ETHIICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCESS TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES BY SINGLE AND LESBIAN WOMEN

 £Some women are lucky enough to fall in love with a good man and end up with children who are cherished and bought up beautifully, and they all live happily ever after. Today, however, most of us with a few blaring blinkered exceptions realise that ¢s simply the fairytale. Life is far more precarious, chaotic and unknown, and outcomes rarely coincide with expectations. Some men are terrible fathers. Some women would really rather their children hadn ¢t been born. Some couples brawl to the death of family life, with more than a third splitting up and dividing the children between them. And some women and some men yearn to have babies, even though they either don ¢t have partners, or any appetite for lovers of the opposite sex. So who, in this melee, or rich diversity of human life (however you choose to see it), has the right to determine who deserves to have children and who doesn ¢t? ¤

Up until a few decades ago, the question was much easier to answer. Society held firmly that to have a child, you needed a mother and a father, and what ¢s more, a mother and a father who were married to each other and living together. There was neither the medical technology, nor the social acceptance for having a child outside marriage in the ways that are now possible.

There are two primary methods of assisted reproduction, and while originally intended to assist married couples to have a child of their own, changes in society ¢s attitudes, has seen a number of single and lesbian women intentionally chose to have a child without a male partner, and without the prospect of a father figure in the life of the child

This paper is written entirely within the context of the intentional choice by single and lesbian women to conceive a child using assisted reproduction. It is not addressing the complexities of parenthood which arise from unplanned pregnancies or the breakdown of a relationship. It arose from the recent debate over access to such technology which has revealed that there is an inconsistency in the laws which govern such practices on a state by state basis, but has also involved the community in discussion on the nature of family and parenthood, and in particular the role of fathers.

This paper is written by someone who is female, single and childless.

Ex-nuptial birth rates for Australia.

In 1997, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were 251,800 births registered in Australia. 28% of the mothers were not in a registered marriage  ¶ 70,000 births. In 1977, 10% of births were ex-nuptial.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures for 1997 vary slightly, but in segmenting the information differently, supply a little more information

Married / de facto220,217 births 87.5%

Widowed, divorced, separated 3,139 births 1.2%

Single 28,277 births 11.2%

Not stated / other 727 births

Total 252,370 births

ABS statistics reveal that only 4% of births (around 11,000 each year) have the status of  £paternity not acknowledged. ¤ The Northern Territory accounts for 18% of these, so the state averages are even lower, with Victoria having the lowest at around 2.5%. There are several reasons why a fathers ¢ name may not be placed on the birth certificate, and there are legal implications in acknowledging paternity which some men and women may wish to avoid even when the identity of the father is known. We can probably assume that a significant number of these pregnancies were unplanned, and that although there is not a partner at the time of birth, there was at the time of conception.

What the official registration figures do not reveal, is how many of the ex-nuptial births were the result of assisted reproduction technologies, although an estimate of approximately 2% of all treatment as being for single and lesbian women did appear in a couple of articles.

Between 1977 and 1997 there has been a marked increase in the number of ex-nuptial births to women in their 30s and 40s, largely reflecting the increase in de facto relationships. It also reflects a wider tendency amongst all women to delay childbearing, and in part, explains why many have had to turn to IVF.

EX-NUPTIAL BIRTHS 1977 1997

No. of babies born to 35 year old women 203 1,615

No. of babies born to 41 year old women 42 312

Gay and Lesbian households were recorded for the first time in the 1996 Census. There were 4,301 households, of which 774 had children living in them. This is a conservative estimate, as it is considered that many such couples many would be unwilling to divulge this information. Neither does this data reveal the biological connection which these children have with their lesbian parents  ¶ in all likelihood,  £children who are being raised by same-sex couples have usually begun their lives in single-parent, or conventional heterosexual two-parent families, and have only later moved with their mothers into a same-sex relationship household.

A survey carried out by gay interests firm Significant Others puts the figure at 90,000 lesbians, or 22% of the lesbian population having children.

Reproductive Technologies

Assisted reproduction fall into two primary technologies although with a number of variants.

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

AIH (partner ¢s sperm) and AID (donor sperm) is used mainly to combat male infertility. Only AID is relevant to the context of this paper. This would be the most common form of assisted reproduction method used by single and lesbian women. Statistics on the number babies born to single and lesbian mothers using AID are very hard to come by.

