"Birth registration discriminatory"

On one hand the women are the parents,on the other hand only one of them worked on concieving the baby.IDK

 

I think the birth certificate should state only the biological parents. *shrugs* Despite what she says, it's almost exactly the same as adopting a child. She has no biological connection. It shouldn't really be a problem. Just adopt the kid already.

After all, sometimes you need to know the biological parents for medical reasons, I'd have thought.

 

Interesting scenario. It's great that this can even be considered an problem to be resolved here! I can see that someone that is legally married to the birth mother wouldn't think that they would need to adopt the baby. At the same time, it's obvious that they weren't both involved in conceiving the child, so hard to say what the right answer is...

 

I'd be interested to know what the situation would be like for a same-sex couple in which the father is not the biological father.

 

Birth certificates should state the biological parents names only. If they ever need to do testing or genetic screening, what better pace to get the connection than through a birth certificate? There are a number of diseases that require knowing family histories for treatment: bilogical family, not adopted family. I would hazard to call this a non-issue. So adopt the child. Technically, she isn't the child's parent regardless, and should have to adopt the baby anyways...

 

But you could claim, really, that the biological father hardly did any "work" on conceiving the baby (vs. the bio mother).

 

Well that's the thing... if they were husband and wife, he wouldn't have to adopt the child, so why should two women?

The problem is that birth certificates have covered two areas in one before now: they covered medical/biological issues AND legal issues. Before same-sex marriage (and indeed before in-vitro and adoption and surrogacy), your biological parents were also always your legal parents. Now that's not necessarily the case, in our very modern world, so really you have to ask what is a birth certificate really used for? Legal parentage or biological? I think in the modern world, the major concern is who is LEGALLY your parent (for instance in terms of accessing citizenship rights you may inherit from one or both parents, or for decisions in which your parents have to be consulted, or crossing borders) not who is biologically your parent.

I mean obviously no one's biological parentage should be discarded and forgotten... but does it belong on a birth certificate, which is primarily a legal document? It would make more sense for your biological parentage to be in your medical record(s).

In this particular case, the two women are going to raise the child as a couple, so why should one of them be at a disadvantage over the other or have to jump through more hoops than the other? They are spouses, and if your spouse has a child, that child is generally your child and in most cases would be legally your child without any adoption going on, unless it was a child who predated the spousal relationship.

Because seriously, parentage is so much more than who came out of whom and who squirted what into who's body.

 

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

may be off topic but tht has 2 be quote of the day

 

Yeah, well you are right on the conceiving part.
But what about the gay (male) couple.
It's harder for them to get one name.
What about both being recognized as parents?​