The two women who signed his birth certificate are his actual parents. Not his biological ones, not the two poor saps who mixed DNA, but the two that plan on raising the damned kid. And those are the only parents that matter.
Sure, they are the only parents that matter ... unless you are a scientist looking to do any sort of family genetic research ( ever gotten curious exactly who gave you that red hair ? ), and hoping that the Government maintains accurate data, rather than data signifying legal guardians...
But that's not the kind of data I want the government to have. I don't want The Nazis Of The Future™ to exterminate everyone who has a Jew in their ancestry 3, 4, or 5 generations back. You keep your own genetic records (it IS a big Nordic pasttime) and I'll let the Government worry about things that matter for the governing.
And for reference, *I* was the one that gave me the Red Hair,
So, basically, you are for lying on legal documents?
The birth certificate does not provide accurate information. That's my whole gripe. It's a legal document.
It requires bits from a male and a female to produce a child. It is not possible for a boy to have two mothers (the sex bit comes from the male). It is possible for a boy to have two parents who happen to be female, but that is another issue entirely.
I think the issue here is that we are using two definitions of parents. The first definition has to do with parentage, the second definition has to do with who is actually raising the child.
Let me give an example: A girl is pregnant and decides she is giving the baby up for adoption well before the actual birth. When she gives birth, is her name listed on the birth certificate? If so, why? She won't be raising the child, and is therefor, by your definition, not the parent. Her name shouldn't be on the birth certificate.
Do you see where I'm going?
If the Birth Certificate, is allowed to have false information on it, then it is no longer valid and should not be considered a legal document. It has been a legal document for quite some time. It should be best guess as to actual parentage on the document. I'm not naive enough to think that women (or men) haven't lied in the past on these things, but I'm betting that they are mostly accurate. In the case of a sperm donation it should list Unknown donor if the name of the donor is not known.
Owner/parent/guardian of the little wriggler is irrelevant to the issue of the information that should be put on the birth certificate, and should be put on a separate document.
It's great that the state is recognizing gay couples as joint parents, but now that it is happening, it's got to be done with a form other than the birth certificate.
And I guess we disagree on what's important. Because I don't think your genetic makeup is more important than the people raising you. I think your parents are more important than your sire and dam.
In the case of adoption, the original birth certificate is sealed and a new one drawn up with the adoptive parents on it. The birth certificate IS the form where the state records the parents of children.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: I can't tell how serious you are.
Date: 2004-07-17 07:05 am (UTC)If it doesn't list the actual parents, then it shouldn't list parents at all if it's not going to be valid information.
Turnaround.
Date: 2004-07-17 08:10 am (UTC)The two women who signed his birth certificate are his actual parents. Not his biological ones, not the two poor saps who mixed DNA, but the two that plan on raising the damned kid. And those are the only parents that matter.
Re: Turnaround.
Date: 2004-07-18 02:27 pm (UTC)Jón Tómas
well, maybe.
Date: 2004-07-18 03:05 pm (UTC)And for reference, *I* was the one that gave me the Red Hair,
Re: Turnaround.
Date: 2004-07-19 08:12 am (UTC)The birth certificate does not provide accurate information. That's my whole gripe. It's a legal document.
It requires bits from a male and a female to produce a child. It is not possible for a boy to have two mothers (the sex bit comes from the male). It is possible for a boy to have two parents who happen to be female, but that is another issue entirely.
I think the issue here is that we are using two definitions of parents. The first definition has to do with parentage, the second definition has to do with who is actually raising the child.
Let me give an example: A girl is pregnant and decides she is giving the baby up for adoption well before the actual birth. When she gives birth, is her name listed on the birth certificate? If so, why? She won't be raising the child, and is therefor, by your definition, not the parent. Her name shouldn't be on the birth certificate.
Do you see where I'm going?
If the Birth Certificate, is allowed to have false information on it, then it is no longer valid and should not be considered a legal document. It has been a legal document for quite some time. It should be best guess as to actual parentage on the document. I'm not naive enough to think that women (or men) haven't lied in the past on these things, but I'm betting that they are mostly accurate. In the case of a sperm donation it should list Unknown donor if the name of the donor is not known.
Owner/parent/guardian of the little wriggler is irrelevant to the issue of the information that should be put on the birth certificate, and should be put on a separate document.
It's great that the state is recognizing gay couples as joint parents, but now that it is happening, it's got to be done with a form other than the birth certificate.
Yes, I see where you're going.
Date: 2004-07-19 08:37 am (UTC)In the case of adoption, the original birth certificate is sealed and a new one drawn up with the adoptive parents on it. The birth certificate IS the form where the state records the parents of children.