Home > The Magazine > The Week

Wednesday 9 July 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Liz Anderson

Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

The abolition of fatherhood

Wednesday, 26th March 2008

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

Secondly, the sheer zeal of the scientific lobby has gravely undermined its claim to be representing pragmatic progress. On the question of hybrids, for instance, it is far from clear that this research — exciting, no doubt, to scientists — is as urgently needed as has been claimed. In his evidence to the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Bill, the government’s own Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, said that ‘there was no clear scientific argument as to why you would want to do it, and, secondly, a feeling that this would be a step too far as far as the public are concerned... the scientific arguments for wanting to do it are not particularly strong or convincing, or even existent’.

The debate on the Bill in the House of Lords between November and February foreshadowed the vehemence with which such reservations will be dismissed by the legislation’s advocates when it reaches the Commons. Baroness Warnock championed ‘the positive moral imperative upon government to allow research to continue’, as if that imperative were self-evident, and the need for a ‘broad utilitarianism’. Yet Lord Brennan came closer to the truth when he said that ‘control may give people confidence, but an ethical framework will give them trust... Humility before hubris in science is a wise approach.’

This principle will serve MPs well as the legislation comes before them. They should pay particular attention to clause 14 (2) (b), which has not received as much attention as the science-fiction prospect of human-animal embryos, but is of no less social significance. The proposed amendment is a moral disgrace disguised as a modest anti-discriminatory measure. In IVF treatment, there will no longer be the recognition in law of the ‘need for a father’: only for ‘supportive parenting’.

Ministers argue that it is wrong to expect doctors making clinical decisions regarding single women and lesbian couples to ‘discriminate’ against them by taking into account the likely presence of a father or father-figure in a child’s life. The Archbishop of York described this aptly as ‘the removal, by design, of the father of the child’, or, as Baroness Deech put it, ‘a fresh statement to the effect that a child does not need a father. It sends a message to men, at a time when many of them feel undermined as providers and parents.’

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

David Lindsay

March 27th, 2008 5:18pm

Splendid stuff!

Lisa

March 28th, 2008 2:58pm

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

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

Letters

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

Diary

Penny Smith

Penny Smith gives a rundown of her week

The NHS needs its Reformation

The Spectator on reforming the NHS

Glasgow East is Brown’s dirty little secret: a hideous, costly social experiment gone wrong

Fraser Nelson

Glasgow East symbolises — as few other places in Britain can — the fact that the problem Labour faces is not just lack of leadership but lack of mission. What is to be seen in this constituency encapsulates and dramatises Labour’s abject failures to comprehend, let alone tackle, the nature of the poverty which grips our council estates.
For all the latest on the Glasgow East by-election, visit Coffee House