From The BBC
More from YourTango: 'Bachelor' Juan Pablo Didn't Propose, So Where's The Ring Now?
The Bill aims to update the laws on "assisted reproduction"
Proposals to make it easier for lesbian and gay couples to have IVF babies have been heavily criticized in the Lords.
A number of peers opposed moves to remove a requirement for IVF clinics to consider "the need of that child for a father" before offering treatment.
They said it would be a "huge error" and the Lords should reaffirm the importance of both parents.
More from YourTango: Was Juan Pablo Planning To Propose To Nikki Ferrell Last Night?
The debate was adjourned when Lord Brennan, 65, collapsed in the chamber and had to be given a heart massage.
We know that the House Of Lords is largely a ceremonial role, but people still listen to those aristocrats. Basically, as we understand it, there is a law on the books in Merry Olde that says a child needs a father in order for someone to be permitted to go forward with IVF. Yes, statistics show that a child has a better chance of making it in a home with two loving parents. But no one knows if two gay parents will have the same good influence. They probably will. So, what are the options for gay couples if IVF is out? 1) Hold their nose and do it with a breeder and repeat until a baby is made (see Spike Lee’s She’s Gotta Have It). Not a great option. 2) Use other fertilization methods (ie the turkey baster). Fine, but it is not much more successful than doing it with a straight. 3) Surrogacy. It’s not cheap and it probably falls under the same “need of that child for a father” law if done legally. 4) Adoption. This is a pretty nice alternative. If Charles Dickens is to be believed, and we’re pretty sure he is, London is teeming with unsupervised youths. Just grab one of those little urchins and make him (or her) your own. There may be laws against that too.