Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

A A
By:

John Rustad, latest conservative leader to promote IVF

During the last month’s provincial election campaign, BC Conservative leader John Rustad promised that, were he elected, he would expand access to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) by funding a second round of treatments. The NDP government had previously pledged to fund one round of IVF, starting in 2025.

Rustad’s pledge made him the latest conservative politician to promote IVF. South of the border, less than two months earlier, Republican presidential contender Donald Trump promised to get IVF treatments covered by insurance companies or by the government. Then, in September, US senator, and fellow Republican, Ted Cruz put forward a bill that would penalize any state governments that banned IVF.

Why has the political right come out for IVF now? The impetus might be an Alabama Supreme Court decision back in February that initially looked like it might stop IVF. The decision allowed couples to sue an IVF clinic for the “wrongful death” of their frozen embryos who had died in a storage accident. The ruling wasn’t a full acknowledgement of the personhood of these preborn children, because the parents could have killed these same children without consequence. But for the IVF industry, it meant that if they killed these children against parents’ wishes, they could be sued for a wrongful death. And when these frozen children are protected and treated even a little bit like the children that they are, then the IVF industry can’t function because killing these children is a standard part of IVF “treatments,” with far more embryos killed or frozen than are ever born. So three of the state’s IVF clinics put themselves on pause as they sorted things out.

Sadly, “conservative” politicians were among those who came to their rescue, the previously pro-life Ted Cruz among them, proposing legislation that would shield the clinics. With IVF in the news, the formerly pro-life Donald Trump promised to make IVF free. Rustad took the trend north of the border with his own “pro-family” pledge to double the current government’s IVF pledge.

If there is a silver lining to the NDP getting back into power in BC, it would be that Rustad won’t be able to implement his pledge, and perhaps Christians can get him to reconsider before he makes it again. As even the Alabama courts’ partial protection of the frozen preborn shows, the IVF industry can only operate when we ignore the humanity of the embryos being created. What’s also evident is how badly the Church needs to speak out about the horrors of IVF, if even “pro-lifers” and conservatives don’t understand it is not pro-family to freeze and murder preborn babies. We have reason to hope they might even listen.

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.



Red heart icon with + sign.
News

The IVF gendercide

Critics of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) have long warned that the technology could be used to customize children, allowing parents and doctors to effectively play God. According to a recent Slate article, which sounded like a review of the movie Gattaca, those fears were well-founded. According to the article, "You can have a baby when it suits your career, thanks to egg freezing (or at least you can try). You can sequence your embryos’ genomes for $2,500 a pop and attempt to maximize your future child’s health (or intelligence, attractiveness, or height) ... you can even select eye color. There is a vast disparity between who gets to use IVF... and who is using it to create designer families." Another example is sex selection. Numbers vary from clinic to clinic, but one Los Angeles-based IVF clinic estimates that about 85% of its patients engage in sex selection. However, which sex is being selected is surprising. Historically, when parents choose between sons and daughters – think of China under its one-child policy or Romans who practiced infanticide by exposure – boys won out. Today, Americans using IVF are abandoning the sons in favor of daughters. “Abandoning” is the correct term when it comes to IVF. Standard procedure involves the creation of anywhere between five and 10 embryos that are then implanted either one at a time or in multiples. Embryos that are not implanted are frozen, donated to medical research, or worse, destroyed, a tragedy because every embryo is a whole life in its very earliest stage. Today, an estimated 1.5 million embryos are stored in freezers in the U.S. Why are Americans voluntarily abandoning these boys? According to the Slate article, “toxic masculinity” is a main concern for many women (even those who are already boy moms). Boys are, after all, more likely to be mass shooters and less likely to help break glass ceilings. Perhaps some parents think that raising daughters will be easier. While some have rightly noted that sex selection is inescapably sexist, underneath the practice is something far more insidious. Parenthood is widely seen as a consumerist activity. Children are viewed in the same way as pets or plants. They are objects to be acquired rather than persons whose intrinsic dignity must be respected. For many parents, children exist to serve their happiness, whether to be a parent’s “bestie” or to fulfill their parent’s hopes and dreams. It's difficult to imagine that some of the factors behind the dramatic increase of young females experiencing gender dysphoria are not at work here as well. Girls are thought to be more malleable, in terms of personality, appearance, and even identity. It may be consumerist parents prefer girls instead of boys for this reason. Whatever the motives, the practice of IVF is enabling a “gendercide,” a term used by The Economist in 2010 to describe why 100 million girls were missing in China, India, and elsewhere. Despite claims that IVF is all about “fertility” and bringing children into the world, the practice must be evaluated according to how it’s actually practiced – not just by what it promises. Infertility is tragic, but it does not warrant an “anything goes” kind of ethic or policy. It certainly cannot justify a push for designer babies and third-party parenting. Even the wonderful “ends” of a new life cannot justify unethical means. The lack of regulation around IVF is a recipe for disaster, a recipe already serving up more deaths than lives. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Hayden. If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. This is reprinted with permission from the Colson Center. Photo credit: IStockPhoto.com / Wirestock....