Reactions to story from Guardian
Embryo bill debate: Do families need fathers?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ society/ 2008/ may/ 20/ health.stemcells?gusrc=rss&feed=sc...
MPs must decide whether the embryo bill should make it impossible for lesbians and single women to have children through IVF, reports Aida Edemariam
Reactions / posts that link to this article
View all reactions »-
Viagra is the devil, the arguement over fathers and Botox saves the birthday girls
http://www.dollymix.tv/2008/05/viagra_is_the_devil_the_argue...Viagra is the devil, the arguement over fathers and Botox saves the birthday girls -Sure Viagra's great for men, but what about the women! The Daily Mail says that the never ending success of Viagra has not only perpetuated a rise of STDs in older
-
A Kid Needs A Father, Probably.
http://singleparentdad.blogspot.com/2008/06/kid-needs-father...Due to half-term and building commitments, I’ve not been online quite as much as I’d liked to have been. But I have been flicking on and was very interested in the series of articles and blogs prompted by this news. Looks like Parliament has been warbling on quite a bit, well what else would you expect from the custodians of our future, about the whole influence and effect of fathers on their children. Others have taken it further and got into the whole how much does a father have to play in a child’s development. Fathers must now also be named on birth certificates, which just sounds like more unenforceable law and I can almost see the order for extra red tape being made out. This Alpha Mummy post, by Jennifer Howze, hits the sharp metal thing on its bonce. Children do ideally need fathers, similarly to them ideally needing mothers. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and I’m guessing, just guessing, that those disputing or involved in birth certificate drama are especially unlikely to be from the 2.4 children set. Kids just need to be put first, regardless of biological parenting. Ok, parents should take full responsibility for their offspring, but that also includes being big enough to provide the best possible environment for them, even if that is to the detriment to their own existence or participation. Now they should make another pointless, yet well intentioned, law about that!
-
Take Me Out to the Ballgame: Baseball, Biblical Masculinity, and Godly Character, Part 1
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Take-Me-Out-to-the-Ballgame-B...[Editor's note: On Tuesday Gender Blog began a four-part series by Randy Stinson on baseball and biblical manhood. In today's final installment, Stinson, who serves as president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, gives the final three ways in which he uses the game of baseball in the lives of his two sons to build Christian character and cultivate biblical masculinity.] Thanks Coach: Gratitude As with most youth sports, baseball is carried on the shoulders of thousands of volunteers. Each week my sons have opportunities to express gratitude to the many men and women who make their experience possible. This makes them more mindful of others who are serving them in other venues as well. Principle for Manhood: Thank every coach after every practice. Thank every coach and umpire (if possible, they often leave before the team has cleared the dugout) after every game. Thank the concession stand workers for their time. Thank the grounds crew (as available) for their work on the field. You will find yourself more grateful as you join your sons in their expressions of gratitude. Shake it Off! Leadership and Encouragement A common expression from one player to another is to "shake it off" after a botched play or minor injury. Baseball requires a lot of mental toughness and good leadership on the field means you are encouraging teammates to "shake it off" to be ready for the next play. Typically, focusing on a failure in baseball means that you will not be focused on the next play which means another failure. Principle for Manhood: Never correct another player while on the field. Good leaders on the field offer encouragement, and remember to keep a "short memory" and to "shake it off." Strategies for improvement can be discussed in the dugout. Father, Where Art Thou? The Decline of Baseball It is sad to me that one of the greatest sports is experiencing something of a decline at the youth recreation level. Some have argued that the proliferation of highly competitive travel teams have caused this demise. I think the socio-cultural phenomenon of absent fathers, however, has created the giant gap between recreation and competitive players and thereby created the need for more competitive venues. Baseball requires at least two people. You cannot play catch with yourself. You can't pitch to yourself, and you can't hit grounders to yourself. Normally this is where dad comes in. But where is he? Is he working too much, abandoning his family altogether, or is he just emotionally absent? Over the next decade, fewer and fewer boys will enjoy the incredible father-son moments of playing catch, hitting grounders, spending hours discussing the nuances and character-building aspects of the game. Principle for Manhood: Encourage the church to stand in the gap and embrace the fatherless young men around you. Mentor them, teach them the Gospel, and maybe toss the ball a time or two with them. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
-
‘Clever and kind’
