A step too far?

Following on perfectly from my last post, the Telegraph reports today that Baroness Royall has hinted that the Government may revive proposals to give fertility clinics the power to produce foetuses from cells other than eggs and sperm, which could create children with no biological father. I'm normally in favour of the use of scientific advances in this field, but I have to say that I have serious reservations about denying a child a biological father. Isn't it basic that a child should have a mother and a father, or am I just being old-fashioned?

[Thanks to Current Awareness for the link to the Telegraph story.]


  1. Cheeky! (When I wrote the post I almost made the point that it's not like me to be on the same side as the religious lobby!)

  2. Yes, you're being old-fashioned. If all that someone is providing is genetic material, like an unfortunate number of men do anyway, then that someone is no father. If he cares that little about his offspring, then why not cut him out of the loop entirely?

  3. But shouldn't a child at least be given the chance of having a caring father? After all, the vast majority of fathers provide a lot more than just genetic material. I'm also concerned about the possible psychological impact upon the child.


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.