Andrew Sullivan, a well-known British-American columnist, unveiled an article examining the moral and ethical implications of in vitro fertilization ( IVF ).
In his article titled” My Problem With IVF — And Ours,” Sullivan claimed that he simply cannot tolerate the practice, which produces an estimated one million frozen embryos in frozen tanks each year.
“]T] he informed decision to create a human existence, and to keep it alive in permanence, but not allow it to swallow a single breath, upsets me”, Sullivan writes.
Sullivan has a strong pro-life idea but is not a social conservative. In the article, he expressly expresses support for “maximal sexual liberation for submitting people”, “widespread usage of contraception”, and “any and all methods to help people facing reproduction issues”. And despite admitting to being “personally uncaring,” he continues to support “legal abortion rights for all people” despite admitting to “personally don’t take the conscience of deliberately ending a human existence, especially one so resilient in the womb”.
He ignores the direct connection between IVF and the unavoidable effects renting a pregnancy has on children’s rights and women, while also lamenting “many on the the the theocon correct” and their concerns with the surrogacy business.
However, Sullivan eventually comes to a decision about IVF that some people in his shoes have agreed to hear: putting people lives in a lab to make them useless.
Lots of thousands , of U. S. IVF phases yield large batches of embryos every month. Only about 7 % of these evaluation pipe children actually survive the difficult journey from the petri dish to the freezer to the uterus. These eggs, Sullivan properly notes, are “quite just a means to an end, violating a fundamental rule of unassailable people dignity”.
Sullivan goes beyond “balking” at the repeated “beat the odds” embryo development and death. He criticizes the embryo-selection biases against genetics and magic if” sacrificing many sons and daughters to make one” is anything other than “vil”.
The author does not defend embryonic life in the most concise way. He does, however, demonstrate how crucial it is for everyone to grapple with the intricacies of IVF, not merely pro-life Christians who are concerned about the ethical dilemma raised by advances in assisted reproductive technology.
Famous left-wing agnostic Christopher Hitchens, who came out against abortion after labeling it” an exceedingly grave social matter,” made a similar cultural event for grappling with life 36 years back in 1988.
Ending unborn life, Hitchens told his brother in an interview, did n’t just make him “queasy” — it does not make moral sense.
” Once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of ‘ the woman’s right to choose,'” he noted.
There Is Humanity In Examining Humanity
Despite plaguing a large portion of the so-called pro-life political right, Sullivan’s specific defense of IVF is laced with contradictions that are incompatible with achieving success in halting Big Fertility or guarding unborn babies. Many still feel a strong disconnect between protecting life because it is important and protecting it when it is needed.
However, Sullivan’s stream of consciousness provides a window into why even those who do n’t think they’re pro-life should be against IVF and why we should continue to talk about it.
Widespread endorsement of IVF emboldens an industry that prioritizes profit over people, adults ‘ selfish desires over children’s natural rights, quick fixes over long- term women’s health solutions, desirable traits above all, motherless and fatherless children, the erasure of women in reproduction, fertility fraud, and making human existence transactional.
Although the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision sparked debates about ART like IVF, the majority of the anger was centered on birth control and abortion. However, the magnifying glass was completely focused on IVF until the Alabama Supreme Court used the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act to reaffirm the sanctity of extrauterine life earlier this year.
Since then, the discussion about lab-created life has been debunked by deception and lies. Additionally, discussions about IVF’s effects are being slowed down by the prevalence of high poll support.
Despite the facade that the fertility industry uses to sell IVF, a few brave souls like Sullivan have spoken out. The practice has even been officially condemned by some organizations, including the Southern Baptist Convention. But it’s not enough.
Every person’s life has a time when they have to consider the nature of humanity and existence. Without first considering when and how life begins, one simply ca n’t come to an adequate conclusion from those assertions.
Life started in a petri dish for a growing number of children, especially those who were living in the country’s notoriously unregulated fertility market. Although they cost others ‘ lives, they are precious.
According to Sullivan, the very act of freezing IVF-created embryos concedes that they” can one day transition from being a human being to becoming a human person.”
” Yes, the embryo has no memory, no sentience when frozen, no mind or will yet. There is no suffering”, Sullivan continued. However, there is no sadness when there is no suffering. Or no humanity”.
Just making that observation should cause us all to struggle.
The Federalist staff writer and host of The Federalist Radio Hour, Jordan Boyd. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordanian completed her political science major at Baylor University and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
