Embryology Bill is wrong to devalue fatherhood

One of the most controversial elements of the Embryology Bill is the ending of a requirement for test tube babies to have a registered mother and father.

A YouGov survey for the Centre for Social Justice finds overwhelming support for the idea that fathers shouldn't be written out of the law.  See Mail on Sunday report.

YouGov found that eight out of 10 people believe a child has a right to two parents and that six out of 10 believe that a child should have male and female parents.

Iain Duncan Smith said:

“This move by Gordon Brown has huge symbolic significance. It will not make any practical difference to lesbian and gay couples, but if passed it will send a dismissive message about the family and about the importance of fathers in the upbringing of children. We should be including fathers in; not including them out.”

Other poll findings:

• 61% believed that it was very important or fairly important for children to know the identity of their biological parents. Only 10% said it was not important at all.
• 79% said that there should NOT be an absolute right enshrined in law for everyone to have an IVF child if they wish.
• Only 24% thought that the law should recognise the partner in a same-sex couple who has a child through assisted reproductive treatment in the same way as a biological parent.

The video below from Passion for Life makes the case that 'it takes balls to be a father':

Comments

[NorthernMonkey]

So what you're saying is basically you don't want lesbians to raise children. Nice to see you're still the true nasty party at heart.

If you accept lesbians can adopt children with no father figure then why not accept that they raise children on their own without having to adopt?

IDS saying "It will not make any practical difference to lesbian and gay couples" - erm, well how about the fact that lesbian couples will be able to raise their own kids as a couple? IDS once again showing he fails to understand the situation.

[Malcolm Dunn]

'So what you're saying is basically you don't want lesbians to raise children'- Northern Monkey.
I know this government has been responsible for significant dumbing down of educational standards but you should really learn to read Northern Monkey.

[Andrew Gilbert]

It is vital that the content of this hugely significant Bill is determined by the outcome of relevant research. The overwhelming body of evidence shows that children do better being raised knowing their origins and enjoying a good relationship with both their parents. This evidence must be allowed to prevail over political correctness and the inordinately powerful influence of the liberal media. The interests of the child and the wider impact on society of family dysfunction should take priority over the reproductive concerns of adults.

[NorthernMonkey]

Okie doke Andrew, so presumably you'll be supporting a ban against ginger people breeding since it has been proven that most ginger kids get picked on at school because of their hair colour and suffer a lower quality of life? Will single, unmarried mothers be banned from breeding too if the father doesn't show up after conception?

If anything, I'd say gay couples probably make better parents than your average straight couple given that gay couples cannot have a child by accident. No child ever growing up under a same-sex couple will ever be 'unwanted'.

[Tony Makara]

As a father myself I know how fatherhood completely changes us as people. The moment I became a father something unexpected happened, I suddenly realised that I has become a link from one generation to the next, that I had created a life. From that moment on my entire perspective on life changed and I began to worry about the world my child would inherit, I began to look beyond my own life and swore I would do anything within my abilities to make the future better, not just for my child, but for every child. Since that time I've come to realise that we do not exist in a bubble and that everything and everyone is interconnected.

Children needs fathers as fathers need children. The family unit is a living organism and is the building block of society, just as society becomes the nation. To bring children into this world without roots, without a knowledge of their past, is to rob them of the joy that comes with a sense of belonging. We often see on TV the facination that people feel when they trace their family tree, this is a natural healthy tendency to belong, to be a part of something bigger, something as old as time itself. I believe we are driven by instinct far more than we realise and that we need to fulfill these drives to be truly contented. The drive to belong is fundamental to humankind, a person that does not have roots will be forever alienated and the quality of their life and that of their descendants will suffer as a result. A child must always be able to trace its parents, to know where it has come from, this is a basic human need.

[Richard]

"So what you're saying is basically you don't want lesbians to raise children. Nice to see you're still the true nasty party at heart."

Well apparently only 24% of the population seem to agree with you. Does that make the remaining 76% mindless bigots?

[Richard]

"Okie doke Andrew, so presumably you'll be supporting a ban against ginger people breeding"

It can't come soon enough.

(That was a joke by the way)

[Atlas shrugged]

This Bill is so profoundly nasty/evil that there is little point in selecting particular parts of it for further comment. I will however try to do so.

