Throwing the baby out with the bathwater ...
British society has changed a great deal in the past fifty years. People are organising their lives and families in a greater range of ways, and the law needs to reflect that. But one thing which has not changed is the needs of children for a secure upbringing.
It is all too easy for those on either side of any political or social debate to pay lip service to the need for the law to protect the interests of children but fail to recognise that sometimes this will mean things which interfere with their cherished ideas. This applies to hardliners on both sides in the debate on gay adoption and it applies to yesterday's vote on whether fertility clinics should be required to take account of children's need for a father.
The majority in the present parliament who voted to remove that requirement argued that they were removing discrimination against lesbian couples. Unfortunately they were throwing a baby's genuine needs out with the bathwater of prejudice. This law is a bad mistake and will need to be reconsidered in the next parliament.
I do not support discrimination against gay people, and there is no "but" at the end of that sentence. I believe that the need for children to have a secure upbringing applies whether their parents are gay or straight. And wherever possible, that should include a parental role model both of their own gender and the opposite gender. They will grow up to live in a society which is roughly 50% male and 50% female: they will need to get on with people of both sexes. It is particularly helpful that boys should have a positive role model for how adults of their own sex should behave.
This is not an anti-gay point or an argument that the state should stop gay people having children. There are plenty of same sex couples who have found ways to bring children into the world, often by an arrangement with a same sex couple of the other gender, and it is no business of government to stop that. Under the existing law many IVF clinics do provide assistance to such families, and they are not breaking the law because it is quite common for both the biological parents to be involved in raising those children.
Where a government or private clinic helps bring children into the world, they have a duty of care to those children. Considering the needs of those children for parental support from both sexes is a positive part of that duty of care. Yesterday's vote to remove that requirement will not advance the cause of gay rights and it will harm the interests of the prospective children.
It is all too easy for those on either side of any political or social debate to pay lip service to the need for the law to protect the interests of children but fail to recognise that sometimes this will mean things which interfere with their cherished ideas. This applies to hardliners on both sides in the debate on gay adoption and it applies to yesterday's vote on whether fertility clinics should be required to take account of children's need for a father.
The majority in the present parliament who voted to remove that requirement argued that they were removing discrimination against lesbian couples. Unfortunately they were throwing a baby's genuine needs out with the bathwater of prejudice. This law is a bad mistake and will need to be reconsidered in the next parliament.
I do not support discrimination against gay people, and there is no "but" at the end of that sentence. I believe that the need for children to have a secure upbringing applies whether their parents are gay or straight. And wherever possible, that should include a parental role model both of their own gender and the opposite gender. They will grow up to live in a society which is roughly 50% male and 50% female: they will need to get on with people of both sexes. It is particularly helpful that boys should have a positive role model for how adults of their own sex should behave.
This is not an anti-gay point or an argument that the state should stop gay people having children. There are plenty of same sex couples who have found ways to bring children into the world, often by an arrangement with a same sex couple of the other gender, and it is no business of government to stop that. Under the existing law many IVF clinics do provide assistance to such families, and they are not breaking the law because it is quite common for both the biological parents to be involved in raising those children.
Where a government or private clinic helps bring children into the world, they have a duty of care to those children. Considering the needs of those children for parental support from both sexes is a positive part of that duty of care. Yesterday's vote to remove that requirement will not advance the cause of gay rights and it will harm the interests of the prospective children.
Comments
Thats a bit more important
Abortion is always a tragedy, particularly late abortion. It is most undesirable on all sorts of grounds - including the health of the mother - that anyone should get the idea that abortion is a satisfactory form of contraception.