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2708_0_1_0_Ccomments? ] Fri May 23, 2008 Parenting When the only word is 'no'... ...how do we create change? It comes as a surprise to many people that countries which allow same-sex civil unions, and even marriage, dont necessarily extend parenting rights to these couples. The Netherlands recognised same-sex marriage before adoption. Three years after establishing a civil union scheme, New Zealand still doesnt provide equal parenting rights for same-sex partners. Only this week, three years since establishing Britain's civil union scheme, did the UK Parliament vote to allow same-sex couples equal access to IVF, and then only after a lot of heart-ache. In contrast, in most Australian states same-sex couples can equally access artificial reproductive technology including IVF, even though there is no formal recognition of our relationships in most states or nationally. This is a small but important testiment to how highly developed Australias de facto laws are. It also reminds us that, as important as it is, the formal recognition debate should not be seen as the solution to all discrimination. This weeks British reform also allows both partners in a same-sex relationships to be deemed legal partners of children born to one partners through IVF. Contrary to reports in the Australian press, this is already allowed in WA and the ACT, and is a live issue in Victoria, Tasmania and NSW (where the State Opposition is showing a slightly kinder face by granting a conscience vote). Queensland is also approaching the issue, but from a slightly different angle. Marriage and children, at least in Australian law, are not inextricably linked. * An interesting side-light to the NSW parenting debate is this article from the Sydney Star Observer, which asserts that the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby wrongly claimed credit for that states current parenting reform initiative. The SSO believes a combination of powerful friends and press prying did the trick (I understand from alternative sources that an FOI request forced the Government to release a Law Reform Commission report it had been sitting on for years. To avert embarrassment, and at the behest of concerned MPs, the State Government plucked out the simplest reform - deemed parenting - and used a commitment to that to mask its procrastination and indifference. Community lobbying and advocacy seem not to have prompted the parenting push, although, of course, they created the conditions for it to occur). The SSO's revelation is framed within a broader debate on how change happens. Prominent sexuality researchers, Lynne Hillier and Anne Mitchell, argue that research and advocacy do not, in-and-of themselves, shift public policy. Neither do summits or inter-agencies, where no-one takes responsibility for what needs to be done. They believe its important to establish conduits to government through Ministerial Advisory Committees. H&M are right about research and advocacy not being sufficient to make change, although I hope theyd agree that both activities are necessary pre-conditions for change. Inter-agencies also dont change policy, but they do have an important educative role, ensuring all government agencies and NGOs are on the same policy page. As for direct, high-level lines to government, Im an advocate of the Tasmanian model of government liaison committees which are entrenched within agencies, rather than the Victorian model of committees that sit in ministerial offices (which H&M as Melburnians are more familiar with). This is because reform of public policy and practice requires a long-term vision that takes many, many years to realise. Think of reform in the education system to combat homophobic bullying. This is not just a matter of raising the matter with officials and then hoping theyll fix it. It requires the kind of policy transformation and program development that, in turn, calls for close and long-term cooperation between NGOs and principals, parents, curriclum writers, bureaucrats, educational experts, Opposition spokespeople, and the media, as well as Ministers. Such cooperation is more likely to be established and sustained at a departmental level rather than through a ministerial office. Ministers change. So do their priorities. But once a government department is behind change, as well as the broader communities that department is linked to, change will happen. ** That said, some things do come from the very top. Last night, Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was again grilled on same-sex marriage and again ruled it out. More than this, he again refused to give a reason for his position, reveal any personal thoughts about the issue, or spruik his Governments alternatives. For him the only word on marriage that matters is no. In contrast, US Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, can at least wish a same-sex partner well. Ive been speaking at length to Labor Party members about whats behind their Partys continued resistence to same-sex marriage or anything that looks even remotely like it. Their unanimous response: Kevin Rudd. KR is absolutely convinced his Party won last years election because he assured evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in key marginal seats that Labor is a safe option. Ruling out same-sex marriage was the key to his Christian appeasement campaign. By this logic, continuing to rule it out will keep Labor in power. So what will break down this wall to reform? Exposing the over-reaching claims of the religious right to electoral influence is one step. Rudd losing his post-election pre-eminance wont hurt either. Lets face it, contrary to Labor spin a large number of Rudd's colleagues dont agree with him. But what matters most on this issue now is good old-fashioned public education. Despite all the competing claims about how change happens, in my experience, where popular opinion leads, elected governments will always, eventually follow. *** In other news,
-
EMBRYO BILL DEBATE: DO FAMILIES NEED FATHERS?: The Guardian (UK)
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2008/05/embryo-bill-debate-do-...Single women and lesbians hoping to be able to conceive can be excused if they felt slightly betrayed by a report in the Times yesterday that in the protracted flushing-out of principles that is the human fertilisation and embryos bill Gordon Brown might consider ceding the ground that matters most to them: being eligible for IVF without necessarily having to produce a father figure. The bill currently being debated in parliament retains the requirement in the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act that fertility clinics take account of the "welfare of the [potential] child", but replaces the requirement that they also consider a child's "need for a father" with the phrase "supportive parenting". The Conservative front bench is up in arms; the wording they would prefer, according to Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, would be "supportive parenting and a father or a male role model". In the interests of preserving the bulk of the bill, and, in particular, the use of human-animal hybrid embryos -- which, Brown argued in the Observer over the weekend, have the potential to "save and improve the lives of thousands and, over time, millions of people" -- the Times report