IN-VITRO FERTILISATION

It should be noted at the outset, that IVF is predominantly sought to overcome infertility. IVF involves highly invasive procedures, the failure rate of IVF treatments is around 85%, and it takes a heavy toll  ¶ physically, emotionally and financially on most people who participate. It is a technology of last resort, turned to only when  ¶ in the case of single and lesbian women  ¶ many attempts at AID have failed.

Placed in this context, the media frenzy over access to the technology by single and lesbian women was to some extent a storm in a teacup, and had more to do with the delight of some sections of the media and the intellectual elite having yet another opportunity to gleefully poke fun at  Žlittle Johnnie Howard ¢s white picket fence view ¢ of the family in Australia.

A single woman wishing to access IVF can use donor sperm and either her own egg or a donor egg, depending on the nature of her infertility. Surrogacy is also an option if she is unable to physically bear a child.

According to one article, there are approximately 14,000 IVF treatments annually in Australia, of which 1% are for single and lesbians  ¶ about 150 women. (See note) The AIHW do not currently record marital status of those receiving treatment, but will be doing so in the future. Given the high failure rate of such treatment, the number of babies born under these circumstances is currently negligible. For women from states that prohibit access, not only do they face the cost of the treatment, but also of regular trips interstate for an unknown duration of stay. This implies both financial security, and flexibility in work arrangements for the participant/s.

Part of the debate over access has revolved around whether the taxpayer should be asked to fund fertility treatment for single and lesbian women.  £It is obviously coherent to support the access of single and lesbian women to both fertility treatments and to public funding. It is just as coherent to support access but to oppose public funding, and to oppose access and to oppose public funding. What seems inconsistent is to oppose access but to support public funding. ¤

Costs per single treatment:

Artificial Insemination (AIH) using partner sperm$625.00 Medicare covers $425.65 for physical infertility

Donor Insemination (AID) using donor sperm tested for HIV and other diseases $823.00 Medicare covers $423.65

In-Vitro Fertilisation  ¶ several variants depending on the degree of infertility and whether it is the male or female who is infertile$2,912.00 per cycle. Medicare covers $1,864.00

Freezing and Thawing embryo for future use$1,634.00 Medicare covers $664.00

Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer (GIFT) Egg is removed by laparoscopy and immediately transferred to the fallopian tubes together with sperm so fertilisation can occur naturally$2,912.00 Medicare covers $1,864.00

Zygote Intra-Fallopian (ZIFT) Egg and sperm are fertilised outside the body (IVF) and the embryo is transferred to the Fallopian tubes.$2,912.00 Medicare covers $1,864.00

Intracytoplasmic Single Sperm Injection. The sperm is retrieved directly from the testes, a single sperm is injected directly into an egg in the laboratory and the embryo returned to the female via IVF or ZIFT$2,912.00 Medicare covers $1,864.00

The Medicare rebate is available to single and lesbian women in those States which allow them access to the technology. What constitutes a  £medical problem ¤ is a gray area for doctors when assessing whether to claim the rebate for women using AID. Some make a distinction between medical infertility and social infertility, others like Trevor Johnson, the director of IVF NSW don ¢t.  £the people we see have a problem when they are childless. ¤

The health argument in favour of allowing single and lesbian women access to sperm banks is supported on the basis of harm minimisation: that women will act in less safe and less controlled ways to obtain sperm in they are denied such services. Sperm bank donors are screened for family history and diseases such as Hepatitis B and HIV. Self insemination is illegal in Victoria, attracting a fine of up to $40,000

Legal considerations in fertility treatment.

Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia restrict access to sperm banks and IVF treatment to people in de facto and married relationships. In WA, and SA a de facto relationship has to have been in existence for at least 5 years. Victorian women travel to New South Wales where no such restrictions exist, an IVF clinic at Albury treats about 30 single Victorian women each year.

Victoria is the only state with legislation that requires donors to be identified, and that has only been in place since 1996. When the legislation was introduced, there was a marked decrease in the number of men willing to donate, and even now, the whole donor pool in Victoria is seven donors. In the other states, about half of all sperm donors prefer to remain anonymous, and it is now common practice for donors to be asked if they will allow their sperm to be used by singles and lesbian couples. The response varies from clinic to clinic and state to state, but there is significant resistance. Most donors prefer to feel that they are helping out infertile couples, and there is actually a shortage of identified donors for single and lesbian women. This means that even those single and lesbian women who would like their child to know their biological father don ¢t have that choice.

