The abolition of fatherhood

29 March 2008

The Spectator on the Government's handling of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

To date, the government’s hand-ling of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has resembled what might be called ‘Vicky Pollard politics’. Challenged to grant MPs a free vote on these far-reaching and ethically contentious proposals, the Prime Minister’s officials sent hugely confusing signals: ‘Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah.’ Now the Prime Minister has finally conceded that Labour MPs will be able to vote with their consciences on three key issues: the striking of the phrase ‘need for a father’ from the rules governing IVF treatment; so-called ‘saviour siblings’; and the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos.

The condition is that they step into line and support the Bill as a whole on its third and final reading. So party discipline will still trump moral freedom. But this compromise — messy both in origin and character — seems to have headed off the threat of ministerial resignations, which was Mr Brown’s prime concern.

The fraught politics of this Bill should not obscure its content, much of which is deeply disturbing. The granting of (limited) free votes must be the start of the controversy, not its fudged conclusion. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a legislative package whose moral sweep and potential ethical consequences could be greater.

What matters is that the coming debate is framed correctly. While it is true that churchmen have — quite understandably — led the attack on the legislation, this is not intrinsically a doctrinal struggle. Predictably, the more vociferous champions of the Bill have tried to present the argument as one between ignorant superstition and enlightened progress. But this is wholly misleading.

First, one does not have to believe in a deity or subscribe to any religion to feel grave doubts about the procedures proposed in this Bill. Take the prospective licensing of research on ‘human admixed embryos’, composed of both human and animal material. Naturally, Catholics find this an appalling notion. But many atheists and agnostics are no less troubled by the notion of such biological hybrids.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

David Lindsay

March 27th, 2008 5:18pm Report this comment

Splendid stuff!

Lisa

March 28th, 2008 2:58pm Report this comment

Problem is, so many men these days like to enjoy the pleasures of sex, whilst stalling their lady friend for as long as possible in the settling down / baby department...until she finally clicks that she's gonna have to go for it alone. Sometimes, women are stalled for so long in these half-hearted arrangements that fertility treatment is necessary. Fertility technology SHOULD be available to single women, they've very often done their absolute level best to marry themselves off in (what was) the usual way! To unwilling or cynical long-term partners, who bail at baby-making code red. It's a pity only wealthy women can look at this option seriously. Recent society (that means you, guys) has really let an awful lot of women fall through the cracks in the family formation aspect of life.

María-José Ugarte

March 30th, 2008 3:11am Report this comment

As David Lindsay says,'Splendid stuff'. Yes, the article is splendid. The idea - or fact - of the Government proposal abhorrent.
As my human logic tells me (I am not a scientist) a man must cooperate in the manufacturing of an embryo.
It always happens that all powerful and almighty men (are they synonymous?)and women allow people to suffer their decissions, while THEY are comfortably living a luxurious life? Why don't they go themselves to the Battle Field ? Why don't they coopare themselves with the fabrication of hybrids and bring home the resuts?: If it looks like an animal, they can have it as a pet. If as a human, adopt it with loving care.
María-José Ugarte

Post comment