EVERYONE, it seems, is getting thoroughly aerated over the proposed change in the law which would allow lesbian couples to become parents to IVF babies without the “need for a father”.
Iain Duncan Smith rants that this “will drive the last nail in the coffin of the traditional family”.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Britain’s leading Roman Catholic churchman, despairs: “This radically undermines the place of a father in a child’s life… it is profoundly wrong.”
Amid the clamour and the din, just audible is the sound of stable doors being locked and the clatter of bolting horses’ hooves.
Where – apart from television re-runs of The Waltons – is this traditional family life, now under threat? Surely the picture perfect textbook arrangement of mother, father and 2.4 organically fed, warmly dressed, well-mannered God-fearing children has been rarer than hens’ teeth for half a century now, if, indeed it ever really existed.
Any child born of IVF is badly wanted and will stand a far greater chance of being loved.
When divorce lost its stigma, unmarried mothers were supplied with smiles of approbation and council flats, and gay partnerships given official sanction, the seal was set on any vestige of the “traditional” family.
Even before Sixties’ emancipation, we now know that behind the facade of the “traditional” happy family, very often something rotten was putrefying.
Wretched wives hid their woes behind a veneer of conformity. Straying husbands sowed their seed outside the family unit, yet were welcomed back into it because the very notion of divorce was unacceptable.
Domestic violence was disguised. Gay men pretended to be straight because to tell the truth about their proclivities was to invite prejudice and bigotry into their lives. Lesbian women put up with loveless heterosexual unions because they couldn’t admit, sometimes even to themselves, where their true desires lay.
Frustration, lack of communication, broken hopes and dreams and condemnation of those who didn’t fit in were the norm. Anyone who thinks life pre-Sixties was an idyllic cross between an Enid Blyton book and a Hovis advertisement has done their best to blot out the bleak, isolated reality.
If Britain were Utopia and every midwife a fairy godmother, perhaps we’d stand a chance of securing a loving, balanced and secure mother and father for every child. It isn’t and we don’t have a hope in hell.
Given the ease and acceptability of divorce, the ebb and flow of serial monogamists, our breadth of choice and the generosity of the welfare state, the best we can do is to strive to provide each baby born with two committed parents and hope, together or apart, that they stay the child-rearing course.
Does it matter if those committed parents are both women? Frankly, if they have the guts, grit and determination to put themselves through the psychological and emotional, not to mention physical, rigours of IVF, the answer is no. IVF is not an instant, boil-in-a-bag baby option.
It is testing, lengthy, uncomfortable and fraught with failure. Any child born of IVF is a desperately wanted, much considered baby whose parents have jumped through inordinate numbers of hoops to ensure its safe arrival.
That child stands a far greater chance of being loved, nurtured and supported than children conceived naturally on a whim or by mistake.
Children, above all, need parents prepared to be parents. Would I rather a child was raised by an absent father or a present lesbian co-mother? Without question, I would choose the woman who is willing, ready and able to impart her enthusiasms, passions and discipline over the man who supplied the sperm to construct the child and disappeared.
Does this strike the final nail in the coffin of traditional family life? Of course not. That happened long ago and, on reflection, it wasn’t altogether a terrible thing.
TRADITIONAL FAMILY?
27.11.07, 12:37am
You are completely right and a bit out of place on this 'news' paper.
I first realised it when I found out that a 1/3 of children at Ormond Street Hospital were suffering from venereal disease. 100 years ago.
When I found out that my mam was in fact my nan was another.
You were married for years and what did he turn out to be?
Traditional families? KEEP THEM. Love is what we need.
Why is it quite alright for professional women,who choose to have children, without a father around?
Children can grow up to be perfectly happy well balanced adults without a father,as for lesbians they have families which include parents, who love them unconditionally ,brothers,sisters, grand parents,aunts an uncles, an extended family for a child why would they be thought to be any different unless the idea was out in their mind by others n ot minding their own business.
TRADITIONAL FAMILY?
27.11.07, 12:37am
You are completely right and a bit out of place on this 'news' paper.
I first realised it when I found out that a 1/3 of children at Ormond Street Hospital were suffering from venereal disease. 100 years ago.
When I found out that my mam was in fact my nan was another.
You were married for years and what did he turn out to be?
Traditional families? KEEP THEM. Love is what we need.
• Posted by: familyvalues • Report Comment
WHY?
22.11.07, 4:59pm
Why is it quite alright for professional women,who choose to have children, without a father around?
Children can grow up to be perfectly happy well balanced adults without a father,as for lesbians they have families which include parents, who love them unconditionally ,brothers,sisters, grand parents,aunts an uncles, an extended family for a child why would they be thought to be any different unless the idea was out in their mind by others n ot minding their own business.
• Posted by: Maggie • Report Comment
To view all 'Have Your Say' comments, click this button...