I know there’s a thread about Alabama’s bonkers court case, but I want to discuss a more general issue, as the thread’s title suggests.
I’m starting with these assumptions:
Many pro-life folks say “life begins at conception,” and believe that at that point, killing the entity (whether blastocyte, embryo, fetus, or baby) is killing a human, with everything that entails. (Other pro-life positions don’t stake out this extreme stance–I’m excluding those more moderate positions from my post).
Killing a human is homicide.
Deliberate homicide without justification is murder.
IVF clinics routinely fertilize eggs and then deliberately dispose of some of the fertilized eggs.
If all these assumptions are true, should pro-life advocates accuse IVF clinicians of mass murder? How is their position consistent with support for IVF treatments?
There’s an obvious answer, which is that opposing IVF is politically unpopular, and they’re a bunch of hypocrites–or even that they’re just not especially deep thinkers who’ve staked out a consistent position. But I’m wondering if there’s a less obvious answer that I’m missing.
Is anyone arguing it is inconsistent to be “pro-life” (or anti-abortion) and also against IVF, vasectomies, and invasive fertility treatments in general?
I’m not sure the relevance of this question, honestly–but I’m not arguing that, and I don’t know if anyone is. I think I’d consider that position both consistent and obnoxious.
I think there’s a very tangled web of religious mores, but it ultimately can be traced back to a pretty simple set of rules.
More babies = good.
Less babies = bad.
The pro-life focus on abortion-as-murder is relatively new compared to the much older “be fruitful and multiply” thing.
So IVF is good because it produces more babies, and more babies are good.
You can add layers to it, like the fact that IVF is expensive and so more likely to be undertaken by well-off parents who will produce the “right” kind of babies. Or the very real desire to control women, or the very real bit where “cruelty is the point.”
But it ultimately comes back to a very old religiously motivated bias that “more babies = good.”
So I don’t think IVF is generally inconsistent with an anti-abortion mindset, but is specifically inconsistent with a belief that abortion is literal murder.
Well, at the least, the Catholic Church agrees with you on your general point. They oppose IVF exactly because it does usually destroy a lot of fertilized eggs.
The Magisterium has pronounced her main teachings on IVF in Donum Vitae (1987), Evangelium Vitae (1995), and Dignitas Personae (2008). The Church says “no” to IVF due to the massive destruction of embryonic life, the assault on the meaning of the conjugal act and the treatment of the child as a product not a gift.
That seems like an alternative, also consistent (and obnoxious if comes down to controlling people), position.
NB in many countries with extremely low fertility rates there are often official incentives (tax breaks, maternity/paternity leave, etc.) to encourage or facilitate people to have more babies.
The true believers aren’t hypocrites. The true believers are against IVF. That’s what will drive those goals and rulings.
Politics is different because rich white people want IVF.
But the true believers have a consistent plan:
Shame and shun pregnancies that happen outside marriage.
Tell these people that they can’t get an abortion but can give up their kids for adoption.
Shame and shun children born with IVF so there are no more ever.
Tell the people that would have used IVF to adopt the children that were born outside marriage.
It’s 100% this. More specifically its politically unpopular with rich older men, as its controlling their reproductive rights (male infertility being the main reason for IVF, I believe). The pro-life movement is about controlling the reproductive rights of everyone who is not a rich old white man, controlling their ability to have or not have babies is absolutely beyond the pail and unacceptable.
I don’t think so; but there certainly seem to be people, including in Alabama, arguing that abortion of a blastocyst or fetus from inside a woman is terrible but deliberately killing a bastocyst or possibly fetus in the process of IVF is just fine.
Some of them also allow exceptions for rape. So yes, I do think some of this is about sex – but I think even more of it is about politics, and being deliberately used by politicians who are concerned a whole lot less about blastocysts than about votes, and who assume (very likely in many cases correctly) that their voters haven’t, and won’t, think the issue through.
So the reaction to the IVF decision shows the true make up of the pro life movement. There is absolutely some people in the pro-life movement who are genuinely driven by a belief that life begins at conception, and its morally unacceptable to end it not matter how early it is.
The overwhelming reaction of the GOP pro-life movement against this ruling shows that those people are a minority. The mainstream GOP pro-life movement wants to control women’s bodies and is not actually driven by a genuine moral belief about protecting life.
I’m not a medical expert, nor am I that smart of a guy, but this whole Alabama situation seems to me to make oral contraceptives illegal as well.
From what I understand, The Pill doesn’t keep an egg from being fertilized, it just keeps it from implanting. If the issue is that fertilized eggs are destroyed in test tubes and Petri dishes, would the woman taking birth control pills be liable for taking the pill, like she is her own abortion provider? I could have a misunderstanding on how this works.
I don’t mean to offend anyone or start a fight, but its kind of hard for me to follow the line of thinking that the Alabama Supreme Court laid out without also coming to the conclusion that contraceptives would be the next to go. Maybe not condoms or something of that nature, but anything that prevents fertilized cells from sticking to the mom and starting a pregnancy would be illegal.
Oh yeah, absolutely. They are definitely on the chopping block post-Dobbs. And the GOP pro-life movement will not have a problem with that, as rich old white men do not take the pill.
Maybe not condoms
Again, notice a pattern forming between the things that are unacceptable baby killing vs a-ok in the eyes of the GOP?
I think you’re right; if someone strenuously argues that X is exactly the same as murder, but they don’t say X should be treated in the same way as murder, then something is amiss with their argument; they probably don’t really believe it is murder (so their argument is some kind of hyperbole), or they haven’t really thought very deeply about what they are saying.
But then there’s a likely inconsistency even in the pro-life camp, about equating fertilised ova with ‘children’ - if you’re a protestor outside a lab where it happens to be bring-your toddler-to-work day, and a fire breaks out, and on entering the building there’s a choice between rescuing a toddler, or a dewar labelled as containing a thousand frozen blastocysts, but you can’t carry both, which should the pro-life protestor choose? If they’ve argued that fertilised ova really are children, then rescuing a thousand of them is the better choice, right?
IUDs inhibit the ability for a fertilized egg to attach to the the womb. That would probably be a prohibited form of birth control by someone who has the strict view that life begins at conception.
It isn’t, as far as I can see. Unless there are some IVF clinics that make it a point not to destroy fertilized eggs, and to treat fertilized eggs as human beings.
The thread title says “*the pro-life position,” but the OP (in “assumption #1”) specifies that we’re talking about one particular pro-life position: the belief that a human being’s life begins at the moment of conception. So the replies that claim “No, what pro-lifers are really motivated by is…” are IMHO off-topic.
I mean, maybe–but it’s legit to argue with my assumptions. Already I think I’m changing my mind slightly:
-There’s a significant contingent, including the official Catholic church, that stakes out a consistent position. (For all my frustration with the Catholic hierarchy’s official positions, inconsistency isn’t really their problem).
-There are apparently a lot more people who say life begins at conception than there are people who believe life begins at conception.
I think this is true. For one, I suspect a lot of people who say life begins at conception mean that they believe that abortion is wrong at all stages of a pregnancy – but those aren’t the same proposition.
I also think it’s true that people are generally unaware of the amount of embryo wastage involved in IVF. Because there’s nothing wrong, under your premises, with IVF per se – the problem is with the destruction of the unused fertilized embryos.
But, as you note, at the organizational level, groups that accept all the assumptions reach the conclusion that you suggest they should.