Gay Couple Wins Right To Amend Child's Birth Record
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
It makes things very confusing. What about a straight couple who uses a donor egg - what should the birth certificate say? Ideally, a birth certificate should be a factual, say scientific, document. It just shows that we have to change our thinking to keep up with science and technology.
I find this particular case interesting, because it raises some interesting questions about the subject.
I posted this as it is pertinent to the child.
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.
__________________________
I am sure the legal guardians are registered. Be they same sex or not.
And yes it does raise a lot of questions, but I still think that birth records should not be altered.
Speaking of birth certifcate changes, my stepfather adopted me when I was five. My birthname, as listed on my birth certificate, is my stepfather's last name.
But not to confuse that with birth record which holds more information.
But not to confuse that with birth record which holds more information.
Why? Why would you care? It was a donor egg, carried by a surrogate non?
As I said, this case is a bit different. Personally I think there should be a record of the donor for scientific purposes. I don't care if Ralph is listed as the legal Mom.
I posted this as it is pertinent to the child.
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.
__________________________
I have no issue with them being the legal parents of the child. I just don't believe the birth certificate should be falsified.
Wasn't it falsified in the first place, when it listed the mother who wasn't?
Clearly Bill is not the Mother. If it wasn't the woman carrying, it should have been the egg owner.
Only way it wasn't if it was Bill's egg. That would be a pretty neat trick.
Again, this has nothing to do with John and Bill's right to have a kid (I fully support that right). The name on the birth certificate also has nothing to do with legal responsibility for the kid (I would assume that there were legal documents saying such with this type of arrangement). Clearly this legal document now bears blatantly false information.
Did you read the article? If you did, then have someone else read it to you and explain what was written, because you don't have a clue.
"Bill" is not listed as the "mother".
He is not the "other parent" biologically either. Obviously they just crossed off mother and wrote in "other" lacking a better term,
No, they didn't. He was listed on the first BC as well as the amended. The only difference between the 2 is that the first listed the surrogate as the mother and the judge covered that quite well in her reasons.