IVF father figure clause is to go (UK)

[Tyrael]

IVF father figure clause is to go

Last Updated: Thursday, 14 December 2006, 14:12 GMT

The government is to abolish the requirement for fertility clinics to consider the need for a father when deciding whether to offer treatment.


This means clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers out of hand.


The new white paper also says both partners in same-sex couples using IVF to conceive will now be legally recognised as parents.


It makes 25 proposals to overhaul outdated laws on assisted reproduction. It follows a public consultation exercise on the current 16-year-old law, which includes rules on what type of embryo research can be carried out.


Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly.


Launching the white paper, health minister Caroline Flint said: "The current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision.

"Technology has changed, and so have attitudes."


The changes


Couples are also to be banned from choosing the sex of their baby for non-medical reasons, such as "family balancing".


DIY home methods of sperm sorting into "male" and "female" would also break the law.


But they will be able to have embryos screened for serious genetic disorders, or to select one that is a suitable tissue match for a sick sibling.

Clinics will still be required to consider the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of treatment, despite protests that couples conceiving naturally do not face similar checks.

Scientists will be able to push forward research in some areas, such as altering the genetic structure of cells that make embryos, but have been banned from using any of such embryo to make a baby.


Similarly, scientists are prohibited from making chimeras - human-animal hybrids - but not necessarily forever.


The law will contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future.


Some of the proposed changes have been criticised in some quarters.


Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, criticised the removal of the need for a father reference saying: "It's a dreadful statement to make about the role of men. Fatherhood is much more than the donation of sperm.


"We can only hope that parliament will wisely reject the absurd proposal to do away with the child's need for a father."


Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed the removal of the need for a father clause.


He said: "It was unjustifiable, discriminatory and vindictive. It was also unsustainable in human rights and equality terms.


"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."


Anna Smajdor, researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College London, said: "While the removal of the specific reference to a need for a father is on balance a good thing, it still remains utterly bizarre that fertility clinicians should be responsible for making judgements about the suitability of people to be parents."


A spokeswoman from the London Fertility Clinic said he was concerned that banning sex selection for family balancing and social reasons would lead to more abortions.


"IVF of a wanted child is preferable," she said.

The proposals will be debated in Parliament before they can be passed as law.

Link

Giving evidence to the Commons science and technology committee in July, Ms Flint said: "We are considering whether the need for a father is something we need to have."

Children from broken families perform significantly worse in life compared to children from strong nuclear families. Such children won't learn many special things that only fathers can teach. They also lack discipline, because the mother can't keep the children under control, since she is too weak. Also the mother may attempt to act like a mother and a father in a effort to fill up the void due to the absence of the father. However it's not possible for a woman to know and act as a father, because she's a woman. The attempted performance of these two distinctly different roles of mother and father will result in failure.

On top of this there won't be a husband to divorce and steal half of his wealth.

This whole system would collapse if men stopped paying taxes. The tax incomes are partly used to support these stupid, single mothers. Men are responsible for most of the government's tax income and keep the system alive. Without men's support the system and society collapses.

The legalization of IVF opens the doors and gives the green light to artificial uteri, ectogenesis technology. Ectogenesis is the big, more complex cousin which will also become reality in the future.

[Tyrael]

IVF father figure clause is to go

Last Updated: Thursday, 14 December 2006, 14:12 GMT

The government is to abolish the requirement for fertility clinics to consider the need for a father when deciding whether to offer treatment.


This means clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers out of hand.


The new white paper also says both partners in same-sex couples using IVF to conceive will now be legally recognised as parents.


It makes 25 proposals to overhaul outdated laws on assisted reproduction. It follows a public consultation exercise on the current 16-year-old law, which includes rules on what type of embryo research can be carried out.


Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly.


Launching the white paper, health minister Caroline Flint said: "The current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision.

"Technology has changed, and so have attitudes."


The changes


Couples are also to be banned from choosing the sex of their baby for non-medical reasons, such as "family balancing".


DIY home methods of sperm sorting into "male" and "female" would also break the law.


But they will be able to have embryos screened for serious genetic disorders, or to select one that is a suitable tissue match for a sick sibling.

Clinics will still be required to consider the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of treatment, despite protests that couples conceiving naturally do not face similar checks.

Scientists will be able to push forward research in some areas, such as altering the genetic structure of cells that make embryos, but have been banned from using any of such embryo to make a baby.


Similarly, scientists are prohibited from making chimeras - human-animal hybrids - but not necessarily forever.


The law will contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future.


Some of the proposed changes have been criticised in some quarters.


Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, criticised the removal of the need for a father reference saying: "It's a dreadful statement to make about the role of men. Fatherhood is much more than the donation of sperm.


"We can only hope that parliament will wisely reject the absurd proposal to do away with the child's need for a father."


Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed the removal of the need for a father clause.


He said: "It was unjustifiable, discriminatory and vindictive. It was also unsustainable in human rights and equality terms.


"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."


