[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't know that there's a war between religion and evolution, tout court, since there are various different religions and various different versions of evolution. Certainly there's no war between my religion (Catholicism) and the idea that God has the power to cause different life forms to be brought forth through material processes, all the way up through the physical origin of Homo sapiens through predecessor non-human species.

I am not sure what this has to do with IVF, but perhaps you'll explain further?

"The whole question becomes whether the State has any right to deny an infertile couple the chance to have their own progeny."

No, that's not the whole question. In fact, the way you state it is tendentious, as if we shared an underlying assumption that infertile people possess a "right" to create laboratory progeny. It's like the homosexual activists saying that the state of Tennessee denies the "right" to gay marriage, or the socialists claiming the state is denying the "human right" of universal health insurance.

First you have to prove that such a right exists.

I say it does not; and that the state has a legitimate interest in preserving human children's status as persons rather than products or property. This, you will discover, is the point of the 1992 Tennessee Frozen Human Embryo trial. Which, by the way, settled for the concept that conceived children are property. This is a position truly obnoxious to a genuine human right.

[James C. Bennett]

I am not sure what this has to do with IVF, but perhaps you'll explain further?

To be able to have genetic progeny, is the critical ingredient for evolution. IVF comes in right here, with regard to infertile couples.

No, that's not the whole question. In fact, the way you state it is tendentious, as if we shared an underlying assumption that infertile people possess a "right" to create laboratory progeny. It's like the homosexual activists saying that the state of Tennessee denies the "right" to gay marriage, or the socialists claiming the state is denying the "human right" of universal health insurance.

Marriage is one thing. Reproduction is an entirely different thing. One entity here does not require the other. One entity here is man-made, while the other is innate among all living species.

One entity here is not bothered by man-made laws. That entity isn't marriage.