At one clinic, IVF NSW based at Bondi Junction, 30 women a week receive donor inseminations; 20% of them are single and lesbian women, who almost all receive anonymous sperm.  £That ¢s 300 children born each year from this clinic alone to be raised by sole or lesbian mothers  ¶ children destined to know nothing of their fathers. ¤ .

The legitimacy of a child conceived via any form of assisted reproduction using donor egg or donor sperm or donor womb  ¶ regardless of the marital status of the mother  ¶ can be a legal minefield although in this respect single women are perhaps better off because the donor sperm is almost always anonymous, and thus there is little chance of any father wanting to make a claim on the child  ¶ and visa versa. The breakup of a relationship can raise issues of whether the non-biological parent should pay maintenance, and whether a child is entitled to inherit from the non-biological parent.

The Public Debate

A feature article in the Australian Financial Review written by journalist Geoffrey Barker contained most of the points made by the pro-access proponents

 ¡He (John Howard) is arguing that non-existent children have a presumptive right not to be conceived outside a two-parent heterosexual atomic family. Can negative rights be claimed coherently on behalf of non-existent human beings?

 ¡Quoting Dr Carl Wood,  £while unknown factors operate in parenting, , it may be that the quality of loving and caring is most important. ¤

 ¡There is a gap between what ought to be and what is the reality in which many children are raised. Divorce, desertion, death and other factors condemn many children to be raised in single-parent homes without security, care or love.

 ¡Again quoting Dr Wood:  £single and/or lesbian is irrelevant to parental adequacy or outcomes. If a single woman plans a pregnancy, has money, education and assistance with parenting while working, then she is likely to cope. It is difficult for those who are poor and alone and trying to work. ¤

 ¡US studies of more than 300 children of gay and lesbian parents concludes that they do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of psychological health, social relationships or sexual orientation.

 ¡It ¢s discrimination, its homophobia.

In a letter to the editor, Greg Ellis, replies:

 ¡The fact that some men are inadequate parents should not be regarded as sufficient reason for us to give up on male parenting as an ideal that our society should promote and support. Maleness does matter, and as every study of young boys demonstrates, it can ¢t be substituted with an extra mother.

 ¡The fact that orphans or abused children would be better off in the home of a loving single woman or lesbian couple is not sufficient argument for saying that children yet to be conceived should therefore regard the prospect with equal equanimity.

 ¡Women ¢s rights are not co-extensive with the rights of single or lesbian women. Women, like men, have a shared right to be responsible for the children they conceive. There is no right to create children where shared responsibility is not enjoined, and this applies to couples as well. By implication, IVF should not happen because no man should thoughtlessly give up responsibility for his future genetic imprint.

 ¡Just because we believe single mothers are deserving of society ¢s respect and support, should not lead us into policy actions that promote single parenthood.

 ¡In spraying around accusations of homophobia we should be careful to question of a child ¢s right to their identity and to note that no matter how progressive we may be on the issue of gay rights, children are still conceived only through the fertilisation of a female egg by male sperm and that no amount of acceptance of the diversity of adult sexuality will change that fact.

Other contributions included:

 ¡The issue isn ¢t whether single women or single men or gays might be good parents. There is not doubt they well could be, but the state shouldn ¢t be in the position of encouraging families where there isn ¢t a key female and a key male. It ¢s more in the best interest of the child, rather than the rights of a child versus the rights of a woman.

 ¡  £Single and lesbian mothers will create a new stolen generation of children robbed of a father figure ¤  £ the rights of the mother should not override the rights of the child  · to expect, all other things being equal, the love and commitment of a mother and a father.

Single women and lesbian couples  ¶ some distinctions

There are differences in the social circumstances of single women and lesbian couples that are worthy of note. The following examples highlight some of the complexities of the issue:

 ¡Sez Cardis is 36 years old, and expecting her second child conceived by artificial insemination. She was married once, had 5 miscarriages, and was later divorced. She became pregnant to a man who was violently opposed to a child and wanted her to have an abortion. She decided to raise her daughter on her own, and being an only child herself, desperately wants her child to have a brother or a sister.

 ¡13 month old Erin lives with her two mums, Wendy and Kerry. Kerry is Erin ¢s biological mum, and Wendy hopes to have the next baby using sperm from the same anonymous donor.