Anna Smajdor, researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College London, said: "While the removal of the specific reference to a need for a father is on balance a good thing, it still remains utterly bizarre that fertility clinicians should be responsible for making judgements about the suitability of people to be parents."


A spokeswoman from the London Fertility Clinic said he was concerned that banning sex selection for family balancing and social reasons would lead to more abortions.


"IVF of a wanted child is preferable," she said.

The proposals will be debated in Parliament before they can be passed as law.

Link

Giving evidence to the Commons science and technology committee in July, Ms Flint said: "We are considering whether the need for a father is something we need to have."

Children from broken families perform significantly worse in life compared to children from strong nuclear families. Such children won't learn many special things that only fathers can teach. They also lack discipline, because the mother can't keep the children under control, since she is too weak. Also the mother may attempt to act like a mother and a father in a effort to fill up the void due to the absence of the father. However it's not possible for a woman to know and act as a father, because she's a woman. The attempted performance of these two distinctly different roles of mother and father will result in failure.

On top of this there won't be a husband to divorce and steal half of his wealth.

This whole system would collapse if men stopped paying taxes. The tax incomes are partly used to support these stupid, single mothers. Men are responsible for most of the government's tax income and keep the system alive. Without men's support the system and society collapses.

The legalization of IVF opens the doors and gives the green light to artificial uteri, ectogenesis technology. Ectogenesis is the big, more complex cousin which will also become reality in the future.

[taype]

"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."

No sir, the evidence suggests quite the contrary, especially regarding the latter.

“good riddance”

– when the statistics go against your argument, just throw in an anti-man comment for good measure, generally works.

[taype]

"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."

No sir, the evidence suggests quite the contrary, especially regarding the latter.

“good riddance”

– when the statistics go against your argument, just throw in an anti-man comment for good measure, generally works.

[FFFF]

Any man who wants to avoid paying Child Support can easily do so and avoid all his natural obligations to any form of supporting his offspring by sperm donation.

Any man who seeks to be a good father and know his child.. Shall be punished... He shall have the burden of a yapping woman and the demands of the state that he support what he brings into the world..

Unless, its with a nice lesby woman who hates men..

Then, its quite ok..

The answer is not to attack the rights of tuppence lickers to do what they want, it is to stop the attack on decent fathers who dont have pereverted sexual tendancies..

Or, sorry, I forget, they are male so they are all rapists anyway..

[FFFF]

Any man who wants to avoid paying Child Support can easily do so and avoid all his natural obligations to any form of supporting his offspring by sperm donation.

Any man who seeks to be a good father and know his child.. Shall be punished... He shall have the burden of a yapping woman and the demands of the state that he support what he brings into the world..

Unless, its with a nice lesby woman who hates men..

Then, its quite ok..

The answer is not to attack the rights of tuppence lickers to do what they want, it is to stop the attack on decent fathers who dont have pereverted sexual tendancies..

Or, sorry, I forget, they are male so they are all rapists anyway..

[FFFF]

Any man who wants to avoid paying Child Support can easily do so and avoid all his natural obligations to any form of supporting his offspring by sperm donation.

Any man who seeks to be a good father and know his child.. Shall be punished... He shall have the burden of a yapping woman and the demands of the state that he support what he brings into the world..

Unless, its with a nice lesby woman who hates men..

Then, its quite ok..

The answer is not to attack the rights of tuppence lickers to do what they want, it is to stop the attack on decent fathers who dont have pereverted sexual tendancies..

Or, sorry, I forget, they are male so they are all rapists anyway..

[FFFF]

Any man who wants to avoid paying Child Support can easily do so and avoid all his natural obligations to any form of supporting his offspring by sperm donation.

Any man who seeks to be a good father and know his child.. Shall be punished... He shall have the burden of a yapping woman and the demands of the state that he support what he brings into the world..

Unless, its with a nice lesby woman who hates men..

Then, its quite ok..

The answer is not to attack the rights of tuppence lickers to do what they want, it is to stop the attack on decent fathers who dont have pereverted sexual tendancies..

Or, sorry, I forget, they are male so they are all rapists anyway..

[FFFF]

Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed the removal of the need for a father clause.


He said: "It was unjustifiable, discriminatory and vindictive. It was also unsustainable in human rights and equality terms.


"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."

Could say the same for liberal MP's.. David Steel brought in the abortion laws, this guy is trying to campaign for the removal of the male role in society..

Mr J. Blade says, "maybe they would like to be the first..?"..

[FFFF]

Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed the removal of the need for a father clause.


He said: "It was unjustifiable, discriminatory and vindictive. It was also unsustainable in human rights and equality terms.


"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."

Could say the same for liberal MP's.. David Steel brought in the abortion laws, this guy is trying to campaign for the removal of the male role in society..

Mr J. Blade says, "maybe they would like to be the first..?"..

[taype]

This is just the latest example of the anti male attitude that western political systems advocate, and that society seems all too ready to soak up. However, this state of affairs is creating a precedent that could actually end up doing more damage to women, because it is women who have more at steak regarding their reproductive capability, and thus far more to lose as reproductive technology and social attitude advances.

