At long last we have a statement from a person with a face. It was reported in the local media that the Prime Minister is intent on bringing in embryo freezing for two totally unrelated reasons (tongue in cheek?). The first is that for IVF to be successful to any appreciable degree, embryo freezing has to be allowed. Secondly, he wishes to make it possible for all couples to have children in an ethical manner. I assume he means including those of the same sex. The Prime Minister is either being taken for a ride by some of his consultants and is being given bogus advice, or he thinks he is taking us all for a ride! His reference to ethics is funny. He sticks it in as an appendage at the end, but fails to tell us what type of ethics he is referring to. Could it be the type where the end justifies the means, a totally subjective kind of ethics?

Independently of whether I agree or not with the second reason he put forward, why does allowing couples to have children ever necessitate the use of frozen embryos in an IVF process even if the couple involved is of the same sex? According to his own government’s recent statistics issued in July, the success rate for IVF using frozen (vitrified) ova (eggs) is higher than the statistics in the UK using frozen embryos! Couples of the same sex can still use donated frozen ova and donated sperm for the IVF process. If the Prime Minister was one of my students I would have failed him for failing to obtain scientific and ethical information from the right sources (not those with a vested interest)! The Prime Minister’s statement on this issue is far from the truth and seems to suggest some hidden agenda.

I have stated on previous occasions that I disagree with sperm and egg donation in principle for either heterosexual or homosexual couples, because of the rights of the children yet to be born. Children have, of necessity, the right to be raised by their genetic parents as it is part of their own personal identity. We only allow the obverse, such as adoption, when the situation is borne out of a contingency in the direct interest of the child, such as an abandoned child or other such contingencies. To create a contingent situation as a necessity is wrong! We should not put children at a physical and legal disadvantage so that others can satisfy their purported legal rights! Some will claim that the European Convention’s (ECHR) right to form a family would automatically extend to the right to have a child.

First of all, a couple without children is already a family! Secondly, there is no right to have a child in this convention and even if such a right existed, we all know that the rights of individuals stop when the rights of other individual human beings begin! The right to life of all human beings and the rights of children to be brought up by their genetic parents trumps any purported rights to have a child by IVF. Or does the Prime Minister not think that embryos are human beings or considers them to be human beings of a lower order or a lesser god? Has he already crossed the Rubicon in this respect but is afraid to tell us? How would this be in line with his position on abortion?

The Prime Minister declares that all he wants to do is give couples who want to have children this right (tongue in cheek?). This right already exists for genetic parents. However, as Prime Minister, he has a higher obligation to protect human life which is a value of a much higher hierarchy than the purported one of having children by IVF, as it is also his higher obligation to protect the rights of the children born to these same couples who undergoes IVF. Unfortunately, children do not vote. Today, science has offered solutions that have outstripped emotional valuations of an idealist order. We need a Prime Minister who is a realist and one who places emphasis on where the higher value is due. Do we not also need a Prime Minister who tells the truth and stops taking the people for a ride? Civilisations built on idealist principles divorced from the realist truth have always collapsed! Then again Pilate so confusedly cried out “what is the truth” when it was standing right in front of him! One often only sees what one wants to see!