DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

[DustyLee123]

Can’t do links. Story about removing one mother from the certs where there’s two female names .

I’ll quote my own previous response to you:

Father = provider of small gametes.
Mother= provider of large gametes + possessor of the womb within which the baby gestates, and the body which supplies the stable conditions and necessary nutrients to grow to eventually be born from.

If a baby only has the mothers gametes, but not the more important, from a relationship perspective, experience of growing in her womb and being born from her, then it doesn’t have a mother in the truest sense. It merely has a female gamete provider and a father.

What are you even on about?
This is a really interesting thread with lots to think about, it's been going great so far so don't know why you're acting like you're in a playground.
If you have a problem with a poster, take it to dms instead of polluting the thread.

I agree that it would be a different certificate.

The birth certificate is the child’s identity document not an adult’s proof of ownership of the child.

Its arse-backwards to look at the birth certificate that way.

I know that the word ‘identity’ has been thoroughly abused of all meaning in recent years, but philosophically ‘identity’ and ‘identical’ mean ‘that very thing’ not ‘similar to’ or ‘feels as though it is’ or ‘self-defines as’.
The identity of a thing is that which makes it clearly and distinctly what it is and that it is not something else.
The way we establish a person’s identity is the spacio-temporal location where they were born, their given name, and the mother whose womb they came from. All those things make it clear we are identifying one unique individual who can’t be confused with anyone else.

Again, the birth certificate is meant to show who the biological parents are.

Yes, men who are not the fathers are on the but also yes, that's wrong as well

There are so many children now whose birth certificates do not reflect their genetic origins.

If the birth certificate isn't to reflect that, what's it for? I've used my children's to prove my 'ownership' of them - that I have parental responsibility and can make decisions on their behalf. But once a child becomes an adult, that purpose is gone and the document is supposed to be a record of heritage and origin.

I really think we need to revisit the whole thing. They no longer reflect the needs and reality of modern families.

Again, the birth certificate is meant to show who the biological parents are.
Again, this is your opinion. It's not necessarily correct and it's not necessarily what they should be used for. Hence the discussion.

The vast majority of children have birth certificates which reflect their genetic origins. There doesn’t need to be a revisit for everyone, only those people who use donors.

However there needs to be an ideal standard that reflects biological accuracy, and the natural family as closely as possible- not adding people who are not biologically related to the birth certificate and that any parental responsibility bestowed by a combination of birth certificate and adoption certificate is shared by a maximum of two people, otherwise you could get polyamorous communes and so on, where all the adults want to be on the birth certificate or adoption certificate, with shared parental responsibility for the child, which would in effect mean that no one had parental responsibility for them.

Come off it.

We are not plants spreading our gametes on the wind or waiting for insects to fertilise us.

We are not mouth-brooding fish.

We are not birds where females release eggs through her cloaca and then the parents take turns to incubate them.

We are mammals. What all mammals have in common is that the females give birth to live young, gestated in her womb, through her vagina and then feeds them milk produced by her mammary glands. This is the nature of mammalian motherhood.

@TangledRoots - yes I agree. But for those children to who it applies, their genetic origins should be recorded. There used to be a lot of people who didn't tell their children they were adopted and the vast majority of children who were donor conceived in the first wave weren't told.

I'm sure there are still thousands of children who aren't aware that they're not genetically related to their mother or father.

I see. Yes. I think it’s awful. Such a betrayal.

I agree that children should know but not necessarily from their birth certificate.

I was imagining a code so that the donor could easily be traced later when the child is 18 plus. So not genetic father = David Smith (donor) but more like genetic father = DONOR numberXXX, clinic ZZZZ.
So it’s clearly recorded that the genetic father (or mother) was a donor and the info is provided on how to identify them if the child wants to when they reach adulthood. I don’t think anonymous donation should be allowed - and actually it isn’t in the UK anymore.
And having spaces for genetic parents as well as legal parents doesn’t automatically mean it would be necessary or possible to name the genetic father if the mother is not sure who he is or if he wants nothing to do with the child. But then if you ask the father for maintenance and he accepts he could be recorded as the genetic father. Or if a DNA test is done. This is exactly how the system works currently anyway. You can leave the father off if you’re not married but he can request to be added, and if he does get added he is given parental responsibility. If you have a system where all info is recorded then it would obviously be the legal parents who have parental responsibility, always, and the rules on how that works don’t necessarily need to change. So Donors through a clinic don’t get parental responsibility, married spouse of the mother (gestational? genetic assuming no donor? People have different opinions on this) would automatically be given legal parent status.
They are currently some big holes in how the system works anyway. Say there is a married heterosexual couple and the wife has an affair and gets pregnant. Then the husband accepts the baby as his own BUT the biological father goes to court to request a DNA test then access to his child. I believe currently this would have to go through family court but the biological father could end up named on the birth certificate and given parental responsibility. I’m not sure what would happen to the husband’s parental status in this situation (as he would assumed to be the biological father and named on the BC, then replaced on the BC by the actual biological father).

