Long Form?

I have been present in the delivery room for the arrival of three brand new human beings.  A wonderful experience!

The first thing that happened after the new arrival announced its arrival with a full throated protest and all the digits or lack of thereof had been determined, was the sight of the doctor and delivery nurse applying dark ink to the new arrival’s foot and pressing the foot to a document called a “birth certificate.”  This was done so that the name that was later entered onto the document and attested to by those who have witnessed the foot being applied to the document could be matched to a particular human being.  I was told that this was so that the new arrival’s parents and circumstances of birth could be verified at a later date.

Now, I could have signed an affidavit that I had seen that same child’s birth at that same time and that would be good evidence in a court of law that the birth had actually occurred in a certain manner, but the affidavit without that footprint would not and could not be proof positive that the birth had actually occurred as sworn.  The affidavit, which could be called a “certificate of live birth” could be a forgery written at any subsequent time.

I don’t see how any “certificate of live birth” without any proof from the one actually born attached to it could be considered a “long form birth certificate” or how, without an extensive hearing in a court of law, it proves the circumstances of a person’s birth.

It seems to me that a certain person’s birth circumstances are as unexplained now as they ever were.

This entry was posted in Today's Misinformation. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.