Thread: Why is in vitro fertilization (IVF) ignored by abortion opponents?

I just finished looking through the "Anti-abortion" thread. Thought I'd take an alternate tack.

Most people that work themselves into a lather over the evils of abortion tend to ignore, or at most disapprovingly dismiss the process known as in vitro fertilization (IVF). In a nutshell, this is an elective treatment for woman with fertility issues who wish to bear their own children.

Generally speaking, the process works like this:

Multiple unfertilized eggs are harvested from the woman. The male provides a supply of sperm. Multiple eggs are fertilized under lab conditions. A specialist identifies which of the eggs are the healthiest, and most likely to survive the implantation process. The remainder of the fertilized eggs are discarded.

Once isolated, as many as three or four fertilized eggs are implanted in the woman's uterus. While the odds of multiple birth are higher than normal with IVF, the odds are very low that ALL implanted eggs will attach to the uterine wall successfully. It is assumed that some of the implanted eggs - fertilized - will die.

So throughout this process, there are two stages in which multiple fertilized eggs are destroyed, or expected to die.

This being the case, why are anti-abortion advocates willing to look the other way where IVF is concerned?

While most anti abortion people will say "life begins at conception" what they technically mean is "conception & implantation" that it the point at which implantation into the uterine wall happens and growth thus begins.

Thus, simply discarding fertilized eggs before they are implanted in the uterus is not seen as aborting human life.

Your premise is not totally correct. Catholics are not allowed to use In-Vitro for the exact reasons you mention. The church teaches that it is not right to destroy life even it it is a by-product of creating life.

Originally Posted by spud438

Your premise is not totally correct. Catholics are not allowed to use In-Vitro for the exact reasons you mention. The church teaches that it is not right to destroy life even it it is a by-product of creating life.

It's not sanctioned by the church - but when did you last hear of protesters waving signs about the horrors of in vitro fertilization?

Dayton3 - But more fertilized eggs are implanted than are expected to "take root." It is assumed that several of them will die after the implantation process.

Originally Posted by Djinn

I just finished looking through the "Anti-abortion" thread. Thought I'd take an alternate tack.

Most people that work themselves into a lather over the evils of abortion tend to ignore, or at most disapprovingly dismiss the process known as in vitro fertilization (IVF). In a nutshell, this is an elective treatment for woman with fertility issues who wish to bear their own children.

Generally speaking, the process works like this:

Multiple unfertilized eggs are harvested from the woman. The male provides a supply of sperm. Multiple eggs are fertilized under lab conditions. A specialist identifies which of the eggs are the healthiest, and most likely to survive the implantation process. The remainder of the fertilized eggs are discarded.

Once isolated, as many as three or four fertilized eggs are implanted in the woman's uterus. While the odds of multiple birth are higher than normal with IVF, the odds are very low that ALL implanted eggs will attach to the uterine wall successfully. It is assumed that some of the implanted eggs - fertilized - will die.

So throughout this process, there are two stages in which multiple fertilized eggs are destroyed, or expected to die.

This being the case, why are anti-abortion advocates willing to look the other way where IVF is concerned?

Do you call a woman a murderer when she has her period every month (or whenever it is)? Many eggs are destroyed when that happens throughout her life. These eggs are not fertilized nor are they capable of life without sperm. This IVF process just kinda speeds up the process but is no worse than a woman on her period. Thats what I think anyway.

So I think IVF is just a different story altogether than anti-abortion activists.

Originally Posted by Djinn

I just finished looking through the "Anti-abortion" thread. Thought I'd take an alternate tack.

Most people that work themselves into a lather over the evils of abortion tend to ignore, or at most disapprovingly dismiss the process known as in vitro fertilization (IVF). In a nutshell, this is an elective treatment for woman with fertility issues who wish to bear their own children.

Generally speaking, the process works like this:

Multiple unfertilized eggs are harvested from the woman. The male provides a supply of sperm. Multiple eggs are fertilized under lab conditions. A specialist identifies which of the eggs are the healthiest, and most likely to survive the implantation process. The remainder of the fertilized eggs are discarded.

Once isolated, as many as three or four fertilized eggs are implanted in the woman's uterus. While the odds of multiple birth are higher than normal with IVF, the odds are very low that ALL implanted eggs will attach to the uterine wall successfully. It is assumed that some of the implanted eggs - fertilized - will die.

So throughout this process, there are two stages in which multiple fertilized eggs are destroyed, or expected to die.

This being the case, why are anti-abortion advocates willing to look the other way where IVF is concerned?

Sounds to me that the IVF process works much like nature. If the fertilized egg can't survive, well then it can't survive, now if someone was taking healthy, fertilized eggs out of a whomb and stomping them on the ground, or feeding them to a woodchipper, that would be a different story.

Originally Posted by Sparta

Sounds to me that the IVF process works much like nature. If the fertilized egg can't survive, well then it can't survive, now if someone was taking healthy, fertilized eggs out of a whomb and stomping them on the ground, or feeding them to a woodchipper, that would be a different story.

Well, in the first stage, the specialist determines which fertilized eggs are most likely to survive. That's not the same as "can or cannot" survive.

It's simply a matter of picking out the three or four best candidates, and discarding the remainder. The discards may be technically viable - but they didn't make the cut.

NEWSFLASH: Triggered by a heated argument on an online discussion site, fanatic christian conservatives attacked staff of an in vitro fertilization facility this morning. Members of the group says that they have looked past this horrible practice for too long and that unborn humans should have a right to live as well, even though the conception takes place in a glass. This practice shows off the monstrous side of humanity, a christian conservative was shouting, as she triumphantly swung the head of a fertilization doc in front of cameras recording the happening for youtube.

Originally Posted by chu chu rocket

NEWSFLASH: Triggered by a heated argument on an online discussion site, fanatic christian conservatives attacked staff of an in vitro fertilization facility this morning. Members of the group says that they have looked past this horrible practice for too long and that unborn humans should have a right to live as well, even though the conception takes place in a glass. This practice shows off the monstrous side of humanity, a christian conservative was shouting, as she triumphantly swung the head of a fertilization doc in front of cameras recording the happening for youtube.

*wipes blood from axe* hey guys, how is everything today? Suspicious? no why would I be acting suspicious?

Originally Posted by Peterpan

Do you call a woman a murderer when she has her period every month (or whenever it is)? Many eggs are destroyed when that happens throughout her life. These eggs are not fertilized nor are they capable of life without sperm. This IVF process just kinda speeds up the process but is no worse than a woman on her period. Thats what I think anyway.

So I think IVF is just a different story altogether than anti-abortion activists.

There's a difference between discarding an unfertilized ovum and replenishing the lining of the uterus, and flushing a fertilized egg.