We have fast become The Great Satan, that are Muslim brothers have long since accused us of being. This bill is all and ONLY about assisting elitist corporate power in their long held plan to create a Third Reich inspired super 'human' one day in the not so distant future.

These vast corporate powers will make normal reproduction almost impossible. Which they have already gone a long way in achieving. Thus human reproduction will become yet another corporate monopoly. Where only babies deemed likely to be obedient to the worlds corporate structures will be allowed to exists. Then only to those rich enough to afford to have off spring at all.

You have been warned. However I do not expect this warning to make the slightest difference to the ultimate outcome.

[Andrew Gilbert]

Northern Monkey - I'm not interested in 'people being banned from breeding'. But we need to recognise the declarative effect of law as well as its immediate practical impact. Removing the reference to consider the need for a father will send the wrong message at a time when the importance of fatherhood desperately needs emphasising. Trying to argue a parallel with red-haired people breeding is to totally misunderstand the issue. Come back when you have a proper argument.

[Sean Fear]

"So what you're saying is basically you don't want lesbians to raise children. Nice to see you're still the true nasty party at heart"

What we're saying is that bringing a child into existence with the intention that the child's father should play no part in the child's upbringing is both selfish and irresponsible.

Something which is obvious to anyone other than the most bigoted Labour activist.

[Gareth]

Is the best argument you can out forward that a poll in the Daily Mail indicates that most of the public share your prejudices? Poor show Tim, poor show.

[Richard]

"Is the best argument you can out forward that a poll in the Daily Mail indicates that most of the public share your prejudices? Poor show Tim, poor show."

But surely if we have to be in trouch with "modern Britain" then there is nothing wrong with having majority support on our side? Or should we only be "in touch" when you happen to agree with them?

[Gareth]

Yes Richard, that's exactly it. You've got it spot on. I think all moral arguments should be based on opinion polls. Nothing more. Ever.

[Richard]

"Yes Richard, that's exactly it. You've got it spot on. I think all moral arguments should be based on opinion polls. Nothing more. Ever."

I don't think you've quite answered my point. We've been told we have to become more in touch with "modern Britain" to win an election. But when it turns out that "modern Britain" still has some fairly small-c conservative instincts we're suddenly told that we should ignore them. Which makes it seem as if those saying we should become more "in touch" really mean "the Tories should represent what I believe". There's nothing wrong with that, I'd just appreciate it if the so-called "modernisers" could be more honest about it.

[Gareth]

Your 'argument' is based on a fallacy. Namely, that the only reason to be in touch with what you quaintly term, 'modern Britain' is to garner votes.

[Richard]

"Your 'argument' is based on a fallacy. Namely, that the only reason to be in touch with what you quaintly term, 'modern Britain' is to garner votes."

Well, what's your reason for being in touch with "modern Britain" (and that's a term I use because the modernisers have tended to use it)?

I thought the whole reason the modernisers wanted us to be in touch was to ensure we could win an election when previous "reactionary" policies had failed!

And if there is another reason for being in touch, why does that exclude being in touch on issues that you don't agree on?

[Libertarian]

The Editor is assuming that the mother knows who the real father is when the birth is registered. That, in practice, is not always the case.

I agree with Northern Monkey that the tone of the article is anti-gay. The comment by IDS on lesbian couples is disingenuous.

The real issue is who brings the child up and the values that they teach it. A person who brings up another man's or woman's child is taking on significant additional responsibilities.

I thought that Tim had ditched his old CCF-Cornerstone bigotry but it appears that he hasn't.

[Peter O]

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether two lesbians or two gay men are able to raise a child. The issue is to do with whether we want to start to engage in biological fantasy by creating children who we pretend have no father.

Many gay parents do a fantastic job of raising their own, or adopted/fostered kids, but that isn't the problem here. The problem is that the state is attempting to distort basic biology and allow children to be conceived with no regard to the supplier of the semen. It is a simple natural fact that children have one biological father and one biological mother. To put two mothers or two fathers on a birth certificate is a nonsense - it's lying.

All the research shows that children raised within married relationships do better than children raised outside of those relationships. That's not to say that many single, cohabiting and gay parents do an excellent job, but do we want what's good for our most vulnerable or do we want the best?

I blogged extensively on this a month or so back. That piece is worth a look.