Replies

The concept that each fertilized zygote could have lived if IVF were not involved is flawed. That there may be a small number of fertilized eggs from IVF that might or might not have been able to complete the process is not germane. Many fertilized eggs are donated, many are given the chance but are not viable.
Those that are not implanted were given a chance to grow. As in all natural selection the strongest are the most successful and are implanted. Many of those still are not successful. Without IVF none of them would be born.

It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. At that point everything that is necessary for it to develop into a human being is present, including its own unique DNA. Allowed to complete its natural development, it will not turn into a kidney or lung or an undifferentiated mass of cells, but a human being.

The real point is whether the destruction of human life is any different than the murder of a born person. Since science now unequivocally tells us that at conception it is a human being, that should be the starting point for any consideration of this question, not the aftermath.

When we speak of human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle-aged, and old age, these are all simply descriptions of the various stages of human development. Some occur on one side of the birth canal, others on the other side. Some may have been conceived under less-than-ideal circumstances. Some may be imperfect or unwanted by their parents or by society. But all are living human beings. All have an equal human dignity. None should unjustly be deprived of life.

So where do we draw the line at the taking of an innocent human life? What difference does location or stage of human development make? If we lower ourselves to countenance taking the life one category of people for our own convenience and satisfaction, who is next?

Before it can become a legal issue, the moral issue has to be addressed. Before there were written laws against pre-meditated murder, especially the innocent, there was a general consensus among even the most primitive people that it was wrong and this was the basis of the law against murder.

Even though it seems clear to me and others that based on the scientific evidence it is rational to conclude that human life begins at conception, it is an unfortunate fact there is doubt or disbelief about this in a large segment of the population. Is it a human life, or isn't it? If it isn't, you can do whatever you want with it. If it is, it should be treated like all other human life. If one simply does not know, it should be given the benefit of the doubt of being human until proved otherwise. It would be akin to seeing a human shaped bag in the middle of the road. If there's a chance there's a human being in there, do you stop or go around it, or just run over it because you don't know? If you are going to err, it's always wise to err on the side of life.

I understand you have a personal stake in this, but I want to make it clear that I am not saying those who resort to IVF are evil or the children were that were conceived in this way are evil or in any way less human or precious in God's sight. However the process itself and the profit motive behind is evil (unlike a gun, which is an inanimate object, inert until someone employs it).