IVF - Are men 'not needed'?

I should set out my stall from the outset. I don't consider myself to be staunchly traditional or conservative, but on this I am more with 'the Smiths' (Iain Duncan and Geraldine-see below) than those opposing them. I like the words 'supportive parenting' which now forms part of the consideration of prospective IVF patients. Supportive parenting is the bedrock of good child rearing, irrespective of the individuals raising the child's gender or sexuality. I am not in principle against removing the wording 'need for a father' from legislature either, though, a rudimentary understanding of biology tells me children do indeed 'need a father'. Yet amongst all the political wrangles I find myself compelled to say I cannot believe that children conceived by IVF do not need a positive male role model, if not a father.

Now, in legislation that need seems to no longer exist. After last nights vote on the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill there will ultimately be a change in the law that removes all mention of men from the picture entirely in the case of prospective IVF recipients. This will come into force within months after last nights vote. In practical terms the change in the law will mean that IVF clinics consider now base decisions concerning treatment provision solely on the need for 'supportive parenting'.

The unfortunate thing for me is that Iain Duncan Smith, former conservative leader suggested that to that wording should be added 'and a father or male role model' but that was voted down by MPs by a majority of 68 votes, and this, to me is in part a great shame. I do not think the word father necessarily needed to be there, but could not 'male role model' have formed part of the wording? Though it was presented in the popular press as staunchly conservative and traditional, I think Duncan Smith was actually on the right track towards protect the welfare and rights of the child and ensuring access to male roles was seen as important in parenting. It seems to me that many of the population would readily accept that availability of positive male role models as more broadly conceived should ideally be an intrinsic part of childrearing, and the government could have sent this message out.

Newspapers gave very different lines on the argument; the Guardian described the process as 'Commons modernisers' defeating 'attempts to restrict access for lesbian couples seeking to conceive children'. The Daily Mail today ran with the headline 'Fathers Not required!' and attacked the government.

The debate had a distinctly Birmingham focus in parts, for example Labour's Emily Thornberry, MP for Islington and South Finsbury reputedly told the commons that Birmingham Women's Hospital 'insisted couples needed to be in a heterosexual relationship for two years suggesting 'That' direct discrimination against lesbian couples and against single women'

Undoubtedly it is. But what of the issue concerning the need or a child to have a father figure or a male role model?

I do not like the argument used against Iain Duncan Smiths argument, because it polarised into two camps, when there could have (and in my mind should have) been a middle way compromise. In essence those supporting the Governments stance that 'supportive parenting' is the most important thing a child needs are in my mind right. Too often a narrow focus on the normal 'nuclear family' of male and female heterosexual adults overlooks the diversity of modern life in Britain. Furthermore, I am no traditionalist and no supporter of the notion that the best way for a child to be brought up regardless is by a man and a woman irrespective of all else. Single parents often do a fantastic job, whereas some married heterosexual couple can inflict on their children all manner of physical and psychological abuses. But while caring and nurturing parenting is core, regardless of the sex or sexuality of the individual or people raising the child; do children need a male role model is a separate question.

So why deep down do I think that yesterdays vote went the wrong way? Well ultimately, the answer is found in part in the insightful comments of another Smith, rebel labour MP Geraldine 'I cannot see what harm is being done by saying to a lesbian couple or single woman going for IVF "can you consider the need for a father or potential father figure?" it may be a grandfather, it may be a relative'. Quite! Shouldn't those women seeking to raise children be able to prove that they have interaction in some form with the opposite sex?

What seems quite dishonest about the current government line is that it is disingenuous in the extreme, because they seem to suggest that their rejection of Iain Duncan Smiths proposal was one of principle, underpinned by the view that his was a notion that re-enforced inequity and discrimination. In contrast the government presented their motivation was the opposite, to create a more open and fair process.

The problem for me here is that I know all to well that the IVF process is discriminatory already, something which the government must also be aware of. It has been suggested that greater equity and helping people 'approach clinics without fear of discrimination' (the words of Gordon Brown PM) was the motivation for changing the current practices, but what if current practices are inherently unfair?

At present those who approach IVF clinics for treatment are already treated differently. For one they are required before treatment can proceed, to fill out a form which asks them about whether they have a criminal record, whether they have committed offences against children, whether they have used illicit drugs, or drink to excess. I know this from personal experience because I have been for IVF treatment. Are people elsewhere asked such questions before having children? (Maybe they should be, but this is a separate point). Now having said this, is it really the case that the most intrusive question that might be asked, 'have you considered the availability of a male role model for your child'?

I do not see myself as particularly socially conservative, but is it not important for children to have positive male role models? I think that on this most people are united, I think they would say yes it is, and I don't think that my views are particularly out of touch. I don't see yesterdays decision as placing society toward the abyss, it hasn't made males a thing of the past and it doesn't strike me that it makes fathers redundant; that is too much a reactionary voice of doom.

But would it be better for the child's need for father or male role model to be considered - as Duncan Smith suggested, and should supportive parenting and a male role model have been in the wording? For me the answer has got to be a resounding yes. The wording proposed was not - does your baby have a father? (With a note to the individual asking the question that this should be asked in a harsh, overtly judgemental tone). Given the other barrage of personal questions that are asked of potential IVF recipients, is it the most intrusive thing to be asked 'have you considered your child's need in terms of a positive male role model'?

To me it seems yesterdays vote does not mark the end of the father, or the man - but it does not strike me as a highpoint for well reasoned, pragmatic politics either.