Gay Couple Wins Right To Amend Child's Birth Record
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
she didn't provide an egg. She provided an incubator, that's it. As I said, the judge explained the reason for her judgement quite well. Why don't you and the idiot from Toronto read that and then come up with a good argument against her judgement. Unfortunatley for you, between the 2 of you, you are the only one with any brains.
I already know that and that is why I said this case differs significantly. My issue is that it sets precedent and for medical purposes that information could be a valuable asset down the road.
Gerry as you divine who has brains or not on this forum, you should be well qualified to answer the below points.
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.
So you are arguing against this based solely on a maybe/possibility down the road kind of thing and tough shyte to this particular couple.
Tough Shyte?
What is it that makes them so insecure that they must amend the documents that apply to the birth of their child? Yes I get the donor was anonymous, yes I get the surrogate was just an incubator, but at the end of the day that child will know that it is not the byproduct of a same sex union, so why is it necessary?
It's important to the couple that they are recognized as the parents. That's good enough for me. For same sex couples, this is a big thing. Something that is taken for granted by vanilla's. I understand perfectly why they would want that recognition on a legal document.
I think it was more important to acknowledge that the 'mother' wasn't actually the mother from a genetic point of view, but I don't know if that was their motivation.
Having two adopted kids, I don't put much stock in birth certificates, except as a formal record of birth date and place.
Whether or not the mother is listed, only John should be on the birth certificate. Genetically he is the father. There are plenty of kids with only 1 parent listed on their birth ceritificate. Bill has no biological relation to the kid. Legally, no issues.
And I can't tell you how little your personal opinion of me means.You can rest assured however, I have a simular opinion of you.
Just because everyone agrees to falsity the records, doesn't mean they should be faslified. There are important health and genetic facts being ignored.
How the gestational mother is not the biological mother is playing with words, translation: it's a lie.
How the gestational mother is not the biological mother is playing with words, translation: it's a lie.
Speaking of genetic facts being ignored, feel free to reread your last sentence.
Gestational mother was impregnated with ova from an anonymous doner - the biological mother. Storks really don't bring 'em y'know....
Whatever happened to full disclosure? So, it's not the standard situation of two parents making a person, it's more. So put on the birth certificate all the people that contributed to the creation of this child. Egg contributor and gestational mother are relevant here and should be included.
This is a case how the term biological mother is not what it was. In the old days the biological mother contributed the egg and carried the fetus for nine months. Technology now allows the role of biological mother to be split so she does not have all the jobs she used to do. So the definition of a biological mother has now changed and gestational mother does mean something.
One could guess the gestational mother in this case doesn't want the possible future trouble/hassle of adoption issues as she was doing the guys a favour and wants to be like the anonymous donor of the egg. Because if the donor can be anonymous, she figures, she can be anonymous too. So, I don't think the egg donor should be anonymous either.
Unless some means of creating a synthetic ova has been perfected, procreation will continue to be a biological process - whether it's male and female frolicking in the hay or in a test tube. I go along with full disclosure - or as full as can be known - if only for the sake of the kid's health. As far as anonymous donations go, as soon as they take away some unknown benefactor's right to remain unknown, donations start to dwindle. Would you donate blood if your name had to appear on the bottle? Would you accept blood if you knew the doner's skin colour wasn't the same as yours?
Blood and sperm/eggs are different. The latter makes children, the former keeps you alive, but all blood is now tracked anyway. All sperm and eggs should be ttracked too. The test tube baby industry wants anonymity because it's good for business, tough for them.
The carrier isn't of note any more so than the car seat the kid goes home in is. When it comes to birth certificates, the new paradigm should link the certificate to a file, with all pertinent genetic contributors listed there, but for the sake of travel, passports, etc., the parents who will be raising the child should be on the birth cert.
No shyte, Sure-lock.... re: the biology lesson.
How do you get full disclosure in the case of three guys jacking off into a turkey baster?
re blood: Can YOU tell whose blood is in that bottle?
This can be argued till the cows come home...but we all know that that this birth certificate was changed to project the illusion of normalcy, just like another legal document.....
Now waiting patiently for Gerryh to blow a gasket....;-)
Now waiting patiently for Gerryh to blow a gasket....;-)