Dear Editor,

In The Life of Brian, was it the Judean Liberation Front which expresses its solidarity with a transsexual member's "right to have a baby" - despite him being a man!? Whatever, it is very funny because it exaggerates to absurdity something you sometimes meet in real life: people demanding rights that they do not, cannot (or should not) have ("Sperm donor clinic for lesbians", 8 March 2004) .

With such absurdities now becoming a reality, however, they cease to be funny: e.g. gays, lesbians, old or infertile women (or with infertile husbands) demanding the right to have children via donated sperm, eggs, in vitro fertilisation, and in future, even cloning.

The problem, as with so many things nowadays, is that it is not just difficult, but quite impossible to know exactly where to draw the line - which results in no line at all being drawn.

Helping couples to conceive naturally, it seems to me, is fine. But where does "natural" end and become vainly and unnaturally artificial? I have a fairly good idea for myself, but others will disagree (particularly those demanding the right to have a child no matter how it is conceived, along with those making a living or career from helping them). We can, and no doubt will, go on and on arguing about it without ever agreeing. And while we are arguing, facts are being created, whether we like them or not. There are already thousands of individuals who have been created in the test tube, some of them using anonymously donated sperm and eggs. It is inevitable that sooner or later we will have cloned individuals among us.

I cannot stop others going ahead with what to me often seems the vain and unnatural creation of human life, nor am I sure that I would choose to even if I could. After all, who am I to interfere in other people's lives?

However, if they can claim the right to artificially create human life, in response, I must claim the right to know the genetic origins and manner of conception of anyone who wants to marry into my family. If they are a clone, were conceived in a petri dish from donated egg or sperm, or to satisfy the (to me) perverse wishes of gay couples or single individuals for a child, I want and demand to know about it.

In practice, most artificially conceived individuals and clones will not want their shady origins to be known, anymore than agribusiness wants us to know (through labelling) the GM content of its foodstuffs (for fear of putting customers off); and they will no doubt find plenty of advocates who, for one reason or another, will defend their right to anonymity. 

Thus, it will be up to those of us who believe that an individual's genetic origins, as well as their manner and circumstances of conception, matter, to label ourselves. Just as food may have to be labelled, "Contains no GM constituents", so we will have to label ourselves, as proof that we were "conceived naturally", or perhaps, "with a little help from our friends" (i.e. from nonymous rather than anonymous sperm or egg). Then, everyone is free to create a family as they please, while everyone else is free (i.e. has the necessary information) to choose whether or not to be a part of it.

Such a label will constitute a "human pedigree", which, to avoid forgeries, will have to be based on DNA profiles.