Gay Couple Wins Right To Amend Child's Birth Record

[Liberalman]

Gay couple wins right to amend child's birth record

Gay couple wins right to amend child's birth record - Saskatchewan - CBC News


What do you think?

Is this the right way to go?

Good luck to the offspring generations from now doing the family tree.

Accuracy of records is there for a reason.

Changing facts is creating a slippery slope.

The parents meant well but the gestational carrier has to be included on the birth certificate just in case of health complications later in the childs life.

 

[lone wolf]

So ... uh ... how's that work with adoption?

...but I do agree about keeping birth records as correct as can be known.

 

[Liberalman]

So ... uh ... how's that work with adoption?

...but I do agree about keeping birth records as correct as can be known.

With Adoptions one would know that one is adopted

 

[lone wolf]

How does it work with surrogates? Ann Onimus could be a popular name....

 

[TenPenny]

In this case, the woman carried the baby to term, but was not the biological mother (ova was from an anonymous donor), so in reality there is no biological connection between that woman and the baby.

 

[Liberalman]

In this case, the woman carried the baby to term, but was not the biological mother (ova was from an anonymous donor), so in reality there is no biological connection between that woman and the baby.

The bonding process starts with a baby in the womb so it is the biological mother.

When the baby is born then the life mother takes over who then loves and raises the baby.

 

[SLM]

In this situation the woman who carried the child should not be listed in the birth records unless they want to create a "surrogate" category.

It's not as if they are altering records to change the facts, simply to reflect the facts more accurately.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

The birth certificate is supposed to reflect who the biological mother and father are. Not who the legal guardeans are or who has custodial rights.

 

[critter171]

oh mygod you people are so ridlcious over this. she agreed to carry the baby from them. they ask the court to change court agrees with the reason. therefore its there child not hers. stop being haters of teh same sex. grow up

 

[lone wolf]

oh mygod you people are so ridlcious over this. she agreed to carry the baby from them. they ask the court to change court agrees with the reason. therefore its there child not hers. stop being haters of teh same sex. grow up

Yes Mummy....

 

[taxslave]

It would appear that the legal system has some catching up to do with technology.

 

[Goober]

In this situation the woman who carried the child should not be listed in the birth records unless they want to create a "surrogate" category.

It's not as if they are altering records to change the facts, simply to reflect the facts more accurately.

We know that a pregnant woman will pass to the child such things as birth defects if misused, alcohol, drugs, etc. That is what we know so far. We do not know what else can be passed thru the cord to the baby. What will science learn in the next 20 years. The child should have legal access to all medical records, the person who donated the ova, the sperm and the surrogate mother.

 

[SLM]

So ... uh ... how's that work with adoption?

...but I do agree about keeping birth records as correct as can be known.

The birth certificate is supposed to reflect who the biological mother and father are. Not who the legal guardeans are or who has custodial rights.

We know that a pregnant woman will pass to the child such things as birth defects if misused, alcohol, drugs, etc. That is what we know so far. We do not know what else can be passed thru the cord to the baby. What will science learn in the next 20 years. The child should have legal access to all medical records, the person who donated the ova, the sperm and the surrogate mother.

Then what is required, I think, is to update the information and information categories to reflect this relatively new means of conception and of carrying a child.

What goes on the birth certificate if a woman goes to a sperm bank? Does anyone know?

 

[Goober]

Then what is required, I think, is to update the information and information categories to reflect this relatively new means of conception and of carrying a child.

What goes on the birth certificate if a woman goes to a sperm bank? Does anyone know?

That is in or just finished at the court level in BC - Records were owned by the Doctor who only had to maintain them for a short period of time - Not sure on the time length.

 

[TenPenny]

The bonding process starts with a baby in the womb so it is the biological mother.

When the baby is born then the life mother takes over who then loves and raises the baby.

I don't think you understand the concept of 'biological mother'.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

What a bunch of PC crap! If you adopt a child or are a same sex parent you would do well to get over your own insecurity and not try and revise the birth history of your child.

 

[Goober]

What a bunch of PC crap! If you adopt a child or are a same sex parent you would do well to get over your own insecurity and not try and revise the birth history of your child.

Pretty hard to rebut that one.

 

[TenPenny]

What a bunch of PC crap! If you adopt a child or are a same sex parent you would do well to get over your own insecurity and not try and revise the birth history of your child.

How do you define 'mother'?

Where the egg comes from, or who carries the baby during pregnancy? Since they are not necessarily the same.

With cattle, when an embryo is implanted, it's the donors of the egg and the sperm that are recorded, because that's where the genetics come from.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

How do you define 'mother'?

Where the egg comes from, or who carries the baby during pregnancy? Since they are not necessarily the same.

With cattle, when an embryo is implanted, it's the donors of the egg and the sperm that are recorded, because that's where the genetics come from.

First of all, the birth Mother was a female, not a male. The record of who the birth mother should be a matter of record for a number of reasons mostly health--in the event the child may have to trace their birth mother. I don't care if a same sex couple wants to adopt, if they are loving parents who provide a safe environment power to them. I just find the revision completely unnecessary and dishonest.

 

[TenPenny]

First of all, the birth Mother was a female, not a male. The record of who the birth mother should be a matter of record for a number of reasons mostly health--in the event the child may have to trace their birth mother. I don't care if a same sex couple wants to adopt, if they are loving parents who provide a safe environment power to them. I just find the revision completely unnecessary and dishonest.

In this case, the egg came from another woman, so the birth certificate as originally written was wrong anyway. it wasn't her egg, so she wasn't the mother.