Children of gay parents also targets of discrimination.

[Japher]

like what racial slur to call them?

[rah]

not quite what I was thinking.

[Boris Godunov]

I think it's important for adoptive children to have record of their parents, at least to help them trace their origins.

Depending on the jurisdiction, this is specifically not a right of adopted children. In many places, the adopted children do not have access to their original BC as a matter of course, since in many cases they don't know they're adopted and their parents don't want them to know.

But the original BC is not destroyed, it's locked away and can still be accessed for any necessity. Sometimes the child can access it upon reaching legal adulthood, sometimes not.

If you accept the fact that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, that includes the right to raise their adopted child under the premise he is their actual child instead of adopted. In that sense, having a reissued BC is vital to their parental perogatives.

Then there also is the issue that the biological parent who has legally given up his/her child has the right to conceal identity and to not want to be contacted by that child, which would be compromised should the child have access to the original BC.

[Ben Kenobi]

Depending on the jurisdiction, this is specifically not a right of adopted children.

It should be their right. Their right to know their origins trumps the hurt feelings of the adoptive parents. Them seeking their biological parents is not a rejection of the adoptive parents, but is a natural impulse. They should have a right to access of their real birth certificate. This is their BC after all, and we have no right to deny them information kept on them.

If you accept the fact that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, that includes the right to raise their adopted child under the premise he is their actual child instead of adopted.

No, I don't accept that it is right for adoptive parents to lie to the children in their care. I think doing so is extremely hurtful, especially in the long run. This is the parents putting their needs and wants ahead of their child.

[Tuberski]

If you accept the fact that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, that includes the right to raise their adopted child under the premise he is their actual child instead of adopted. In that sense, having a reissued BC is vital to their parental perogatives.

The child is gonna figure out that both of his fathers can't really be his birth fathers. So, in this case, it's a faulty premise.

ACK!

[MrFun]

It should be their right. Their right to know their origins trumps the hurt feelings of the adoptive parents. Them seeking their biological parents is not a rejection of the adoptive parents, but is a natural impulse. They should have a right to access of their real birth certificate. This is their BC after all, and we have no right to deny them information kept on them.

Is this the first time in all the years on Apolyton OT that BK has posted something resembling a reasonable argument?

[rah]

While I agree that the child should have some rights in terms of being able to identify biological parents for medical reasons, I think the rights of the mother putting up a child for adoption have to be considered. If a mother desired to not be known to the child, and is not given that right, might she choose other alternatives, even possibly an abortion. So maybe by giving the child that right, we'd be encouraging more abortions.

[Ecofarm]

There's a difference between "parent not identified" and "parent changed".

The parent does not want to be identified? Fine. That doesn't mean we add someone else to the birth certificate.

[MrFun]

While I agree that the child should have some rights in terms of being able to identify biological parents for medical reasons, I think the rights of the mother putting up a child for adoption have to be considered. If a mother desired to not be known to the child, and is not given that right, might she choose other alternatives, even possibly an abortion. So maybe by giving the child that right, we'd be encouraging more abortions.

I have trouble believing this extreme example. A woman will choose abortion just because there may be a possibility that years down the road, the child will inquire about his/her biological parents?

On another note, almost two years ago, me and my siblings were introduced to our half-brother for first time. Also the first time he was reunited with our mother - she had given him up for adoption right after birth back in '60s. It was a birth outside of wedlock, which I guess had a strong tabboo attached to it at that time. This was before she and my dad had married.

[rah]

While I'll agree that it is somewhat unlikely, I don't think it is that extreme. I remember one study, (and yes, I don't have a link because it's from long ago) where they were asking women that were giving children up for adoption on how important that they didn't want the child to ever know who they were. (granted they feel differently later) Quite a few thought it was important enough that they wouldn't use the adoption option if they couldn't remain unknown. Now there's no way to assume that they would choose abortion as the alternative, but you never know.

[MrFun]

Sometimes people say they will do something, without fully thinking it through first, or realizing how extreme that action really is.

[Ecofarm]

Remaining unknown is a sidetrack. We are talking about changing names on a BC. Parents can remain unknown, but changing the BC so that fictional biological parents appear (treatening the child's health information) is totally different.

A parent can remain anonymous. Noone is arguing against that. People are arguing agaist inventing biological parents, on government documents, for fun and comfort.