 ¡ £Carol ¤ is a friend of my doctor. Mid thirties, she is realising that she may not meet the man of her dreams and desperately wants to have a child. She is educated, financially independent, owns her own home, and can afford to take 5 years off work to stay with a child until school commences. Her decision is hinging on whether she feels that there are enough male friends in her life to provide role models for her child, and if she goes ahead, will use artificial insemination.

 ¡Jacqui and Sarah have been partners for nine years. They live in Melbourne but Jacqui has made many unsuccessful regular trips to Sydney for IVF treatment. Physically and emotionally exhausted from all the travel and the disappointment, she had decided to register at Albury, but is still prepared to face more treatment. She and her partner have both wanted to have children since they were children themselves.

Polls of the population, and of donors taken during the recent debate reflected a marginally higher degree of support for heterosexual single women accessing the treatment than lesbian couples, although the majority view in polls was that neither should have access.

What is a family?

Families come in all shapes and sizes, and over the centuries, cultures have devised a wide variety of structures for establishing the social groupings which are called  Žfamily ¢ and which care for children, educate them, form their character, and develop their moral commitment and sense of worth. Since the industrial age, the norm for Western culture has been the nuclear family. Many now believe however, that the nuclear family is facing extinction. In many of its expressions, it is a very privatised unit and its relationships are under immense pressure as a result of its isolation and lack of connectedness to real community and extended family  ¶ biological or other. Yet in the breakdown of this traditional structure, is what is taking its place any better equipped to care for and nurture children? Are post-nuclear families any less isolated and privatised than their predecessors? What are the alternatives? And whilst we acknowledge and affirm as family a diversity of social arrangements, important questions still exist as to the significance of the primary relationship of parents and child, and whether we can be normative in our view when it comes to the intentional forming of family (as opposed to those structures that develop from circumstances that arise within already existing families)

Cameron Lee draws on the work of Stanley Hauerwas, in saying that the moral significance of the family is that it serves as a sign of hope. Families represent a limit to the ideals of free choice and self-determination.  £ ·we do not choose to be part of them  · to be part of a family is to understand what it means to be  Žstuck with ¢ a history and a people. ¤ According to Hauerwas, the decision to have children is of great moral significance from the standpoint of Christian hope.  £a child represents our willingness to go on in the face of difficulties, suffering and the ambiguity of modern life and is thus our claim that we have something worthwhile to pass on. The refusal to have children can be an act of ultimate despair  · Fear and rejection of parenthood, the tendency to view family as nothing more than companionable marriage, and the understanding of marriage as one of a series of non-binding commitments, are but indications that our society has a growing distrust of our ability to deal with the future. ¤

Not that the family should be idolised or idealised. Rather that  £the social calling of family life is to be taken up into the call of discipleship.  £Marriage and family. like the life of singleness, becomes a vocation for the upbringing of a particular kind of community. ¤ (Hauwewas)

One of the many dilemmas that this debate raises is that in acknowledging how important family is and recognising the legitimate desire of most women to participate in the raising of the next generation, how can we then turn and say to a particular group of women that even though the technology exists to make it possible, they should not be availing themselves of it?

A traditional Christian view of procreation.

It should be noted that there are many aspects of AID and IVF that raise enormous ethical concerns for people who are married. Protestants in particular, may not have any major moral or ethical problems with AIH, or IVF which uses the egg and sperm of the couple, but beyond that, few are willing to go. For some though, any medical intervention is unnatural, and others believe that God intended children to be conceived amidst the act which expresses the parents ¢ love and commitment to one another, and any severing of that connection is unacceptable.

Mainstream Christian beliefs regarding procreation begin with the Genesis stories.

