Fathers, IVF, Lesbians etc
What is your view of what we discussed?
You can read more
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
London Clinic for Women (Harley Street) boasts in its brochure of providing the best service for lesbian couples in terms of success rates. They are not the only IVF clinic to treat lesbian couples openly. Therefore, why are we having a debate when private clinics are already doing what they want, despite the strict HFEA rules.
I was brought up by my father, didn't know my mum.
I think you don't need parents, they screw you up, why not let the state raise us ?
That way, we are all conditioned the same way, we won't need religion to condition us - we would be trained to be model citizens and defend our country against all the disorder religion and parents bring.
Dickie Burnett
The Cardinal is correct. When two ladies can produce an offspring, then perhaps I will change my view.
The Equality Act 2006 and Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 mean that as clinicians we are not allowed to discriminate against people of differing sexual orientation. Civil partnership between same sex couples is now legal. We are therefore left with little choice in offering treatment to same sex couples and the proposed amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act will merely bring it into line with present legislation. This does not mean we have to abandon the welfare of the child as our main prerogative when offering treatment to a couple or a single woman
Peter Bowen-Simpkins
Medical Director
London Womens Clinic
How much do men disgust these women, that they would prefer a medical procedure to that of the love of a man?
Does anybody here remember why eugenics was condemned by most western societies? And if you can, will you explain why fatherhood should be regarded as disposable?
I firmly believe that the ideal situation for children is a family with a mother and father, although circumstances may change after the birth of the child.
However, I do object to a woman who decides she wants a child but does not the subsequent involvement of the father. (I know people who have done this)
Similarly, I do not feel it is right for a lesbian couple to have a child.(and I am not particularly happy for my taxes to be spent on IVF in such cases) Men are constantly being sidelined and this is surely leading to problems. If things continue, men will feel they have no positive role to play in society. Men and women are equal but different. Let us acknowledge and celebrate it, not dismiss men as fertilisers only.
NB I am female and have no religious beliefs.
Ken (3):
I would say that when the Cardinal becomes a parent *then* he can lecture others on how they produce children.
Like I said in the glassbox, the Catholic Church has no standing to discuss this subject at all, until they finally come clean about the far too many pedophile priests it has allowed to remain in the Church over decades.
Even apart from that, why is their bigotry against lesbian mothers allowed to be spread? We rightly complain when Muslim preachers spread hatred against gay people, why tolerate it from Christians?
David Irving! I am at a loss to understand why intelligent people would even listen to him. Far from "encouraging free speech and debate", this only serves to heighten the profile of a discredited "historian". I believe the time for "debating" the facts of the holocaust is long past and those academics who believe they will somehow blunt the arguements of holocaust deniers serves but to show how divorced from reality the are! I have no doubt that Irving will trumpet his appearance at Oxford for all it is worth, by adding it to his website resume. Small wonder that the bin Ladens of this world laugh at us in the West!
I'd say let's keep the religious bigots out of this, whether it's Christian law or Sharia law they want. We've already seen the RC church in Scotland putting pressure on RC MSPs to vote the way the Bishops want - and it's time we put a stop to it.
Sid
The Stainless steel cat ( 5)
The fact that two women cannot produce a child is exactly the point.
Two lesbians having a child and raising it is entirely different from the issue of single parents in two key respects:
1. It is not biologically possible for two women to have a baby, hence the helping hand of technology and a male donor;
2. being a single parent is an ex post facto situation, parents could separate, one parent could die and so on, it is entirely different from not having the male parent as a considered act before conception.
SSC @ 5, and if he forwarded its interests in any way we could have a debate about nepotism. :-)
I wonder sometimes why we get into such a taking about creating more and more children to fill up this not-so-empty island. At least if it is done thriough other agencies than the NHS it is being paid for by the people who benefit directly, rather than by all of us, is one way to look at this. And these children may even pay tax and help to support the rest of the population as it ages, so it's not all negative, is it?
This catholic cleric tells us we shouldn't do anything to promote children being born without a father.
Isn't this doublespeak when he goes around trying to stop people using contraception or aborting unwanted children?
I am a man; I am not a father; BTW I am not gay. Within my community of friendship, and my immediate neighbourhood, there are many, many single mothers managing very well to bring up their children without the involvement of (sometimes useless) fathers. It is true that some of the boys suffer from the lack of a role model, but in many of those cases the biological father would be a destructive presence anyway. The idea of a family headed by two women is not strange to me either, and I rather approve.
This is not to sideline men. If they are motivated, men can play many useful roles in helping to raise children within the community; those children do not have to be their own progeny. In our modern cities this is tricky, due to the erosion of trust; fortunately I live in a compact urban London community where I have come to know my neighbours well. From fixing bicycle tyres, to helping with homework, to discussing the ways of the world and personal problems, I've been able to contribute to the lives of children from 4 to 18 years old and see them into University too. And for several years I lived with a lesbian lady, and looked after her kids every day.