I was imagining a code so that the donor could easily be traced later when the child is 18 plus. So not genetic father = David Smith (donor) but more like genetic father = DONOR numberXXX, clinic ZZZZ.
So it’s clearly recorded that the genetic father (or mother) was a donor and the info is provided on how to identify them if the child wants to when they reach adulthood.

The thing is, the key piece of information a child/adult needs is whether their legal parents are also their genetic parents.

DNA genealogy is making it ever easier to trace someone if you know there's someone to trace.

What I was imagining was a section called "genetic parents" under which "anonymous sperm donor" or "anonymous egg donor" and perhaps the clinic name would be listed for clinic donor conceptions.

For natural conceptions, you just have "as above" (the legal parents). For lesbian couples, or known donors you compete accordingly.

I think it is important for children conceived by donor parents to be able to easily trace, not just their own genetic heritage, but also to easily trace any genetic half-siblings they may have and to know how many. It’s also important for avoiding unwitting incest.

So maximum transparency is vital.

If this ever happens we will likely end up with a shit load of bag-gestated babies who grow up to become adults with personality disorders.

Only the babies made go order for wealthy commissioning ‘parents’ of course - us proles will carry on carrying our own and doing the actual labouring part of labour…

If being shipped off to boarding school fucked up the posh kids of the 20th century imagine how fucked up the bag-gestated babies of the 23rd century could be?

Now Imagine a Tory cabinet made up of the bag-gestated !

*shudder

I don't think it's inevitable at all. In fact, I think it's very unlikely. Did you read the article? It's not really an artificial womb, it's an incubator for premature babies - that developed inside their mothers.

she’s not speaking from being informed here about what the effect on women (whether LGB or S, married, civil partnered or single or LTR) or children’s rights would be if only biological parents on BC.
This.
It comes down to women.
It affects lesbian women.
Easy target.
One right taken away from LGBT people.
Trans rights in the news, now lesbian rights being taken away in some countries.
As you say, it doesn't just mean lesbians - if people are saying yes, all biological parents should be on there get all those single mums having a one night stand to list who they've slept with recently.
Of course you fucking wouldn't. Or would you?!
It affects us all, I'm.baffled to how some seem willing to give up rights for others when some of those same people would be happy to give up yours in a heartbeat.

It's not about the parents. It should be about the children. Posie is always, always thinking about the children.

As you say, it doesn't just mean lesbians - if people are saying yes, all biological parents should be on there get all those single mums having a one night stand to list who they've slept with recently.
Of course you fucking wouldn't. Or would you?!
It affects us all, I'm.baffled to how some seem willing to give up rights for others when some of those same people would be happy to give up yours in a heartbeat.

So if a child is conceived in a one night stand, it has no right to have a relationship with the father? Why, because it would tie the mother to some kind of interaction with him, and she might not like that?

In any case, the father in this scenario can request to be added to the bc, and the mother does not have a right to just refuse because that's what she prefers, you are quite mistaken that such a choice is a woman's right.

The option to not name the father exists mainly because some women don't know. And while there is some capacity today to investigate, until quite recently in those scenarios it was almost impossible to discover who the father was. It's pragmatic, not a principle.

As you say, it doesn't just mean lesbians - if people are saying yes, all biological parents should be on there get all those single mums having a one night stand to list who they've slept with recently.

Well no, not all the men - she will obviously need a DNA test to get the actual man who provided the sperm that made the baby

Tangential question: should a transman who gives birth to a child be listed on birth certificate as the “mother” or as the “father”??

Mother - because on a birth certificate ‘mother’ means ‘the human whose body this baby came out of’ (and not the woman whose egg was used and not necessarily the woman who intends to raise the child in the mothering role). Some very rich gay men choose to have surrogacy babies in countries that don’t have this rule in order to not have any mother listed at all (which I disagree with and would not like to see happen in the UK).

If the transman is the partner of the mother then they are currently able to follow the same rules as lesbian parents (which do have some limitations, eg the baby must’ve been conceived at a registered clinic) or if they have a GRC, they can follow the same rules as unmarried men who needed donor sperm due to male factor infertility or the traditional ‘married to the mum at the time at the time of the birth’ rule.