 £God created the human and gave to this earthly creation a dignity that was nearly godlike, enabling a communion with God, as well as a capacity to exercise freedom and to recognise the laws and purposes of God  ¶ and thus also to flout them. This most precious of creatures was also distinguished into male and female, a differentiation that made possible an interaction that, in some ways, echoes a relationship with the Creator, and makes humans potential partners in the processes of creation. ¤

Stackhouse continues by saying that the biblical texts, as they address the normative structure for human sexuality, have three primary elements:

 ¡The fundamental relationships that humans are to have with God and with one another is to be one of fidelity in communion.. We do not live by or for ourselves. Persons are to be respected and honored because they are made in the image of God, but this is not to encourage an individualism as they are also rooted in relationship to God and intended for human relationship. Walter Brueggemann argues that the  £image of God ¤ given to humanity is never in the individual alone,  £Humanity is community male and female. And none is the full image of God alone. ¤

 ¡We are to use the resources of creation to ensure that life flourishes. Be fruitful and multiply. This capacity is a gift, a mark of how God invites creatures to participate in the blessing of ongoing creativity, participating in the ebb and flow of life, becoming fathers and mothers to the future generation and honoring the mothers and fathers who went before. However, not all are called to participate in biological generativity  ¶ Jesus being a prime example.

 ¡Humans are called to form and sustain social institutions where both fidelity and generativity become part of the general pattern of the common life. When  £a man leaves his mother and a woman leaves her home ¤ and become  £one flesh ¤ they depart the gene pool and loyalties from which they came, and form a new intimate bond.

Classical Christian theology therefore identifies three main purposes for which God ordained marriage, and the procreation of children together with their upbringing within the love and discipline of the family, has normally headed the list. (the second being the  £mutual society and help of one to another ¤, the third being sexual union.)

What does the Bible say about children? Children, particularly the having of sons, was enormously important in Old Testament times. Barrenness is a common metaphor; childlessness was often a judgement, whereas children were a blessing. The story of Hannah is a particularly poignant one, of a barren woman, deeply loved by her husband, ridiculed for her infertility, and who in bitterness of soul, wept and prayed her great grief and anguish before the Lord. So great was her desire for God to take away the misery and shame of her barrenness that she promised that the child would be given to the Lord ¢s service. God remembered her, and granted her a son, Samuel, who was given as promised, and Hannah was blessed for her faithfulness with five more children.

By contrast, the New Testament has very little to say on the forming of families or on having children, and in fact some of Jesus sayings appear anti-family. In the words of Walter Wink,  £Jesus renounces the family as constrained by genetic blood-lines, and offers an alternative, a new family, made up of those  · linked not by the deepest of all bonds, the blood tie, but by solidarity in the work of God. ¤ This is not to say that family is evil or wrong, far from it. But together with Paul ¢s words on singleness and marriage, spiritual procreation is given the greater importance. None of the stigma of biological childlessness is to be found here.

Summarising the story of Hannah, Gilbert Meilaender says:

 £Christians then do not underestimate the sheer human significance of biological ties. We understand the deep desire to have children. But we must also constantly remind ourselves that children are not our possession, they are gifts from God. They exist not simply to fulfill us, but as a sign, that by God ¢s continued blessing, self giving love is creative and fruitful. And what if the Lord does not  £remember ¤ us as he remembered Hannah? This is reason for sadness, but it is not reason to take up the  £project ¤ of making a child. ¤

Although addressing the problem of infertility in marriage, he makes the point which is valid for all men and women  ¶ there are other ways of being  Žfruitful ¢, and for those who find them,  £they too will receive gifts from God  ¶ different gifts. ¤

Traditional Christian theology therefore places procreation firmly within the bounds of heterosexual marriage.

A feminist perspective on reproductive technologies

Lisa Sowle Cahill analyses three church statements on the issue and whilst upholding the main tenets of traditional Christian theology, she does not always agree with the ethical framework in which conclusions have been reached. She contends that the perspective that she brings on reproductive technology  £places infertility therapy as a matter of social as well as sexual ethics. ¤ Neglected areas of moral concern are:

 ¡The nature of human parenthood as ideally grounded in biological kinship as well as in chosen social commitments

 ¡The contextualisation of choice by inevitable and universal aspects of the  £human condition ¤ (eg: health and illness, aging,  ·death, ·our interdependence within communities and families)

 ¡The relation of individual choices to the common good, especially when choices become social practices

 ¡The moral role of policy in cultures in which legality is often equated with unobjectionability.