I support the view of "The Stainless Steel Cat" (#7) regarding the Cardinal's qualifications to speak on this subject. Indeed I would have expressed it in a more earthy fashion were that not to be a temptation to have this contribution barred.
For life, for love, for children and young people; for maturity; and for men-women relationships beyond patriarchy ...
Conrad
To those who say "it is not biologically possible for two women to have a baby" - do you object to IVF for heterosexual couples who would otherwise be unable to have children? To sperm/egg donation where one partner is infertile? To adoption?
Would you object if technology were developed so that it was possible for an embryo to be conceived from the genetic material of two women?
It is indeed not possible for two women to have a baby without involving technology. Giving the example of a hetrosexual couple who need IVF is a straw man argument. It compares a situation where a 'defect' is corrected through technological intervention and in the case of two lesbians there is 'inherent' incapability without technological intervention, it becomes a comparison of norm to them exception.
I don't get it. Last year we had a ruling that said its no longer possible for men to donate sperm anonymously.
Presumably then men are an important factor to be recognised in the process. Does this get limited to purely medical reasons? I think not.
I have a real problem with the proposal in this case. We've seen in study after study that family values are important especially in raising children. So why do we have legislation undermining this position?
I know single parents both mothers and fathers who are in their position though either death or divorce and in all cases they seem to wish that things were different for them, so whilst there are successful single parents they are fewer in number.
Moreover though, I am concerned to see another move towards babies being seen as a commodity, a possession, coveted by anyone and everyone.
If a couple (male and female) can not conceive naturally then there is a case for medical assistance to come to their aid, but this is where I would draw the line. If you have an alternative lifestyle then that is the path you have chosen and like every choice in life there are consequences. Its sad but you can't break the laws of nature in the interests of forcing an artificial sense of fairness.
I was brought up by a straight couple - a foolish & thoughtless father and a vicious, selfish mother. I am still paying the price for their 'parenting', however heterosexual and normal they were otherwise.
I believe sex or sexuality is no guide to parenting skills (or just being decent humans for that matter).
I would gladly have swapped my parents for any others provided they could do a better job, and who they liked to have sex with be damned.
I almost get the impression that some people just hate certain subgroups and will do whatever they can to get at them - and if that means damaging children by depriving them of good (though possibly homosexual) parents then that is the price of enforcing one's religious dogma.
This presents a serious threat to the gender based power that men have had for so long and which all religions uphold.
The cardinal's bleetings are possibly patriarchy's swan song.
To borrow from T.S. Eliot, "Not a bang, bang thank you mam, but a whimper"
;-)
N (19) : I am in total agreement wih your view here. the sexuality of a parent has NO link to their ability to be good, caring, loving and considerate parents. There are thousands of heterosexual couples whose parenting skills are simply dreadful ... partly, I believe, because many parents are living a lie - especially when heterosexuals stay togther "for the sake of the children" - what utter hypocrisy - setting an example of living a lie.
If a lesbian couple are going to all the the effort, pain, expense and potentially endless disappoinment to undertake IVF this says so so SO much more about their desire to parent a child that all those heteroesexual couples who get pregnant "by mistake" and decide to keep their child.
What makes individuals like this cardinal talk about parenting ?... it would be like me trying to dictate how the church is run - I know nothing about it thus am in no position to speak authoritatively on the subject.
Oh and yes I am a single (female) parent as the father of my (planned) child proved to be impossible to live with BUT is a fabulous part-time father. My fantastic child would not have been created without him .. but that doesn;t mean we (my child and I) have to be miserable tolerating him for the rest of our lives.
@ 21 - ...or he tolerating you.
JimmyGiro (22), That was rather unkind -- do you even know Cake Maker? Why would you just have a dig at someone rather than challenging their views/postings?
Aperitif (23) - What's "unkind" for the goose is unkind for the gander.
But (24) what was unkind to you about what Cake Maker said?
Appers @ 25, can we be sure that Jimmy Giro isn't the estranged father of Cake Maker's child? :-)
(the 'malicious' thing seems to mean it at the moment, but experience indicates that 502 quite often doesn't)
Fishers (26), Well I did wonder -- which is why I aked if he knew her. Otherwise it just seemed rather harsh! :-)
Undue sensitivity, in my view. A throwaway remark of no signifigance
xx
ed
Blast medicine anyway! We've learned to tie into every organ in the human body but one. The brain! The brain is what life is all about.
-- McCoy, "The Menagerie", stardate 3012.4
Some of us have thicker skins than others Ed (28). And being sensitive to others' feelings is a good thing in my view.
Aye, but I suspect our Cakemaker can dish it out as well as take the odd (humorously intended, I suspect) throwaway...
I could be wrong, of course, insensitive clod that I am.
;-)
ed
QOTD:
"I've always wanted to work in the Federal Mint. And then go on strike. To make less money."