EMBRYOLOGY MONOLOGY
Ok, this is another post based on one of my morning reads...
UK's public health minister, Caroline Flint has given her nod for the lifting of "the need for father" from the Embryology Act. This means that any single woman or lesbian couple can now seek fertility treatment without much impediment. However, the onus is still on the seeker to prove that they can provide a loving and stable family environment for the kid.
"That does not mean fathers are not important. What's important is that the children are going to be, as far as we know, part of a loving family. We are considering whether the need for a father is something we need to have," Ms Flint told MPs.
I know some men will be jumping off of their chair at that statement. But please, don't be quick to melatah la.
Let's look at the issue from the most pragmatic perspective and decide thereafter whether there's any merit at all for having such legislations. ( I think I need to disclaim myself at this juncture; I understand as a muslim, I am not allowed to fornicate or have the semen from a man who is not my husband be inseminated inside my womb. I'm not challenging that. I am more inclined to discuss the issue of family vis-a-vis the baby, what we define as a family and whether there is such a thing as the ideal composition of family members or the ideal healthy family environment for children. So, I have limited my scope and no "holier than thou" here, please.)
Family is defined as a social unit living together; A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children. (taken from wordnet.princeton and answers.com).
Evidently, the definition is generic enough to grant the formation of a family without the specific requirement of a mother and father. Yes, to a certain extent, I agree. A great number of children these days grow up without a consistent mother or father figure in their lives. Just because there is an absence of a father, does that make a family dysfunctional? Or if we turn the card around, do we think that a father makes a bad mother and thus incapacitating the family structure?
Biologically, yes, we need both the man and woman to unite in a concerted effort, be it in the bedroom or lab in their effort to produce another human being. Unfortunately, and more often than not these days, the unity stops there.
I personally think that we cannot be so rigid with the definition. A family, whatever it may consist of, is important to a baby, no doubt. It provides the protective and nurturing environment in which the baby can grow up healthily. It should also be able to create a safehaven when the baby feels threatened or when it needs comforting.
If a family, regardless of its composition, can provide enough love, affection, attention and education to a baby, who are we to insist on otherwise? Raising a kid should not be a gender biased issue. Yes, a woman gives birth and biologically she is a mother. But how do we define a mother beyond the biological confine? Should it not extend to raising the kid as well? If the biological mother does not raise her biological child and some other person decides to take up the role, should we deprive that other person the honour of becoming the child's mother? Same goes to men who donate their semen to one of those special banks.
It is evident that family structure has evolved with time. Without imposing my morality unto anyone, I do not see any problem with two women or two men raising a kid together. Just because an individual is a homosexual does not mean he or she will be a bad parent. Mind you, heterosexuality does not guarantee inherent good parenting skills. So long as parents, be it mother or father, have the best of intention and provide all that is needed in raising a child, I say "Kudos to them!".
TBC (my boss misses me already!)
UK's public health minister, Caroline Flint has given her nod for the lifting of "the need for father" from the Embryology Act. This means that any single woman or lesbian couple can now seek fertility treatment without much impediment. However, the onus is still on the seeker to prove that they can provide a loving and stable family environment for the kid.
"That does not mean fathers are not important. What's important is that the children are going to be, as far as we know, part of a loving family. We are considering whether the need for a father is something we need to have," Ms Flint told MPs.
I know some men will be jumping off of their chair at that statement. But please, don't be quick to melatah la.
Let's look at the issue from the most pragmatic perspective and decide thereafter whether there's any merit at all for having such legislations. ( I think I need to disclaim myself at this juncture; I understand as a muslim, I am not allowed to fornicate or have the semen from a man who is not my husband be inseminated inside my womb. I'm not challenging that. I am more inclined to discuss the issue of family vis-a-vis the baby, what we define as a family and whether there is such a thing as the ideal composition of family members or the ideal healthy family environment for children. So, I have limited my scope and no "holier than thou" here, please.)
Family is defined as a social unit living together; A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children. (taken from wordnet.princeton and answers.com).
Evidently, the definition is generic enough to grant the formation of a family without the specific requirement of a mother and father. Yes, to a certain extent, I agree. A great number of children these days grow up without a consistent mother or father figure in their lives. Just because there is an absence of a father, does that make a family dysfunctional? Or if we turn the card around, do we think that a father makes a bad mother and thus incapacitating the family structure?
Biologically, yes, we need both the man and woman to unite in a concerted effort, be it in the bedroom or lab in their effort to produce another human being. Unfortunately, and more often than not these days, the unity stops there.
I personally think that we cannot be so rigid with the definition. A family, whatever it may consist of, is important to a baby, no doubt. It provides the protective and nurturing environment in which the baby can grow up healthily. It should also be able to create a safehaven when the baby feels threatened or when it needs comforting.
If a family, regardless of its composition, can provide enough love, affection, attention and education to a baby, who are we to insist on otherwise? Raising a kid should not be a gender biased issue. Yes, a woman gives birth and biologically she is a mother. But how do we define a mother beyond the biological confine? Should it not extend to raising the kid as well? If the biological mother does not raise her biological child and some other person decides to take up the role, should we deprive that other person the honour of becoming the child's mother? Same goes to men who donate their semen to one of those special banks.
It is evident that family structure has evolved with time. Without imposing my morality unto anyone, I do not see any problem with two women or two men raising a kid together. Just because an individual is a homosexual does not mean he or she will be a bad parent. Mind you, heterosexuality does not guarantee inherent good parenting skills. So long as parents, be it mother or father, have the best of intention and provide all that is needed in raising a child, I say "Kudos to them!".
TBC (my boss misses me already!)
posted by Ms O at 11:40 am
<< Home