DISCUSSION: In Vitro Fertilization

DISCUSSION: In Vitro Fertilization March 22, 2024

After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen human embryos, engendered in fertility labs, are human beings with a right to life, panic was stirred up that the ruling would endanger the practice of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).

So the Alabama state legislature, dominated by Republicans, swiftly passed a measure granting immunity to IVF providers if they damage or destroy any of the many human embryos they routinely generate.

Other Republican politicians, for all of their pro-life reputations, are also rallying behind the IVF cause.  They say that helping mothers have a baby is being pro-life, despite what happens to the extras.  But they clearly fear a political backlash if they oppose the popular medical procedure.

Now pro-life organizations are striking back, running ads against politicians they once supported, saying the Republican laws to protect IVF clinics, which other states are now considering, amount to a “license to kill.”

Read this for a survey of the controversy.

So what do you think?  What constitutes being “pro-life” in a situation like this?  Should politicians take a prudential position on this issue if it would affect their re-election?  How should pro-lifers promote their cause in what seems like an increasingly anti-life climate?


"By folkloric tradition, a White Elephant is a burden rather than a threat. It's a ..."

"So, you're saying that a Grey Rhino is actually more of a White Elephant?"

"I guess I was trying to be a little too subtle."


Browse Our Archives