proposes to remove the need for IVF providers to take into account the child’s need for a father when considering an IVF application, and to confer legal parenthood on people who have no biological relationship to a child born as a result of IVF. This radically undermines the place of the father in a child’s life, and makes the natural rights of the child subordinate to the desires of the couple.
Legal parenthood for people without a biological relationship to the child? Excellent, we have an argument for the banning of adoption.
And come now, Your Eminence, you don’t mean “people” – you mean lezzers. And you don’t mean to give us this vague waffle about “natural rights” – as well you know, it’s God’s law. Stand up for the courage of your convictions, man.
Another of our old friends has piped up too:
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith declared that the legislation would drive a "nail in the coffin" of the traditional family, adding that "another blow will have been struck against fatherhood".
Listen, chaps: the way other people choose to organise their personal lives is none of your business, and if they can provide a loving, stable environment then that’s better than a lot of straight married couples manage. If ladies succumb to Sapphic sinfulness, then you should feel free to think disapproving thoughts all you like, and indeed voice them (pompously if you like, but politely if you please). If you take pleasure in giving the matter a great deal of vivid contemplation, then good for you.
If you’re worried about the social standing of fathers, then do something about all those TV ads that make dads out to be lazy, bumbling idiots.
But please: don’t try to impose a nationalised monopoly on the right to declare what is and isn’t a family.
2 comments:
Down with gender essentialism, be it informed by religious doctrine or any other kind. And up with Tom Freeman, btw.
Children need the "holy fatherhood" of Catholic priests like a hole in the head, don't they?
Post a Comment