http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...267632,00.html

The Times July 13, 2006


Fathers are out of the picture as lesbians get IVF
By Mark Henderson

Minister announces shake-up of embryology law that will give single women the right to treatment

SINGLE women and lesbians will have the right to seek fertility treatment after the most radical shake-up of Britain’s embryology laws for 16 years.

A child’s need for a father will no longer have to be considered by clinics before they provide IVF or sperm donation services, under proposals an- nounced yesterday by Caroline Flint, Public Health Minister.



However, doctors will still be obliged to consider the welfare of any children who might be born, and the “need for a father” may be replaced by the “need for a family”.

The review of the 1990 Fertilisation and Embryology Act, considered widely to be out of date, will also formally ban parents from choosing the sex of their child for non-medical reasons. It will include a set of broad principles outlining when it is acceptable to screen embryos for genetic diseases.

The reforms are expected to be set out in a White Paper by the end of the year.

The 1990 Act states that clinics cannot provide treatment to infertile patients “unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who might be born as a result . . . including the need of that child for a father”.

Some clinics interpret this as a ban on treating single women and lesbians; some accept such women provided that there is an uncle, grandfather or family friend who will act as a paternal figure.

Gay and lesbian groups and infertility support charities regard the rule as discriminatory and anachronistic. Dame Suzi Leather, chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, has attacked it as a “nonsense”.

Some lawyers consider the rule illegal under human rights legislation, and it is out of step with the Government’s Equality Bill, which will outlaw the refusal to provide services on grounds of sexual orientation.

Ms Flint said that the Government accepted the case for reform. “We are minded to retain a duty in terms of the welfare of the child, but we are thinking that there is less of a case for retaining the law in reference to a father,” she told the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

“What’s important is looking at the family environment. There’s less of a need for the reference to the father in that circumstance. That’s not to say that fathers are not important. What’s important is that the children are going to be, as far as we know, part of a loving home.”

Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat member of the committee, who has led the campaign to change the law, said: “I’m pleased that after 16 years of licensed discrimination against solo mothers and lesbian couples there are signs that it will come to an end.”

Susan Crane, a former board member of the lesbian and gay group Pink Parents, said: “It’s not before time that they have recognised the changing nature of families and the validity of many different kinds of families. The requirement was an anachronism that was judgmental and insulting.”

Campaigners for traditional values, however, said that the move would undermine the importance of fatherhood. Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: “This is exactly what we expected — politically correct gender politics gone mad with inherent contradictions and the rights of women trumping everything else, including the welfare of the child.

“Fathers will be written out of the Act on one hand, but no gender discrimination is allowed when it comes to sex selection of embryos. I think the world will ridicule most of these recommendations, as will the majority of people in the United Kingdom, especially the attack on the role of fatherhood.”

The Science and Technology Committee recommended last year that sex selection be allowed for “family balancing”, where a couple already had boys or girls and wanted a child of the opposite sex.

Dr Harris said: “The State should be giving good reasons before restricting the reproductive choice of adult citizens.”


------------------

Were moving ever closer to the feminist 'nightmarish' vision of utopia - the extinction of all but a few remaining male drones.

And seemingly the pitiful opposition to these relentlessly insidious anti-male/family social constructs continues mercilessly -- infesting -- unopposed.

Dont worry yet, with the expected creating of arifical wombs I forsee a time when men alone (or gay men) will be able to raise children as well.

I very positive (for now) is the sex selection is banned which is a good thing (and suprising actually)

I hate to be a kill-joy, but...

The reason for banning sex selection is probably that couples might want to have a boy rather than a girl.

Men are being discriminated against in terms of IVF because it's illegal in the UK for a man to employ a surrogate. It's only an option for couples and single women. There was a documentary not so long ago about a man who had to go to America so he could have a child in this way.

The same is true of adoption. Couples (including gay and lesbian) and single women can adopt - single men can't. I don't know if this is because it's illegal or just because of the predjudice of adoption agencies, but when I googled for adoption agencies they proudly stated they didn't discriminate against anyone: couples, gays, lesbians or single women. (except single men, by omission).

Can you imagine men having to pretend to be gay in order to achieve fatherhood?

I can

And that is a most depressing state of affairs indeed

Some have argued that in order for all the ills of todays feminist infested society to be remedied - it must be allowed to implode socially! Before it can be rebuilt from scratch.

Logic would then conclude that 'accelerating' this preordained inevitability will hasten the collective anguish and socially enforced limbo that so many men are currently lanquishing in.

As an analogy, for me the current status quo is like an elongated ritual strangulation. The vindictive torturer reviving the helpless prey as he gasps for his last gulps of breath. Only for the whole process to be repeated over and over again.

Until such a catastrophic irreversible chain of events is set in motion, I think the majority of population earth will continue to have their heads stuck in the sand or their ass (whichever masks the truth the best, I guess).

History shows us that only when cataclysmic events occur and it disproportionately affects a large enough demographic - do people mobilize "coherently" united towards a common goal.

It's a sad indictment of humans that destruction is usually necessary in order to facilitate a catalyst for change. Some may say - that's the natural order of things. Maybe they could be right! Anyway, enough rambling.