Cahill is a strong advocate of adoption (she has three adopted Thai children herself) as an option for the resolution of infertility. In the context of western pluralist culture where autonomy and an individual ¢s  Žright ¢ to the freedom of choice come before any notion of the common good, she addresses the difficulty of challenging the technology after it is already in place and being accessed. Outlawing may not be possible, but a number of other policies  ¶ giving children access to data that will help them identify their father, refusing health insurance, setting age limits, limiting funds for research, refusing access to singles etc, as well as positive policies that encourage adoption, and counseling that seeks to help people deal with infertility rather than simply assess medical suitability for treatment, are possible options. She concludes:

 £The final question is no so much how to judge, condemn, or control individual couples who are so  Ždesperate ¢ for a child that they find the new technologies virtually irresistible. It is how to open public discussion to values of parenthood which extend beyond freedom to embodiment, and to see use of reproductive technologies in a larger context of technical reason operating towards unexamined ends, of gender hierarchy, and of economic inequality. ¤

Pro-gay theology

There is an abundance of material by Christian authors on the theology of sexuality as it relates to gay and lesbian relationships, but I found nothing specifically on children or procreation. However, most writers who advocate the sanctioning of Christian marriage for same-sex relationships, claim the same paradigms of exclusivity for these couples as for heterosexual marriages, in which event, the introduction into the relationship of a child who is only biologically linked to one parent presents the same ethical dilemmas as it might in a heterosexual marriage.

The broader context

The task of seriously questioning the use of this technology becomes much easier when located within a focus on the responsible use of resources, and in particular, the plight of millions of children struggling to survive in abject poverty.

The world population has surged from 2.5 billion in 1950, to 6 billion in 1999, the last billion being added in just 12 years, most being born in lower income countries. Of that 6 billion, 2.8 billion live on less that $2 a day, 1.2 billion on less than $1 a day.

The report State of the World ¢s Mothers 2000, by Save the Children reveals that:

 ¡One woman in nine will die in pregnancy or childbirth in Niger.

 ¡One child in every eight born in the lowest 10 countries on the Mother ¢s Index, will not see their first birthday.

 ¡In Chad, only 25% of children have access to safe water.

 ¡In the bottom 10 countries (with the exception of Nepal, all are African states), only 58% of children are enrolled in primary school, and only two-thirds of those will reach grade 5.

 ¡In Yemen, less than half the births are attended by trained health professionals.

 ¡Only 25% of women in Ethiopia are literate and one child in 10 dies in infancy.

Access to education for females and basic family planning are vital to the wellbeing of mothers and children in the developing countries – placed in this context, practices that allow thousands to be spent to produce just one baby in Australia (which ranks third in the Mothers Index) are highly questionable

A response

The fact that this technology is already accessible in some states, and has been for some years is problematic. Reversing policy may well not be an option. Can we deny that a child is any less a gift if born to a single woman or lesbian couple? Can we deny that some children may be better off in such households? Can we deny that these children are very much wanted and will be much loved? Probably not. As pointed out in the article by Sue Williams, anyone wishing to use the services of a fertility clinic goes through rigorous interviewing and counseling before they are accepted into the program and it could be argued that these people have had their  £suitability ¢ for parenthood assessed far better than the rest of the population! And we will not be able to prevent women having children if they really want to. How many women, if denied access to fertility treatment, will simply find other options  ¶ backyard insemination, unsafe sex, or a sexual liaison which compromises a same-sex relationship – to achieve their goal?

However, we are still faced with the undeniable biological fact that women cannot have babies without men, and for most Christians, the belief that God has called men and women to be active partners together in procreation, and to together be responsible for what they create. The relegation of men to the sole role of donating sperm is indefensible, as are the laws which prohibit children from knowing who their biological father is.

Bettina Arndt sums it up well:

 £However loving and capable the women making this choice are, surely a child raised in these circumstances is given a clear message that fathers are irrelevant, What does that say, particularly to sons, about their future role in family life, the contribution they will make to nurturing the next generations? ¤

Rowland Croucher, says this:  £there is a wall-full of books from researchers and the men ¢s movement about Absent Fathers/Lost Sons and Daughters. Where fathers are emotionally disengaged from their kids, those children feel a deep emptiness within. ¤ Several of the articles written to the papers during the recent debate by children who do not know their biological fathers echoed these sentiments. The longing to know  Žwho we are ¢ in the context of  Žwho and where we came from ¢ runs deep, even by children who have been bought up in loving adoptive families.

Whilst human decision making is motivated by a whole range of good and bad desires, children must never become a commodity, something to be had just because they can be afforded. There are already far too many children in the world who do not receive sufficient amounts of the life staples that we take for granted. A greater awareness of the needs of mothers and children in developing countries is needed.