Launching the white paper, health minister Caroline Flint said: "The current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision. Technology has changed, and so have attitudes."

Yes, technology has changed. It is now scientifically possible for a woman to have a child “without” a man. Following this however, both society and the media have taken it upon themselves to deem men biologically redundant - which represents the so called change in attitude. Article titles such as “Modern world need no men” highlight this trend, which often consist of a female writer demanding that men justify their existence, or asking how men are relevant to society, despite that fact that “society” is by nature, half male. The feminist media sees fit to constantly question the social role of men, whilst governments seem to do all they can to marginalise them, and thus further this social trend of ridicule.

But biologically, much of this has always been the case; it is just that any woman who actively chose to be a single mother say five hundred years ago would likely have starved. Women have always had the ability to create a family for themselves with the absence of a father, it is just that society now accepts it, and governments encourage it.

However, technology advances at a rapid rate. At the minute, it is currently providing feminists with a convenient pedestal from which they can launch their anti male, anti father rhetoric. But the problem for feminists is that unless something drastic happens, technology will not cease advancing. Forget “ethical concerns”, Scientists are far too interested in their own personal achievement to worry about ethical concerns, and thus the snowball of "progress” continues to roll. And eventually technology may progress to the point where females themselves are technically “biologically redundant”, it being possible to emulate their reproductive role in a laboratory. Artificial wombs and the possibility of growing healthy human foetuses in other animals are just two examples that are in various stages of development.

The greater the number of men who are made to feel guilty about their existence, who are challenged to justify themselves and who are marginalised because of current technological trends, the greater the potential damage to women in the long run, and the more feminism will leave itself open to attack when we acquire the technology of tomorrow. Women have a lot more to lose regarding reproduction than men ever have:

Australian sociologist Robyn Rowland has argued that the creation of artificial wombs would spell the end of women’s innate power. “We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?

Such proposal may come back to haunt the government. If the questions about the necessity of fathers are asked enough times, they are more likely to be asked of mothers in the future. To quote Brad, the feminist Leopard may try and “change its spots” when on the defensive, but what goes around comes around.

Check this out
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/3/rosen.htm

[taype]

This is just the latest example of the anti male attitude that western political systems advocate, and that society seems all too ready to soak up. However, this state of affairs is creating a precedent that could actually end up doing more damage to women, because it is women who have more at steak regarding their reproductive capability, and thus far more to lose as reproductive technology and social attitude advances.

Launching the white paper, health minister Caroline Flint said: "The current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision. Technology has changed, and so have attitudes."

Yes, technology has changed. It is now scientifically possible for a woman to have a child “without” a man. Following this however, both society and the media have taken it upon themselves to deem men biologically redundant - which represents the so called change in attitude. Article titles such as “Modern world need no men” highlight this trend, which often consist of a female writer demanding that men justify their existence, or asking how men are relevant to society, despite that fact that “society” is by nature, half male. The feminist media sees fit to constantly question the social role of men, whilst governments seem to do all they can to marginalise them, and thus further this social trend of ridicule.

But biologically, much of this has always been the case; it is just that any woman who actively chose to be a single mother say five hundred years ago would likely have starved. Women have always had the ability to create a family for themselves with the absence of a father, it is just that society now accepts it, and governments encourage it.

However, technology advances at a rapid rate. At the minute, it is currently providing feminists with a convenient pedestal from which they can launch their anti male, anti father rhetoric. But the problem for feminists is that unless something drastic happens, technology will not cease advancing. Forget “ethical concerns”, Scientists are far too interested in their own personal achievement to worry about ethical concerns, and thus the snowball of "progress” continues to roll. And eventually technology may progress to the point where females themselves are technically “biologically redundant”, it being possible to emulate their reproductive role in a laboratory. Artificial wombs and the possibility of growing healthy human foetuses in other animals are just two examples that are in various stages of development.

The greater the number of men who are made to feel guilty about their existence, who are challenged to justify themselves and who are marginalised because of current technological trends, the greater the potential damage to women in the long run, and the more feminism will leave itself open to attack when we acquire the technology of tomorrow. Women have a lot more to lose regarding reproduction than men ever have:

Australian sociologist Robyn Rowland has argued that the creation of artificial wombs would spell the end of women’s innate power. “We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?

Such proposal may come back to haunt the government. If the questions about the necessity of fathers are asked enough times, they are more likely to be asked of mothers in the future. To quote Brad, the feminist Leopard may try and “change its spots” when on the defensive, but what goes around comes around.

Check this out
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/3/rosen.htm

[Cowhead418]

He said: "It was unjustifiable, discriminatory and vindictive. It was also unsustainable in human rights and equality terms.


"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."

What an asshole. Discriminatory my ass. You're full of ****. If you hate men so much, do us all a favor and get lost, you self-loathing douchebag.

[Cowhead418]

He said: "It was unjustifiable, discriminatory and vindictive. It was also unsustainable in human rights and equality terms.


"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."

What an asshole. Discriminatory my ass. You're full of ****. If you hate men so much, do us all a favor and get lost, you self-loathing douchebag.