Couples struggling with infertility today often turn to "In Vitro Fertilization," commonly known as "IVF". It's so widely accepted that most people don't find the process to be problematic. In fact, a recent poll from Pew Research found that only 8% of Americans consider access to IVF to be a "bad thing."
That statistic isn't surprising, given the surge of support for IVF that occurred on the national stage earlier this year. After a state court temporarily shut down IVF clinics in Alabama earlier this year, politicians and the media were quick to jump to the defense of the procedure. Unfortunately, that reaction produced a massive flow of media reports, positively highlighting its benefits as a valuable medical procedure.
That wave of support gave rise to debate about IVF in the current presidential race, with the enthusiasm running far ahead of the facts.
For example, IVF often becomes a label applied to all artificial reproductive technologies (ART), a vital distinction often ignored in the heat of debate. The most prominent instance occurred with Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz's claim that he and his wife used IVF. When Walz used that argument in an attack on J.D. Vance, his Republican opponent, even the Associated Press reported his error (Walz and his wife had in fact relied on intrauterine insemination (IUI).
Amid the propaganda and confusion, one might easily fall into the trap of judging IVF based solely on its outcome: after all, doesn't the procedure help infertile couples have children? And shouldn't we all celebrate the gift of new life?
Unfortunately, when it comes to IVF, that end does not justify the means.
Digging deeper into the means of IVF - what the process actually involves - reveals that the procedure inevitably requires people to engage in immoral actions. There is no possible way for couples and IVF providers to carry out the treatment in an ethical manner.
The IVF process essentially entails an IVF provider obtaining egg and sperm from two donors and fertilizing them in a petri dish to create human embryos. The provider then selects one or more of these embryos to transfer to the woman's uterus.
At best, the procedure has a 50% chance of successfully achieving pregnancy. But there is no escaping the fact that 100% of the time, IVF involves the creation of human embryos. And that means that IVF always deals with human life.
Science affirms that human life begins at fertilization, which means that new persons are being formed in those petri dishes. Those persons have rights that every human possesses by virtue of their very nature, the first one being the right to life.
Sadly, the IVF process inevitably deprives many of these human embryos of their right to life. The IVF procedure requires providers to create more embryos than they transfer. As a result, the "extra" embryos are discarded, frozen, or donated to research or infertile couples.
Today we face the stunning reality that an estimated 1.5 million human embryos sit frozen in storage in U.S. laboratories alone. In other words, most of the human persons created by IVF will never have the chance to be born.
By its very nature, IVF requires that the conception of human life must be removed from its rightful home - within the context of marriage and the one-flesh union between one man and one woman. Instead, conception begins as a scientific process in a lab that might result in the birth of one child, but always discards the lives of countless more.
As a result, IVF manufactures a child who is the product of a technical process rather than one who is conceived and born as a free gift to be received by a mother and father.
Every human person deserves to enter the world in the way ordained by human nature.
Of course, isolating procreation from the marital union also allows human reproduction to occur outside of natural marriage. Through IVF, those involved in same-rex relationships or other irregular unions can have children when they otherwise could not.
What's more, the use of donated eggs and sperm means that children are not necessarily fully related to the parents raising them. These messy - and immoral - situations profoundly violate the true nature of the family and marriage. Inevitably, the practice erodes the fabric of societies that depend upon the family as their foundation.
Finally, choosing children tempts humanity to engage in the dangerous game of replacing God. As the next step in the "progress" of technique, the IVF industry is now advertising and using preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) services that allow for the selection of human embryos based on genetic traits and self-made standards. PGT is transforming IVF from a medical treatment to a commercialized service, with patients turning into consumers who get to pick their children.
The bottom line is that creating human lives in a lab and destroying or freezing many of them can never be ethical. Neither can good intentions change the inherent immorality of IVF. Human life is human life, and it must be protected and cherished under all circumstances.
IVF is a sensitive topic to begin with because it concerns infertility, which we all recognize to be challenge. Those who raise objections to IVF might be accused of dismissing the suffering of infertile couples or of eliminating their only chance of having a baby.
In these cases, having some basic knowledge about NaPro Technology is helpful. NaPRo Technology is a morally acceptable alternative to IVF that has good success rates and directly addresses root causes of infertility. It is pro-life, pro-child, and pro-family.
In the long run, objecting to IVF may also prove more difficult for pro-lifers than objecting to abortion. The positive media endorsement it has received this year makes that clear - and we can't forget that it exists in the looming shadow of abortion - the leading pro-life issue of today.
The strong and united voice of the pro-life movement now echoes across social media and inside government buildings when it comes to ending abortion. The call to putting a stop to IVF is merely a murmur in comparison.
The political division over IVF is also less clear-cut than abortion, with even the more pro-life Republican party supporting policies that advance access to IVF in their 2024 platform. Some politicians who oppose abortion even claim that they support IVF in the name of being "pro-life."
We need authentic pro-life voices to correct this false narrative as legislation that endorses IVF lingers on the horizon. Opposing IVF ensures that the sacredness of human life, marriage, and the family is upheld and protected across our country.
Our goal at the Population Research Institute is to inform people about what IVF really involves. For more information on IVF, read our fact sheet, In Vitro Fertilization: The Process, Risks, and Consequences Explained.