[SoothingDave]

Do you really mean this in principle, or do you mean that it's horrible that embryos get discarded in the process as it is currently practiced?

I mean what I said.

Frankly, anyone who is opposed in principle to IVF cannot be called pro-life.

Even is IVF would be used without "surplus" embryos in freezers and without "selective reduction" of surplus implanted embryos, it is still wrong. That is what I said.

Playing God by artificially making babies in test tubes is wrong. We have plenty of actually existing children in this world without people having to tickle their vanity by having one of their own genetic material. We have plenty of young girls aborting their offspring. When we have learned to respect existing life better, perhaps we can then go about creating life to satisfy our own whims.

SD

[Physicist]

Playing God by artificially making babies in test tubes is wrong.

IVF is no more "playing God" than any other medical advance. Think hard: why don't you raise the same objection to heart transplants, or to antibiotics? (Or do you?)

We have plenty of actually existing children in this world without people having to tickle their vanity by having one of their own genetic material.

Read that sentence again. The same objection applies equally well to anyone who has a baby the old-fashioned way. And who are you--who is anyone--to decide who gets to reproduce, and how?

If God gave us our brains for a reason, it was to solve problems for our own survival (as a species, as individuals or as families). Infertility is as valid a problem for our solution as any other you can name.

[.45MAN]

Very well said. I agree with you completely. We as a human race have learned well how to destroy anything that we don't want but we have not learned how to take care of what we have created naturally.