Not even science fiction foresaw the end of fathers

John Patten

3 May 2008

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill seeks to end the child’s right to a father figure, writes John Patten, ignoring all sound research in its obsession with ‘discrimination’

Such discrimination against men who are fathers thus fails to give either respect or equality of esteem to one of the sexes. So malign signals are to be deliberately sent out about the lack of value fathers may provide to an artificially conceived girl or boy. We should signal rather that fathers are vital to the health and moral wellbeing of the next generation, to affirm that this timeless role must not be written out of the parenting equation incrementally. Above all that the state must not conspire against a child in its inherent state of weakness.

We all salute and admire mothers — and a bit more rarely, fathers — who have to bring up families alone. Voluntary organisations, local authorities, government and the churches strive to offer support. But finding oneself or choosing to be a single parent is very different from deeming as father unnecessary. Our rulers are trying to railroad through a provision by the force of the Whips that ensures children may be brought into being by science but then promptly denied a father by politicians. This example of what we might politely term ‘misthinking’ is cheered on by the usual bunch of jobbing philosophers. They have dreamt up a brand new construct called ‘broad utilitarianism’, a.k.a. anything goes that satisfies the wishes of adults or the thrilling excitements of science, uncomfortably reminiscent of H.G. Wells’s animal and human hybridist on The Island of Dr Moreau murmuring. ‘I went on with this research just the way it led me...’.

Yet there are hosts of other clinicians, sociologists and criminologists who laud the role of fathers, who stress the necessity of a ‘father figure’ as a vital part of a child’s upbringing. Bizarrely, some suggest that the very idea of a child having a father would be discriminatory of itself. Even if it were, then that measure of discrimination is justified by the welfare of the child, which makes it proportionate.

It is in turn more than justified by both current judicial and social policies which stress the spiritual and practical benefits that fatherhood brings to offspring. It is equally justified by the rare and unusually settled research-based academic consensus that shows the benefits of having a father or male role model in a way that even a government might notice. The list is formidable, with life chances being enhanced in every way, from better health, education and future earning power to far less criminal behaviour.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: John Patten | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

pj

May 1st, 2008 8:07am Report this comment

'Not even science fiction foresaw the end of fathers'
Er, except it did in countless novels & short stories usually going on to explore the dystopia that resulted. I do however recall one novel from the 70's feminist press that thought it was a good idea....

Dwight Vandryver

May 1st, 2008 11:49pm Report this comment

Judging by the Jeremy Kyle show, it would seem that a child's right to a mother figure should also be denied. Never mind, in the not so distant future, as Huxley forecasted, we will all emerge from Hatcheries by a process of decanting. Babes will be reared by suitably qualified personnel, and after 18 years, the model citizens will be able to enter a mature, stable and unthinking society: the ultimate nanny state - how New Labour must be looking forward to its coming!

Hereford

May 6th, 2008 11:03am Report this comment

Actually Science Fiction did see the end of fathers - Who Needs Men, Edmund Cooper 1974

David Kay

May 7th, 2008 7:34pm Report this comment

The corollary must be that mothers are also not to be essential for a child - unless ths is not a provision of the Bill in which case it is discriminatory. A Spectator rant unfortunately - does anybody know what the real situation is with the Bill?