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

Lord Patten framed the issue with admirable clarity: ‘If faced with a choice between the hope of adults to become parents or the welfare and best interests of a child, which all the research that I have seen indicates is helped by a father or a long-term male role model, I would pick the best interests of the child every time. That is why it is so very odd to provide that some children can be legally barred at conception from having one of these “fathers”. It seems as though the government now see fathers as rather curious creatures.’

It was perhaps a sign of what lies ahead in the Lower House that, on 10 December, Lord Winston, one of the strongest advocates of the Bill, invoked the image of ‘Nazi doctors’ in this context — those who ‘believed that what they were doing was in the interest of society’ but forgot ‘what was in the interest of their patient’. It is hard to imagine a more offensive comparison — as if there were even the most slender similarities between the doctors of the Third Reich and those clinicians who still believe that contact with a father figure is an integral part of a child’s upbringing.

It is astonishing that this should even be an issue. But it is — in the proposed removal of a few words from the law of the land. As Barack Obama has reminded us, words matter. If it truly believes in fatherhood, as its members so often assert, the House of Commons will at least have the courage to strike clause 14 (2) (b) from the Bill.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

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