From a pastoral viewpoint, childlessness is the cause of much grief and loss for many women. Whilst society pressures have eased, and there are no longer the kinds of pressures that say a woman can only find fulfillment and identity in motherhood, the reality is that most women  ¶ although their wish list may be a little longer these days, career, travel, financial independence  ¶ still hope that one day, they will also meet that someone special and have a baby or two. We should view with compassion those women who long to be mothers, but through circumstance hear their biological clock ticking away with little prospect of the dream being realised.

However, although not constituting  £a child of one ¢s own ¤ there are other options for women who want children in their lives. As has been noted at times in this debate, there are many children already in this world whose family situations are less than ideal. Adoption, fostering and respite care are all ways that childless women (and men) can make a valuable contribution to the next generation, and there are many programs and organisations that exist to improve the quality of life for disadvantaged and disabled children.

For some women, this will not be enough, and ultimately, if they consider it to be a viable option for them, and given that the technology, current laws, and societal attitudes make it possible, some will choose to take the path of having a child without a male partner. Our responsibility to be committed to the love, care, nurture, support and acceptance of this family can be no less than it is to any other.

Bibliography

Arndt, Bettina, In the name of the Father, The Age, August 5, 2000, News Extra

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3301.0 Births  ¶ Australia 1997, Canberra, ABS, 12 November, 1999

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia ¢s Mothers & Babies 1997, Canberra : AIHW, 1999

Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, Assisted Conception, Australia and New Zealand, 1997, Canberra, AIHW, 1999

Barker, Geoffrey, Father dear Father, Australian Financial Review, 25 August, 2000

Cahill, Lisa Sowle, Sex, gender and Christian ethics, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1996

Crawford, Anne, The Australian nuclear family could be extinct by the end of the century, True. The Age, August, 2000

Croucher, Rowland, The family, North Blackburn : Dove, 1995

Croucher, Rowland Happy Fathers ¢ Day, Sermon preached, 3 September, 2000, http://jmm.org.au/articles/5122.htm

Ellis,Greg No substitute for maleness, Australian Financial Review, 29 August, 2000

Feinberg, John S. & Paul D. Ethics for a Brave New World, Wheaton : Crossway Books, 1993

Henley, Rev. Dr John, quoted by Mary-Ann Troy and Chloe Saltau in, To this family, IVF is a miracle, but should miracles belong to everyone? The Age, 5 August, 2000

Haslem. Benjamin, IVF Battle over just 150 women, The Weekend Australian, August 5-6, 2000

Herde Chris, The great Australian family, what is it? Australian Associated Press, 4 August, 2000

Lee, Cameron, Beyond family values, a call to Christian virtue, Downers Grove, Inter-Varsity Press, 1998,

Meilaender, Gilbert, A child of one ¢s own: at what price? In The Reproductive Revolution: a Christian appraisal of sexuality, reproductive technologies, and the family, edited by John F Kilner and others, Grand Rapids : William B Eerdmans, 2000

Napier, Sue, Tasmanian Liberal Party leader, The Mercury, 7 Sept. 2000

Saunders, Peter, Exploding the nuclear family  ¶ a question of families, The Australian, 5 August, 2000

Save the Childrenm State of the World ¢s Mothers 2000, Westport : Save the Children, 2000

Stackhouse, Max, Covenant and Communities, Faith, Family and Economic Life, Louisville : Westminster John Knox Press, 1997

Stott, John, New Issues facing Christians Today, fully revised edition, London : Marshall Pickering, 1999

Tomlinson, Jacquie, Pain guaranteed, the baby isn ¢t, The Age, 5 August, 2000, News Extra

Walker, Vanessa and Margot Denny, The Women whose only option is IVF, The Weekend Australian, August 5-6, 2000

Whelan, Judith, And baby makes two, Sydney Morning Herald, 5 August, 2000

Whelan, Judith, Father figure, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 August, 2000

Williams, Sue, A licence would level the playing field for parents, Sun-Herald, 6 August, 2000

Wink, Walter, The Powers that Be: Theology for a new Millenium, New York, Doubleday, 1998

World Bank, The World Bank Atlas 2000, Washington DC : World Bank, 2000

World Bank, Development Outreach: Special report: Fighting Poverty, Summer 2000

http://www.worldbank.org/devoutreach/article.asp?id=52

Wynhausen, Elisabeth, Life with my two mothers, The Weekend Australian, 5-6 August, 2000