Sunday, February 17, 2008

Children with fathers do better

On 21 January Peers voted in favour of a change in the law which undermines the importance of the father to a child born after in-vitro fertilisation. The law currently refers explicitly to a child's 'need for a father', which doctors must consider before providing fertility treatment. But the Government proposes to replace this with a reference to 'the need for supportive parenting' in order to give lesbians and single women easier access to IVF.

Yet a recent study has discovered (marvelous, eh?) that fathers who play an active role in their children's lives can vastly improve their wellbeing and future prospects. Doubtless the authors are 'homophobic', or Cranmer manifests multiple phobias for daring to reproduce the findings which appear in the journal ‘Acta Paediatrica’. They are based on a review by Swedish researchers:

"Our detailed 20-year review shows that overall, children reap positive benefits if they have active and regular engagement with a father figure" said Dr Anna Sarkadi from the Department of Women's and Children's Health at Uppsala University, Sweden.

She added that "children who had positively involved father figures were less likely to smoke and get into trouble with the police, achieved better levels of education and developed good friendships with children of both sexes.

"Long-term benefits included women who had better relationships with partners and a greater sense of mental and physical well-being at the age of 33 if they had a good relationship with their father at 16."

The researchers concluded that public policy should reflect the crucial role of the father: "We hope that this review will add to the body of evidence that shows that enlightened father-friendly policies can make a major contribution to society in the long run, by producing well-adjusted children and reducing major problems like crime and antisocial behaviour."

Marriage is a creation ordinance and therefore God’s teaching on marriage and sex is relevant to the world as well as to the church. Marriage is meant for the good of all people – not just Christians. Marriage clearly is different from other types of relationship, for it is part of God’s ‘common grace’.

The Bible clearly teaches that the only context for sexual activity is within lifelong monogamous marriage (1Cor 6:9). Marriage is the proper context for raising children, and this Swedish research establishes that marriage is superior to other types of human relationships in terms of the benefits it gives both to adults and children.

Of course, Cranmer realises that it is not PC to state this, but he has given up counting his alleged phobias for fear of developing the all-embracing and unavoidably terminal vivaphobia.


Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...

My Dear Cranmer,

Don't you mean gamophobia?

17 February 2008 at 11:56  
Blogger Man in a Shed said...

These laws are being changed for the selfish desires of the liberal establishment that now runs much of politics and the media (especially the BBC).

They want their gratification and facts and surveys, let alone divine revelation, will not be allowed to get in their way.

What they ignore, in their arrogance, is that their may be a God.

17 February 2008 at 12:59  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Read Ezekiel to find out what becomes of unrighteous nations who reject gods statutes.

Remember, reality is an authoritarian weapon, research is inherantly patriarchal for it arranges things into facts. Facts are discriminatory and contrary to the feminine and Aquarian 'oneness.'

E=MC2 = Sexist

17 February 2008 at 13:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's more on this and related issues in the HFE (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) bill at

17 February 2008 at 16:25  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace
While I agree with your post, and am often baffled by the modern way of ignoring the need for a father in a family, I am not sure what you are suggesting. Are you saying that single women should not be allowed to have children at all? Or are you saying they should not have access to IVF? And if you are saying either of these things, do we not think that this might force a number of women into marriages of convenience in order to have children? Or worse still, they might be 'forced' into marrying a man they might otherwise choose not to marry, because of the desire for a child and the restriction of the law? It is complicated I think.

And you tend to be a great believer in freedom (less so than I am, I think). So what happens to freedom here?

17 February 2008 at 19:57  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
for some time i wondered in the wilderness of the male role , forever a boy, sensative new age guy, at home fathers.
all of these positions have of course done nothing for marriage and indeed i would say have left so many men little prepared to take up the advancement and challenge of life that marriage and father hood brings.

men in there droves have found themselves at the feet of the marketing men , stuck in material cycle of worth , that has degraded this nation and left it weak and vunerable.

our men do not want a better life they want an easier one , the lack of this bit of essential moral fibre , has made men isolated , and undermined and now increasingly uneducated in the ways to seek maturity and wisdom.

yet another failed modernity aspect, when the nature of men and women has been so cruely perverted into a value of meer materialism .

nu labour = poor fathers

17 February 2008 at 20:54  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Ms Snuffy,

Women who want children for no other reason than their own personal fulfilment fail to understand the very meaning of the agape which is necessary for the bringing of children into the world. It is about selfless giving and sacrifice, not a self-absorbed climax of oestrogen impulse. A husband is not an inconvenience to endure, but an imperative of complement, without which a child is most likely to be emotionally and spiritually hindered.

And as for 'freedom', there is no greater liberty than that found in being a slave to Christ.

17 February 2008 at 21:49  
Anonymous Cinnamon said...

It's worse than that -- children who grow up without a father will not learn how and what a father is supposed to do, and so, the young men won't be able to easily fall into that role. Childrearing is not innate, we're not cats who instinctively know what to do. We pass our culture on to our children!

