The pro-life position seems inconsistent with IVF

Yes! :clap: :+1: Please don’t call this POV “pro-life” when it actually means “forced pregnancy and birth regardless of the health of the embryo and despite the wishes and health of the mother.”

I can’t have a conversation with a group about even Property Rights if they don’t think a woman owns her body. We don’t appear to have established common grounds on which to discuss things like Rights any longer.

“X is a person.” -is arguing with- “X doesn’t vote how I like so I don’t care.”

Agreed, and very much worth noting. The article provides a solid treatment, though I suspect we both agree that it was overly sentimental about pre-modern medicine.

I say the Catholic Church’s position is internally consistent now (or roughly so), just as they were when they believed that the fetus received its soul well after conception. In Biblical times, they imposed lesser punishments for killing fetuses than humans. In fact killing fetuses was considered less seriously than knocking out a tooth. Exodus 21:

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Today, IVF slaughters thousands of embryos, something I consider morally irrelevant because I don’t accept assumptions that certain conservative Christians claim to make. Judging from their behavior, they don’t believe these assumptions either. So our philosophical differences are small: I say that people should say what they mean and should reflect upon the planks in their own eyes before they judge others, while conservative Christians disagree. Perhaps we could work something out.

At least the Catholic church has inveighed against IVF (though, they emphasize, not all reproductive technology) since its beginning.

It’s been a few months, but we saw this play out in real time back when the Alabama court case hit the fan. It seemed to trouble a lot of people for the couple weeks IVF was threatened, even people who are against abortion. I prefer the original hypothesis,

Be fruitful and multiply / more babies are good is popular, intuitive, and ripe for cherry picking. Life begins at conception is more nuanced but more effective in the specific case of argumentation. There’s a lot of overlap between the two, like a square peg that almost fits in a round hole. The corners of the peg correspond to IVF clinics that dispose of fertilized eggs…