24.10.1996

Inhuman denial

Why should the desire of a widow to become pregnant using sperm taken from her dying husband cause such anguish amongst the liberal establishment?

The answer lies in the fact that bourgeois ‘ethics’ are based on a bizarre mix of religious superstition, Victorian family ‘values’ and the overriding concern for private property.

Diane Blood has been denied the right to use her husband’s sperm because he had not given his written permission. She has even been prevented from taking it abroad, where such posthumous fertilisation is permitted. No one doubts that Stephen Blood wanted his wife to conceive their child, but last week the high court upheld the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s application of the strict letter of the law.

It is right that in normal circumstances every individual should have control over how their body is used, but it is also right that, upon that individual’s death, such decisions should be taken by those closest to them. Bourgeois law recognises only the right of relatives - by blood, adoption or marriage - regarding the use of a dead person’s organs. A ‘common law’ spouse might find it much more difficult to have their wishes honoured. But these norms do not apply to sperm or ovae, thanks to the Warnock enquiry into the ‘ethics’ of the various aspects of artificial insemination.

Although Baroness War-nock herself has now said she regrets that the enquiry had not foreseen the possibility of the present case, it certainly had considered posthumous fertilisation in general. It declared:

“A man who has placed semen in a bank may die and his widow may then seek to be inseminated. This may give rise to profound psychological problems for the child and the mother ... The use by a widow of her dead husband’s sperm for AIH is a practice which we feel should be actively discouraged.”

The bourgeoisie’s bogus concern for a ‘fatherless child’ and its assumed duty to deprive us of our right to decide what is best for ourselves is breathtaking in its effrontery. Reactionaries extol “the sanctity of life”, to be given or taken away only by god, and use this as a cover for their campaign against single mothers, who they fear may be a ‘burden’ on their state.

Children are the most precious assets of any moral society. But capitalism does not fall into that category. It views children as future labour power to be exploited, but a tiresome burden until then. It wants to place as much responsibility for their care as it can on their parents - and for that both a mother and father are needed.

Our noble defenders of morality on the Warnock Committee had another concern: “Posthumous fertilisation could cause real problems of inheritance and succession,” they pontificated. Forget the rights and emotions of real people: it is capitalist property relations that must be protected.

It may be that the court of appeal will overturn the obscene restrictions on the rights of Diane Blood. Perhaps a private members’ bill will carry a change in the law to clear up this ‘anomaly’. But it is essential that workers do not sit back, abandoning this terrain to the false morality of the bourgeoisie.

The morality we need is one which prioritises our own needs, not those of the profiteers. By ditching superstition and the fake values of the bourgeoisie, we can start to advance along that road.

Jim Blackstock