Posted on 03/02/2009 10:25:46 AM PST by yankeedame
Family values were under attack again last night with the news that single women having IVF will be able to name anyone they like as their baby's father on the birth certificate.
New regulations mean that a mother could nominate another woman to be her child's 'father'. The 'father' does not need to be genetically related to the baby, nor be in any sort of romantic relationship with the mother.
... The word 'father' may even be replaced with the phrase 'second parent'....who will...will take on the legal and moral responsibilities of parenthood.
This raises the spectre of a legal minefield...
The regulations are part of the controversial Embryology Bill...will give lesbian couples...the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
...The new rules state: 'The women... can consent to any man or woman being the father or second parent.' The only exemption is close blood relatives.
Critics said the change would lead to the role of father being downgraded to the one of godfather and warned that the child would be the one to lose out.
...'It probably will be the child that is the loser but by the time we find that out, in 15 or 16 years, a huge amount of damage will have been done.'
...Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said... 'The present Government seems not to care a damn about families.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Bill Gates will be VERY popular.
Genealogy nightmare ping
Popular next to Warren Buffet I suppose.
genetic genealogy might be the only way to unravel the subsequent mystery.
No Barack Obama will be the number one pick.. He will rule the world through his chosen children.
so, they can name *anyone* as a parent and they’re legally obligated to the child?
how long before someone tries to name a random millionaire as a father and try to get him to pay child support?
Truth isn’t what it is. It’s what whoever has the most guns says it is.
LOL
Obama is about to be the father of a million kids in the UK. Who needs a real father anyway, Obama can take care of them all.
Women have been naming whoever they want on their babies’ birth certificates for a long time. Every time somebody does a DNA study to find out what percentage of babies were actually sired by the father on their birth certificates, this is made abundantly clear. At least one study (limited to a particular hospital, IIRC) found 30% of the babies weren’t genetically related to the man listed as “father” on their birth certificate”.
I think we have finally moved beyond Huxley and Orwell.
Their political fiction was tame compared to the real (left-wing) world.
More nonsense from the once great nation of England. In the U.S. women try to get any man’s name on the birth certificate in the hopes of a shakedown - that practice is frowned upon here, but England is in the midst of national suicide or so it surely seems to reasonable people.
“Women have been naming whoever they want on their babies’ birth certificates for a long time.”
As I have posted about before, I was named as “father” by a lady on a BC that I had NEVER MET. She saw me in a newpaper and thought I looked wealthy and nice.
She went to prison/welfare and suddenly idiots at the Texas Secretary of State’s office, child support division came looking, demanding money.
One lovely lady acting for the State told me that “she hoped I brought my toothbrush” because I was going to get thrown in jail for non-support.
Took a lawsuit, a forced DNA test, and thousands of dollars to get my name cleared. I also had to deposit the back child support -— which I got back, without interest and a fee for the pleasure of them taking my money.
Mrs. MWT was thrilled, and it took a real toll on our marriage.
(And yes, I got to depose the bitch, who admitted she never met me. I was unable to get a judgment against her for fraud, however, for various unsundry reasons.)
I wonder how many there will be in line for the British crown.
Can you just name Prince Charles and have your child be fourth in line to be king or queen?
We need to drop the whole archaic concept of requiring men to support children that they never committed to support in advance. It’s a throwback to an era when women were presumed to be incapable of supporting themselves. Women have access to contraception and abortion, as well as educational and career opportunities unlimited by gender. If a woman has a baby, supporting it should be 100% her own responsibility, unless the father or some other party contractually agreed in advance to help support it. As long as government is still unwisely involved in the marriage business, marriage might be construed as such a contract, absent a separate written agreement specifying otherwise.
Mama’s baby. Daddy’s maybe.
Calling up down will be allowed...also, down can be called up.
I've long been a supporter of "choice" for men. If the man hasn't married her (or if he is married but the baby is not genetically his), then he should not be liable for support unless the mother gets his signed voluntary agreement in advance.
I am not sure I would be willing to go that far, as it takes two to tango, but I do agree that the pendulum has swayed too far.
I got out of my situation because I could pay lawyers tens of thousands of dollars -— and could deposit 13 years of back child support in the bank without blinking.
Others are less fortunate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.