suggested that the prime minister may have already accepted defeat on this point. Leaving aside, for the moment, whether or not Brown has, in fact, done this (sources close to the debate urge against jumping to conclusions, and it would be a surprising U-turn if he had), it is worth looking again at exactly what it would mean for single women and lesbians if the free vote went against the government today. At its most basic, the rewording is simply a tidying-up exercise: recent anti-discrimination and human rights laws, and the Civil Partnership Act, make the wording of the 1990 act illegal, something that the current bill would rectify. "The difference between these two phrases is crucial," fertility law expert Natalie Gamble of law firm Lester Aldridge told the Observer last week. "The words 'supportive parenting' do not discriminate against single and lesbian women, but 'the need for a father' clearly does." Rewording would simply make the embryology bill consistent with all these advances. more
-
Lesbian News - 23 May 2008
http://lesbian.pro/2008/05/23/lesbian-news--23-may-2008.aspxJodie fell for another woman on the set of The Brave One Tory battle over lesbian parenting and "need for a father" Mischa Snubs Cannes Premiere of Lesbian Film Domestic Violence in Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Relationships Inside Out 2008: Gay Daddies And Psychic Lesbians Lesbians and the need for fathers Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival Celebrates Its Third Year with IDAHO 22 percent of gays lack health insurance Nearly One in Four Gay and Lesbian Adults Lack Health Insurance Md. high court says lesbian mother can deny ex visitation MPs reject need for father in IVF
-
whats your opinion
http://artsadmin.co.uk/blogs/thinktank/2008/05/whats-your-op...After coming back from a weekend in beautiful English countryside celebrating my friends Katie and Anna's civil partnership I read this article over a fellow commuters shoulder.....what do you think about this? I obviously have my own opinions about this but what are yours? Opinions on a postcard please or in the comments box........... www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/20/health.stemcells and while I'm on the subject of embryos what do you think of the bill to reduce the time limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks. Have a look at what people are talking about on the guardian blog.
-
A Win for Family Fairness in the U.K.
http://www.mombian.com/2008/05/20/a-win-for-family-fairness-...MP’s in the U.K. today defeated a proposed addition to the Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would have required fertility clinics to consider a child’s “need for a father” before providing services to lesbians and single women. Clinics are required to consider the “welfare of the [potential] child”, but the new bill says they only have to do so by weighing the need for “supportive parenting.” Conservatives wanted to say “supportive parenting and a father or a male role model.” Of course, none of them proposed taking children away from mothers who became single via divorce or death of a spouse, or required that fathers or male role models pass some test to prove they were indeed worthy, beyond merely having the right chromosomes. You know the arguments. . . . At least wiser heads prevailed this time. ShareThis
-
The Need for a Father
http://www.alexparsons.co.uk/blog/2008/05/20/need-for-a-fath...I’ve always felt there was something suspect about the argument that a child would be damaged without a man as a parent (or alternatively a woman as a parent) mostly because I couldn’t see what advantage having an explicitly male role model would have over having good role models and in part because it seemed awfully convenient that the ‘facts’ showed that gay couples having families is bad because they’re inherently damaging the child. I’m always relieved when my opposition to things I feel shouldn’t be true can actually be supported by Real Science. IVF requires a huge degree of financial and physical commitment. You cannot accidentally get pregnant, have the baby, and let it take its chances, as heterosexual couples do all the time. Duncan Smith claims that, without fathers, boys join gangs and teenage girls become pregnant. But “there’s nothing magical about fathers,” says Susan Golombok, professor of family research and director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge, and co-author of Growing Up in a Lesbian Family. “Fathers who are very involved with their children are good for children. But fathers who are not very involved - they aren’t as important, and can even have a negative effect. It’s a very simplistic notion to think that fathers are important just because they’re male.” Don’t boys need male role models? “The thing is that fathers make absolutely no difference to their children’s development of masculinity or femininity,” she says. “Studies that have looked at single-parent families have not found that boys are less masculine or girls less feminine. In fact, it seems that parents make very little difference to the masculinity or femininity of their sons and daughters. The peer group is more important, and the stereotypes that are around them in their day-to-day life. Even in families where parents try hard to influence their children’s gender developent, where they try to stop their sons being very masculine, for example, and try to make them more gender-neutral, actually find that whatever they do makes no difference whatsoever. Fathers are important more in terms of emotional wellbeing, not in terms of role models.” As for the lesbian issue, says Golombok, “There’s now been more than 30 years of research in Europe and the US, that has found very consistently that children raised in a lesbian household are no different from children in heterosexual families, both in terms of their psychological adjustment, and also in terms of their gender development, and in terms of their relationships with other children. Another win for my irrational gut positions then, It’s possible I’ve learned entirely the wrong lesson from this.
-
Crunch time for women’s rights today
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/20/crunch-time-for-...Yesterday in Parliament, MPs voted for allowing scientists to create human-animal hybrid embryos to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Today there will be two free votes today:
