Page 17 | Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

SapphosRock · 2023-07-21T10:16:45+00:00

Great article from Kathleen Stock. https://unherd.com/2023/07/lesbian-mothers-should-be-on-birth-certificates/ It is surprising to me that anyone who supports women's rights would oppose lesbian parents having equal rights to straight parents. From the article: Naming a second lesbian parent on a child’s birth certificate is a family-friendly move. Arguably, if you squint a bit, it’s even a socially conservative move — though agreeing probably depends on whether you take, as your baseline, a society where lesbians will have children anyway; or whether you think of it as a cultural aberration that could, with discouragement, be stopped. Either way, putting a second lesbian partner on a birth certificate officially defines and legitimises her parenting relation within the family, allowing the burdens and joys to be shared between two adults, and adding a second layer of protection for the child. Family stability is important for good childhood outcomes, and this measure seems to provide some.

Triplemove · 23/07/2023 06:38

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 00:22

Two things. Firstly, this whole discussion should be child centred. This discussion, in my opinion, is about naturally conceived children and children conceived through unnatural medical intervention and how they both should have the same rights - the right to know the truth about their biological parents, to have relationships with them if possible, to be able to trace their genealogy and the right to have an accurate recording of who they themselves are on their birth certificate- whose womb they came from and whose genes they carry - their genetic mother and father.

Secondly, since it is pretty new to use donors and unfortunately, the ethics surrounding donor gametes to create human beings has not been considered up until this point in the rush to meet and exploit adult demand and scientific curiosity, it means that these things need to be sorted out asap. Because if not now, then when?

The birth certificate should continue to have the mother who gave birth, without question, this is key for identifying who an individual is, but where a donor egg has been used, I believe there should be an additional section of the birth certificate to clarify this, for the sake of the child, and to have the name of the genetic mother, (although this woman would not be the ‘legal mother’) written there. This would be the same for all mothers who have used donor eggs, of all sexualities.

I don’t believe people who are neither genetically related or who have not given birth to the child should be on the child’s birth certificate. In the case of using donor sperm, then that person should be named in this new optional ‘donor’ section, I am imagining, as the genetic father.

Now, because the nature of a heterosexual couple conceiving a child naturally means that a woman can deceive a man about his paternity or a man can lie about paternity, it means there is a loophole for heterosexuals, when registering a birth, which enables couples to deceive or lie about the paternity of the child if they choose to, without compulsory paternity DNA testing, for registering births. I don’t believe that there should be compulsory testing. People should continue to be trusted to be truthful.

The fact that nature and biology enables heterosexuals to deceive about paternity when registering a birth, if they choose, this should not be framed as a ‘right’ for heterosexuals to fabricate and deceive on a birth certificate, which lesbians should also have an ‘equal right’ to. The goal is for the truth and accuracy of the child’s identity. The child’s rights are paramount.

Show quote history

You just can’t say, in good faith, “it’s about the children, but we’re gonna let 85% of donor conceived kids slip by, because testing is insulting to straight people”

then it’s not about the children, it’s about the gays.

i understand you are doing doing the mental gymnastics to justify your own (perhaps unconscious) homophobia, but that’s what it is.

Triplemove · 23/07/2023 07:15

WildUnchartedWaters · 23/07/2023 01:15

@Triplemove thanks for explaining that and sorry for being flippant. I find peoples responses very frustrating and it caused me to jump too quickly, I'm sorry.

Totally understandable. It’s frustrating to see so much homophobia in the guise of children’s rights.

Comments like @Brk make it really clear that the backlash is here, and lesbians are being completely othered, conflated with and viewed as the big gender bogey man, instead of just fellow women and mothers.

flaffydaffy · 23/07/2023 07:20

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 00:22

Two things. Firstly, this whole discussion should be child centred. This discussion, in my opinion, is about naturally conceived children and children conceived through unnatural medical intervention and how they both should have the same rights - the right to know the truth about their biological parents, to have relationships with them if possible, to be able to trace their genealogy and the right to have an accurate recording of who they themselves are on their birth certificate- whose womb they came from and whose genes they carry - their genetic mother and father.

Secondly, since it is pretty new to use donors and unfortunately, the ethics surrounding donor gametes to create human beings has not been considered up until this point in the rush to meet and exploit adult demand and scientific curiosity, it means that these things need to be sorted out asap. Because if not now, then when?

The birth certificate should continue to have the mother who gave birth, without question, this is key for identifying who an individual is, but where a donor egg has been used, I believe there should be an additional section of the birth certificate to clarify this, for the sake of the child, and to have the name of the genetic mother, (although this woman would not be the ‘legal mother’) written there. This would be the same for all mothers who have used donor eggs, of all sexualities.

I don’t believe people who are neither genetically related or who have not given birth to the child should be on the child’s birth certificate. In the case of using donor sperm, then that person should be named in this new optional ‘donor’ section, I am imagining, as the genetic father.

Now, because the nature of a heterosexual couple conceiving a child naturally means that a woman can deceive a man about his paternity or a man can lie about paternity, it means there is a loophole for heterosexuals, when registering a birth, which enables couples to deceive or lie about the paternity of the child if they choose to, without compulsory paternity DNA testing, for registering births. I don’t believe that there should be compulsory testing. People should continue to be trusted to be truthful.

The fact that nature and biology enables heterosexuals to deceive about paternity when registering a birth, if they choose, this should not be framed as a ‘right’ for heterosexuals to fabricate and deceive on a birth certificate, which lesbians should also have an ‘equal right’ to. The goal is for the truth and accuracy of the child’s identity. The child’s rights are paramount.

Show quote history

You want the donors to be named on the birth certificate. If you totally removed anonymity from sperm donation hardly anyone would donate it, and lesbians would have a much harder time having children. Is that a price worth paying?

bellinisurge · 23/07/2023 07:33

Whatever the rule is for straight couples who used a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, it should be the same for gay and lesbian couples. However, in both cases, the child should also be able, if they wish, find out, at least, that there was a third party or parties involved in their conception. And preferably who that person was. This information doesn't have to be on their birth certificate but it should be accessible.
Can't we work something like that.

Original poster

SapphosRock · 23/07/2023 07:34

Please can someone explain how it would benefit a child to have her mother's rapist on her birth certificate because I'm struggling to see it?

OP posts:

Original poster

SapphosRock · 23/07/2023 07:35

bellinisurge · 23/07/2023 07:33

Whatever the rule is for straight couples who used a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, it should be the same for gay and lesbian couples. However, in both cases, the child should also be able, if they wish, find out, at least, that there was a third party or parties involved in their conception. And preferably who that person was. This information doesn't have to be on their birth certificate but it should be accessible.
Can't we work something like that.

This is exactly what we have in the UK! Exactly that.

OP posts:

bobbicunliffe · 23/07/2023 09:02

flaffydaffy · 23/07/2023 07:20

You want the donors to be named on the birth certificate. If you totally removed anonymity from sperm donation hardly anyone would donate it, and lesbians would have a much harder time having children. Is that a price worth paying?

Show quote history

I disagree. I'm a lesbian who's followed discussions about donor conception and it's led me to be against anonymity. The way it functions today, there are kids out there with way too many half-siblings, they don't know their medical history, the ethical issues are too much in my opinion. (My niece was concieved through anonymous donor, if it turns out she deals with conflicting thoughts about this i'll support her the best I can).
That being said, better rights for donor concieved children as well as legal rights for different types of families can coexist. When lesbian parents were notified that they'd be taken off legal documents, but heterosexual parents of donor concieved children didn't, that was homophobia.

bobbicunliffe · 23/07/2023 09:05

Anyway kudos to @SapphosRock for dispelling myths in this thread. It's baffling that people who haven't bothered to check what the law is and why are shouting about this. Maya Forstater's lawyer Anya was really good on twitter about this as well.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 09:16

Triplemove · 23/07/2023 06:38

You just can’t say, in good faith, “it’s about the children, but we’re gonna let 85% of donor conceived kids slip by, because testing is insulting to straight people”

then it’s not about the children, it’s about the gays.

i understand you are doing doing the mental gymnastics to justify your own (perhaps unconscious) homophobia, but that’s what it is.

Show quote history

You have a very fixed interpretation. You can’t see this for what it is.

Mothers who give birth are the ones register that birth of the human being they gave birth to. This is the same for mothers of any sexual orientation. This should continue to be the case.

I am suggesting that, where a donor egg is used, this woman should also be documented, for the child’s benefit, in an additional information section of the birth certificate (so that all children’s birth certificates equally show whose womb they came out of and also who their genetic mother is, if that person is not one in the same).

Currently fathers do not need to be on birth certificates in order to register birth. I think this should continue to be the case, because it would not be practically possible to obtain the consent of all fathers to be on birth certificates, and insisting on this information could slow down registration of the birth which needs doing asap.

However the goal should be to have all of the information, for the child’s benefit, so if a formal sperm donor is used, where medical/legal agreements have been signed, the mother should present the information to the registrar and the genetic father should be named in the ‘donor’ section as the genetic father. This would be the same for women of all sexual orientations who register births of their babies.

I believe that only biological parents (the woman who gave birth is still biological, if not genetic) should be on a birth certificate. This means that where a sperm donor is used, then the ‘father’ should not be named on the main part of the birth certificate, there should only be an entry in the additional section for donors as the genetic parent. This would be the same for couples of all sexual orientations.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 09:21

flaffydaffy · 23/07/2023 07:20

You want the donors to be named on the birth certificate. If you totally removed anonymity from sperm donation hardly anyone would donate it, and lesbians would have a much harder time having children. Is that a price worth paying?

Show quote history

I think being named in the additional ‘donor’ section of the birth certificate, should protect donors from being sought for child support, so they would not need to remain anonymous.

Ideally the child should have all the information about who they are. Since it is possible for lesbians to use donors informally, then it is possible to have ‘father unknown’ on birth certificates, just like heterosexual mothers.

DonorMum · 23/07/2023 09:33

Donors via U.K. fertility clinics are not named @TangledRoots. I don't think they need to be either. They all have a donor number and the HFEA know their name. This is released to the child at 18 if the child wishes. It is not the parent's decision. I cannot find out the name of my donor unless my child chooses to tell me.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 09:38

DonorMum · 23/07/2023 09:33

Donors via U.K. fertility clinics are not named @TangledRoots. I don't think they need to be either. They all have a donor number and the HFEA know their name. This is released to the child at 18 if the child wishes. It is not the parent's decision. I cannot find out the name of my donor unless my child chooses to tell me.

I think this needs to change. Donors shouldn’t be anonymous.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 09:45

I don’t think people should be shielded from the magnitude and enormity of what they are doing when they donate their gametes - just so that they are more willing to do it - to meet the demand. It’s unethical.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 09:50

I am also horrified to think that a mother who uses a donated egg does not have the right to know whose egg it is. It could be someone she knows, it could have been obtained unethically. It’s a huge deal bringing a person into the world and the birth mother should also be fully informed about it.

ScrollingLeaves · 23/07/2023 09:52

I think there will soon be problems from people ending up with future partners who are actually relatives without knowing it, especially as not all donors go through official agencies and some are very keen on spreading their genes.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 09:55

ScrollingLeaves · 23/07/2023 09:52

I think there will soon be problems from people ending up with future partners who are actually relatives without knowing it, especially as not all donors go through official agencies and some are very keen on spreading their genes.

Indeed. Especially since some individuals may be the genetic parents of hundreds of children. I heard that there can also be sexual attraction between people who have been separated from their bio relatives from birth and then meet them as sexually mature adults. This increases the risk.

DonorMum · 23/07/2023 10:02

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 09:45

I don’t think people should be shielded from the magnitude and enormity of what they are doing when they donate their gametes - just so that they are more willing to do it - to meet the demand. It’s unethical.

Your suggestion is much more likely to fuel the trade in illicit sperm donations, resulting in much greater likelihood of situations where men have 200 children.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 10:04

DonorMum · 23/07/2023 10:02

Your suggestion is much more likely to fuel the trade in illicit sperm donations, resulting in much greater likelihood of situations where men have 200 children.

Show quote history

Then the illicit trade needs to be discouraged.

Original poster

SapphosRock · 23/07/2023 10:21

ScrollingLeaves · 23/07/2023 09:52

I think there will soon be problems from people ending up with future partners who are actually relatives without knowing it, especially as not all donors go through official agencies and some are very keen on spreading their genes.

Donors can donate to up to a maximum of 10 families. All this info is available to the child when they reach 18 and sometimes before if registered on the donor sibling registry.

OP posts:

ChokkaQuokka · 23/07/2023 10:23

DonorMum · 23/07/2023 10:02

Your suggestion is much more likely to fuel the trade in illicit sperm donations, resulting in much greater likelihood of situations where men have 200 children.

Show quote history

Now you’re grasping at straws.

In Australia at least, there are limits on how many families many one donor can donate to. From memory, it’s five.

Appropriate regulation of gamete donation addresses your concern. There is no need for birth certificates – a public document that confirms the existence and identity of the child – to be the vehicle for enforcing such regulation. You’d have to search millions of birth certificates to check. That’s just not practical. And it exposes family matters to public view unnecessarily.

Ask yourself if you were worried about a perm donors not being named on birth certificates prior to you learning that lesbian non-birth mothers were named.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 10:31

I have been worried about anonymous gamete donation, surrogacy, the child’s rights for a long time. Long before Italy made this move.

The fact that this seems to be on the increase - this demand-fuelled industry, riding on this spurious ‘right’ to have a child, which infers a ‘right’ to opposite sex gametes and ‘right’ to use a womb. It is becoming more urgent to do something about it.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 10:34

We are still reeling as a society from young women being pressurised to hand their children up for adoption and adoptive parents being able to conceal the truth from their children about who they are.

Now the same thing is happening with the rise in gamete donation and surrogacy.

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 10:37

In the past it was ‘embarrassing and shameful’ to have father unknown on a birth certificate. Still happened though.

So what if it is embarrassing and shameful for the truth to be on a birth certificate where donor gametes are used?

QueenoftheNimbleFlyingCat · 23/07/2023 10:56

TangledRoots · 23/07/2023 10:34

We are still reeling as a society from young women being pressurised to hand their children up for adoption and adoptive parents being able to conceal the truth from their children about who they are.

Now the same thing is happening with the rise in gamete donation and surrogacy.

We have always had adoption certificates though so the concealment was the parents choice. The same for heterosexual couples with donations - this would be easy to conceal.

In a lesbian couple it would be harder to conceal as it is quite obvious that you need a sperm donation which is available to children when they get to 18.

I'm still undecided around the ethics around gamete donation but let's not pretend the recent hand wringing about this is anything but homophobia as this has been happening for years with heterosexual couples.

DonorMum · 23/07/2023 11:17

@ChokkaQuokka - I think you're quoting the wrong person. @TangledRoots thinks there should be no donor conception unless the donor is named on a child's birth certificate.

I agree with you that the protections provided by the HFEA and the equivalent body in Australia provide protection to DC children. They do not need to be named, it serves no purpose. They are traceable and that's what matters.