IVF regulations a ‘wild, wild west’

I have always been a bit confused at the ardent stance of Christians that life begins at conception, and that all abortion is wrong, but that so many embrace IVF. The inconsistency and thought process are baffling. Especially when embryonic deaths from IVF far, far outpace abortion deaths.

The pastor who did my marriage counseling reminded me that the vast majority of embryos are discarded, and that for IVF to be morally permissible, you had to limit the number of eggs you put in the petri dish. It did not turn out to be an issue for my wife and I, but I was glad for that wisdom.

It touches on the whole personhood debate. I’m not really sure ‘life begins at conception’ is a winning argument, though it’s accurate. I just think few doubt that what’s there is “life.”

The debate has more to do with what we view as a person. A human being. But right to life has, at times, reacted very negatively to the personhood debate as though it were an inherently evil question.

But we know if we bleed a bit, there are living cells in that blood. They are human cells and they are alive. These cells are not persons, though.

We all know they aren’t. By why aren’t they? (Viability? Genetic information? Quantity of cells?)

I think it’s a question worth thinking through, especially as embryonic research, cloning and all that becomes more advanced.

In terms of public policy, we have to tell the truth, but there is always the question of “what truths constitute the most compelling argument for a particular policy?”

Overall, it looks to me like the pro-life movement is really more concerned about fetal suffering than anything else—though I’m sure belief in the sanctity of human cellular life is generally sincere. It’s just that fetal suffering captures everyone’s moral reasoning much more readily. It’s so often the pathos argument that wins the day vs. the ethos or logia argument.

But how to make a pathos argument to regulate IVF? The pathos is all on the other side: helping couples who want children but can’t have them without some technological help. What are some cells compared to that? There’s no emotional clout there.

And as a culture, we’re all about emotional factors, regardless of our opining about “science.”

I don’t know what the solution is—as far as effective persuasion goes. Respect for human cellular life has never been more important, and Christian sanctity of life efforts need to really focus on how to make a coherent, internally-consistent, and hopefully broadly unified case for that.