Science and Technology Committee

The previous post ignores two significant differences between homosexual couples and the scenario specified. Firstly, in a homosexual relationship, presumably the child could still trace the father if he or she wanted to, and we know that many children born through donor insemination do want to know their father. While this is possible if the father is around, a process that creates artificial sperm fundamentally deviates from this. How is the child supposed to seek out their father when the father is just sperm? While it may be possible, and in some cases tragic, that children do grow up without their father, what gives us the right to deprive a child of this important and irreplaceable bond?

The second thing the point above overlooks is that this process involves creating a cloned embryo and then destroying it in order to use the sperm. It is therefore little different from the scenario of the baby produced from the eggs of an aborted baby, and equally as grotesque.

Your scenario should specify clearly that this is cloning rather than using euphemisms like nuclear replacement. I am aware that there are politicians who would prefer that words like cloning were not used, but you will agree that in a public consultation it is important to be as clear as possible.

I welcome Fiona's attack on the Orwellian double speak and indeed her child centred view. The scenarios that the committee is proposing seem to be loaded towards pushing for consumer 'choice' ie a marketised solution to profound cultural and ethical issues. Where is the standpoint of the child in this scenario? Are we not to consider his /her wellbing?
.
There are potentially huge and unexplored problems for a child that is 'made' not 'born'. Suggest the committee looks at the German National Ethics Committee, Habermas and McGribben for philosophical and every day reasons why this possible is deeply unethical

I would be interested to know what sources you are quoting when you say that studies have shown that children with lesbian mothers develop in the same way as children in heterosexual relationships.

My understanding is that most such studies (especially those involving DI) have centred on the visual observation of small children and the opinion of their parents. Some of these studies are regarded as little more than advocacy masquerading as research. Patricia Morgan evaluated a number of European studies on same-sex parenting in her book "Children as Trophies" and found no factual evidence to support the theory that the children brought up in this way will suffer no adverse long term effects.

I suspect Patricia Morgan may also have found no factual evidence to support the theory that the children brought up by same sex parents actually DO suffer adverse long term effects. Although, as we are all intelligent people, I am sure we are all aware that it is virtually impossible to conduct an entirely unbiased study and frequently, studies that are undertaken more often than not only present us with conclusions that "back up" the original view held by the sociologist/pschologist etc who conducted the research.
May I also point out on this issue that child abusers, rapists, peodophiles, and psychopaths (I could go on) are all free to have children if they are in heterosexual relationships simply because they are biologically able. If we do not judge heterosexual couples before we allow them to have children (often without thought or even planning) because it is seen as their "right" then how can we make a decision that affects almost 10% of our population simply based on the fact they have a different kind of fertility issue which is no fault of their own?

In some ways I'm inclined to say 'whatever' and let you get on with it (if the technology were safe, which I doubt). One thing I do object to, however, is the provision of such a service on the NHS. The National Health Service Act 1977 s1(1)provides:

'It is the Secretary of State's duty to continue the promotion in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement - (a) in the physical and mental health of the people of those countries, and (b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, - and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services...'

I do not see how a lesbian, being unprepared to have sexual intercourse with and bear children by a man (or perhaps utilise the services of mannotincluded) can claim that they are 'infertile' in such a way that constitutes a health/illness issue that the NHS should provide for, or the HFEA regulate and put financial resources into dealing with.

Many people live with unfulfilled desires, including not having children, for various reasons. It is not the role of a welfare state to provide for the fulfilment of our every desire. Nor do I believe it an honourable role for medicine. Or for the use of financial resources in this country.

I would suggest that to be physically incapable of producing sperm is a fertility issue in much the same way as, say, a man who is physically incapable of producing sperm/ viable sperm. It is no less heartbreaking and no less simple a problem to overcome. Only, one of these individuals is treated with sympathy and respect (for free) and the other is told it is their "own fault" and therefore they must pay/will not be treated at all. How is a physical disability (ie: lack of ability) one person's fault and not another's? This argument rests on the assumption (and it IS only an assumption) that lesbians choose to be lesbians. What evidence do you have to support this theory?
Do you know that some couples can have fertility treatment on the nhs even if the man has already had a vasectomy? Now, that was a choice. He chose to remove his own ability to reproduce but many hospitals will offer nhs treatment to such couples. Is this ok?
Also, you say a lesbian is unprepared to have sexual intercourse with a man. Are you suggesting that becuase the appropriate organs are there and there is no physical reason why she cannot have sex with a man that she should then be penalised for not doing so? Are we still in the 18th century? Since when did people enter into sexual activity based on such cold, unemotional terms? Is this the norm for heterosexual couples? Clearly, we are not living in an age where women are afforded the right to act on their feelings. Obviously our sole purpose is to fit in with what makes other people comfortable.

I would suggest that to posit that "society accepts lesbianism" is entirely misguided and indeed, entirely ignorant. How I wish it were so! And were the influential in society to find such things acceptable then I am sure they would change our archaic, discriminatory laws to reflect this. Clearly society is nowhere near to accepting what cannot be biologically changed and therefore, sadly, is certainly nowhere near to accepting what science can actually biologically change.
We are no longer living in a society where patriarchial, religious institutions command us what to think, so to use the term "morally justifiable" is shortsighted in the extreme. There is no longer a template for what is "morally justifiable". It is now down to the individual to decide for themselves. I only hope we will have the intelligence to remain open minded until we have educated ourselves to the point where we may make an informed decision.
Perhaps, those who this does NOT affect should concern themselves with their own issues rather than trying to force their world view on other groups in society? It is like a White South African government trying to tell Black South Africans how they should live. What has it to do with them?

It is ridiculous to suggest that there is no longer a template for what is "morally justifiable". Murder, rape and paedophilia are universally recognised as morally unacceptable by all right-thinking individuals and this is reflected in the legislation of any just society. We all of us make judgements about what is 'morally justifiable' all the time: different people rightly or wrongly draw the line at different places according to beliefs, background or circumstances. Moral justifiability is what this forum is about: if we can just assume all the issues here to be morally equivalent or neutral there is no point in any debate taking place. Fundamentally, moral relativism is a self-defeating argument, since saying that all moral choices are equal is itself an absolute statement.