Are you Parent Number 1 or 2?

MIDDLE England and people across the globe who think we’ve all gone nuts are frothing at the mouth at what is claimed to be an assault on fatherhood – women being named as dads.
There has not been some amazing medical breakthrough to turn us all into hermaphrodites – it’s far more complicated than that.
The Embryology Bill, passed by Parliament, will make it possible for women who have had successful IVF with anonymous donor sperm to name anyone as their baby’s father or ‘second parent’ on the birth certificate.
“Put Gordon Brown on all the birth certificates,” urged one irate commentator. “Or Harriet Harman, or Roger Rabbit.”
To attempt to explain this perceived madness, the rule changes have come about because, under the current system, fertility clinics must consider a child’s need for a father before approving patients. Though this does not automatically deny treatment to single women and lesbians, the Government considers it discriminatory.
It plans a new requirement to consider “the need for supportive parenting”.
The fresh rule states: “The women receiving treatment with donor sperm can consent to any man or woman being the father or second parent.”
I’m no Einstein but if donor sperm is ‘the father’ then that’s the only fact that needs to be recorded, surely?
Also, I was never too hot at biology at school but I am absolutely certain a woman can’t be a dad.
As for being a ‘second parent’, surely that’s discriminatory in today’s politically correct Britain? Second rate, second in command, second class… being named ‘second parent’ could cause all manner of psychological difficulties in later life!
It’s hardly surprising the anti-politically correct brigade is having a field day. Online commentators from around the world have dubbed the British loonies, absurd, obscene and a disgrace. At least it gives them all a break from moaning about worldwide recession.
But while people rage about the role of a father being downgraded and birth certificates failing to provide a true record of a child’s genetic heritage, it is something else that really seems to irk.
They fear that this is another nail in the coffin of the basic nature of a man and a woman bringing up a child together as parents.
“British babies now have the same spiritual value as Cabbage Patch dolls,” a critic raged. “All the hoo-ha about child welfare, yet they are as easy come by as something from Toys r Us. If the human race sinks any further into the amoral mire, Armageddon might not be such a bad idea. We’re all raving mad.”
Point taken but we can hardly blame one rule on one piece of legislation about IVF for all that is wrong with Britain.
Nevertheless, I agree, we are all raving mad.
For a start couples, same sex or otherwise, are raving mad not to consider adoption instead of IVF. In Derby City alone there are always around 400 children in care. But rather than so much as glance in their direction, people become obsessed with having their own perfect baby while thousands of children face neglect and misery.
We’re also raving mad because we continue to act like kids in adulthood, giving up on relationships as easily as teenagers dumping their week-old boyfriends in the playground.
It’s OK when you’re 14 and without responsibilities but not so good if you’re a grown up parent of two, perhaps.
As for all those dysfunctional, screwed up kids, when they look back on the bad times, will the excuse be “I came from a broken home”, “I had a female father” or “I was brought up by my second (rate) parent”?
Perhaps we should axe the words mother and father altogether. Just call all parents Person A and Person B. Every time couples split up and meet someone new they can come into the family as Person C, D, E and so on. That should avoid any confusion for the kids!
Perhaps that New Zealand guy commenting on the Daily Mail’s website was right – Brits have lost the plot. Mind you, wasn’t it a Kiwi couple who named their child Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii?
Take heart. It’s not just us, is it? The whole world has gone nuts.