Likewise, a child who has not seen how a couple treats each other properly will have many problems in their own relationships.

That is what is at the root of the current dysfunctionality of society, we're in the second (almost third) generation of people who have never learnt the core social skills of family life.

17 February 2008 at 22:12  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"A husband is not an inconvenience to endure, but an imperative of complement,"

Like in the gnostic world view, everything is upside down in the modern world.

Unborn Children = Parasites
Authority = Power
Husbands = Seed packets to be thrown away

17 February 2008 at 22:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


My ex wife, the bitch, was a specialist child care social worker in South London.

It has always been a well know accepted fact in social work that children do far better with a father then not. Surprisingly also it is a well established fact that children still do better even when the father is a c..t, in the majority of cases.

My ex wife dealt with some of the worst cases of child abuse imaginable on a daily basis.

Half of the cases involved the mother and a stepfather, many of the rest were just sorting out bad conduct from the child themselves, when there was no man around at all. You would be shocked how many cases of child abuse just involved the mother.

But virtually never was the real father involved in any of her cases.

What else is there to say?

ATLAS shrugged and wished he had not brought back bad memories.

18 February 2008 at 01:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can I say this because it may ring true with many fathers out there.

In my long experience knowing many couples, I can honestly claim this fact of life.

Mothers abuse children far more and far more often then the real father virtually ever does. In my experience the man is the softy and the mother the prison guard.

Not knocking it that much because someone has to be the hard nut, but it does not change this fact of modern or maybe not so modern life.

Maybe it has always been so. How could we possibly know for sure?

ATLAS shrugged and wished his clever friend good day, and have many of them.

18 February 2008 at 01:58  
Blogger dmk said...

Civitas reached the same conclusions about the need for fathers in their research a few years ago:

Why do we keep ignoring the obvious?

18 February 2008 at 11:16  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Trying to read through the debate in Hansard, filtering out the noble lords' persistent mutual congratulatory rhetoric and the platitudinous assurances from the government benches of how important fathers were (cue for violins and crocodile tears), i concluded that the governments main argument was based on the s**ding Human Rights Act, though one peer pointed out that in continental europe, IVF is only administered to married couples.

Lord Tebbit made a memorable intervention to one peer when he said:

“… the noble Lord also said that science could change ethics. No, my Lords, science cannot change ethics. Ethics are ethics, morals are morals. What is right is right, what is wrong is wrong, and science cannot change that. If that were so, we would be living in a morass, in a world of moral relativism. If there is one thing that is going wrong in the world at the moment, it is that we are losing sight of the immutability of certain rights and wrongs and ethics”.

Quite so.

This government has so much to answer for, but for what it is worth, your communicants can petition the PM not to allow this amendment to come before parliament.

It is (slightly) more productive than sticking pins into a wax effigy of GB

18 February 2008 at 17:22  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace
I agree with your first paragraph. But you still say nothing of the law and how society should, or should not, restrict the freedoms that currently exist.

I might even agree with your second paragraph if Christ were to be taken as a kind of metaphor for morality, or the belief in guarding the goodness of the universe or something similar...

19 February 2008 at 01:04  
Blogger Tomrat247 said...

Your grace,

Dead on - having children is a right only in the fact that it carries very real responsibilities that last a lifetime; the modern view that all are entitled is laughable only in the fact that we have separated the responsibility element in any future considerations.
Agreed on your point on Slavery to our Lord and Saviour - Amen. I would say that liberty though is the freedom to choose between other forms of slavery, and needs to be protected thusly.


You cannot tangibly change ONE law or set of laws and hope that you will engineer society accordingly (indeed, most laws created on this basis work incredibly poorly and tend to be counterproductive; look at child poverty laws for an immediate example). You need to change the mind set - In saying that our European brethrin have got it part right; I would say that IVF should not be covered on the NHS period - an active choice of this sort needs to involve sacrifice at every level; why should it be made by the cancer sufferer so a single woman can enjoy motherhood?

To the 2 anonymous posters,

There are instances in nature where the non-biological patriachs of a household will kill off the previous patriach's offspring; understandable considering the animal desire to preserve genetic material and allocate maximum resources/survival chances to your own offspring. It is not a difficult stretch to believe humans respond to similar pressure. That said we are not animals; but it is the character of Christ, and the impact of Christianity on western civilisation that has enabled us to rise above this.

19 February 2008 at 12:56  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Indeed - we need to change the mindset. I try to do that everyday in my job. But it is difficult. IVF is mainly used by couples who find they cannot get pregnant naturally. Are you saying that IVF should not be available to them either?

I believe IVF should not be available to anyone, single or not. And currently it is not available to any woman over the age of 35.

Why everyone feels they are entitled to children regardless of their biology, their circumstances etc, baffles me. But I would not prevent single women, or anyone else for that matter, from having a child on their own. I may not agree with it, but I would not prohibit it. And I wondered where His Grace stood on this. But it would seem I will never know...

19 February 2008 at 18:12  
Blogger Sivakumar said...

Nice Article... :)

15 June 2008 at 17:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older