Dead Babies getting birth certificates

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by JWithers

But as PP said, on a living child's birth certificate, you are required to list ALL previous births, living or still. So why is this such a weird thing? If they aren't real, why do you have to put them the living child's document?

I would assume it's because the document is concerned about the women giving birth, not what she gives birth to. But I don't know.

-Rudey

[JWithers]

Originally Posted by Rudey

I would assume it's because the document is concerned about the women giving birth, not what she gives birth to. But I don't know.

-Rudey

You mean like maybe a London Broil? Did you really just post that?

[AGDee]

My birth certificate and those of my kids are titled "Certificate of Live Birth", which we shorten to birth certificate when we refer to it. The name of it would have to change if it was not a "live birth". I do know that, in Michigan, there is a set gestational age for the necessity of naming a baby and issuing a death certificate in the case of a miscarriage/still birth. I'm not certain what the cut point is but the number 32 weeks is in my head.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by JWithers

You mean like maybe a London Broil? Did you really just post that?

Yes I did and as emotional as your comment may be, it's not valid and you know it. Perhaps a medical condition can arise from having too many births. Whatever it is. But whether the baby is alive or dead, or a long broil wouldn't matter in my mind. Forcing the government to do that is paramount to trying to get validity for a particular belief. And to me, that belief is disturbing because as James points out I find it strange that you celebrate a baby that is dead with a scrapbook and more. And as much as I want to say we're all entitled to our opinions, getting the government involved makes my opinion null and void.

-Rudey