with surrogacy etc. It is important to me that adult wishes and feelings are not prioritised over the right of a person to their own information and history.

It is important to me that adult wishes and feelings are not prioritised over the right of a person to their own information and history.

Yes I agree.

I think the crux of it is some posters can’t see the nuances in the different types of LGBT families.

Mother wanting to appear on the birth certificate as father - unreality and no benefit to child.

Mother wanting her female partner to be named as the second parent - unconventional and does benefit the child.

Wholly agree.

A second certificate is now probably the answer. The one that goes in the file for the child in adulthood as wanted/needed, and the practical, functional one naming their adults with parental responsibility.

Inspired by KJK:

(Downfall parodies are my Georgia O'Keeffe door.) Trust me, you haven't seen one like this.

Jolly helpful link for retweeting.

Now this has been debunked, maybe ask for it to be removed?

Payout and apology from inewspaper and Patrick Strudwick for defamation
https://www.youtube.com/live/m21_LEX9KJU?feature=share