A question for the pro-life members of MN

[SemperIdem]

The biggest argument always boils down to “taking a life away, acting like God”.

So - how does IVF sit with you? Are you anti it, because it is “acting like God”. Are you for it because acting like God to create a life is somehow fine whereas taking one away is not?

Do you understand that many IVF pregnancies are high risk and may ultimately require medical management aka abortions?

I’m firmly pro science and think access to both abortions and IVF is a wonderful thing, for avoidance of doubt.

One never sees protests outside fertility clinics and I wondered why.

@Songoftheseas for the following reasons:

1. IVF involves some unused (for want of a better word) foetuses
2. It goes against God’s will
3. Infertile people often seek to adopt and being anti abortion means in theory there are more babies available.

These aren’t my personal views but I’m surprised it can’t be seen how most people who are anti abortion will also be against IVF.

Hangongran, abortion not miscarriage. I corrected it straight away in the post underneath.

I think it depends on where you are.

However, that's beside the point. It's a thought experiment. If you believe people should have to opt in, or at least not opt out, of an organ donation register, then it's hard to argue why a dead person's wishes for their body are more important than a living woman's.

Apologies to cartoon mum.
Got my wires crossed.
Sorry.

Pro lifers are vile, they disgust me.

I once got pregnant by my violent abusive ex.
Pro lifers would force me to be connected to my ex forever through a child I'd struggle to love. I'd probably have committed suicide by now.

Instead I am extremely lucky to be living in a country where abortion is legal. It was the best decision I ever made. I moved on, I fell in love, and I now have a very much loved and WANTED child.

No limits ever.
As early as possible, as late as necessary.
We sort of have limits. But whilst ever the technology and screening are not yet capable for all potential requirements, there will be a few late term abortions.
Think about it, a woman does not get to 39 weeks and suddenly want to opt out. No one gets that far, there are also hoops to jump through for such a late termination.
Anomalies scan is 20 weeks, if your on holiday, dont get the letter, are sick or any other random reason, you dont get it til week 21 or 22. Then wait for results, then decide. It could very easily be week 25. Not ideal of course.

The other problem is making the women have the baby/ies what happens if she decides no way she can look after multiples or lesser abled or cannot look after a child whose life she knows will be short/painful/some other issue. Who will look after that child? Will the state step up? Going by how badly that goes already, no. Will potential adopters want all these babies? Doubt there are enough adopters out there, where will these babies go?

I've been in the care system, it's not pleasant for kids who can speak out, bet it's worse for those who cannot.

Few people remain tied to their beliefs when difficult choices arise. Is a higher set of ethics at work when a termination takes place due to a diagnosed medical condition rather than due to the sex of the foetus or because a pregnancy would be inconvenient? Although rare, there are cases of premature babies surviving birth before 22 weeks, so terminations after that point will always be contentious.
Most of us can hold firm opinions for a long time before changing our mind when the going gets tough. We should have more, public debate about the way our society operates and what, if any are our common values.
My sympathies to anyone wrestling with difficult decisions. For those trying to reconcile their choices with their religious teaching, fifty years ago a very wise Catholic priest told a group of mothers (including my mum) that he considered the motivation of the mother to be the key factor; where a woman felt that a termination was in the best interests of the unborn, or to protect her other children, the decision was made out of love, should not be condemned and that any eternal damnation was on his soul and not theirs.

Same, I've said so too but it doesn't get acknowledged. It seems to be assumed that you must be religious, even though people have said it's not the case.

I think it’s because it’s hard to imagine why you’d be pro-life if it wasn’t for the influence of religion.

It isn't that hard to argue.

Many people are opposed to non-consensual organ harvesting if the dead for a number of reasons which are not related to the wellbeing of a dead person (as there can be no such thing). Such as...

1. Increase in people trafficking and murder of slaves for organ harvesting.
2. Creation of embryos from harvesting of reproductive material.
3. Human cloning in countries which show a disregard for international conventions.
4. The impact disrespect for the dead has on communities, particularly under totalitarian regimes, to minority groups and in situations of genocide.

I believe in the fundamental need for safe, accessible abortions, and that every woman should be able to make that choice for herself. I’m appalled by the overturning of R.v.W.
However, it’s a choice I would really struggle to make for myself and, for the same reason, when we were (briefly, as we were very lucky) having difficulty conceiving, DH and I were agreed that we wouldn’t feel comfortable with IVF.
So yes, plenty of overlapping thought between the two as far as I’m concerned, and you don’t have to be trying to impinge on anyone else’s rights and choices to feel that neither abortion nor IVF would be personally right for you.

An opt-out or compulsory register would decrease the number of people having their organs stolen or cloned.

But that aside, it's nice that they care about things like health risks, death, exploitation and trafficking when they affect the population at large and are related to organ harvesting. Even the disrespect for the dead and minority communities. The question remains as to why, if this concerns them, they would also be pro forced birth. Why, that is to say, none of this matters when the issue affects only women - and the aforementioned minority women in particular.

It's a nice bit of sophistry but none of it gets round the fact that it means even the dead would matter more than a woman.

I'm pro-life, anti IVF, anti surrogacy, and anti death penalty. Human life is a gift from God and should be protected to the greatest extent possible from natural conception until death.

I'm a Christian who spent years in prolife activism although these days my views are more complex than that. Most prolifers I knew/know are anti IVF because embryos are often discarded in the process. The Catholic church especially is against both abortion and IVF so it's not really a gotcha.

I would hope that these issues matter when a woman is alive as well as when she is dead, and would be taken into account when deciding what a country's laws on abortion are!

But we know that very often forced abortion and forced birth play a major part in controlling women and children, slavery, trafficking, genocide, rape and state control.

There's no simple answers to the misery and suffering of the world or the level of misogyny in it.

Well the Catholic view is that IVF is not right either.

Jesus. I’m so sorry you were spoken to like this.

Just to add to the 40 week abortion discussion -

Sorry typed too soon...40 week abortion comments -

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/woman-with-downs-syndrome-loses-legal-challenge-to-prevent-unborn-babies-with-disabilities-being-born-after-24-weeks-12414954

Babies with downs can still be aborted at 40 weeks. I'd argue that Downs syndrome in a lot of cases does not cause a serious disability and these children live long and happy lives.

I work in a critical care (ICU).
We sometimes have relatives objecting to withdrawal of life sustaining measures on religious grounds as God (the omnipotent) would not have created x or y intervention if it were not to be used.
Suppose the same can be argued for IVF etc

I think it’s because it’s hard to imagine why you’d be pro-life if it wasn’t for the influence of religion.

I'm not religious at all but I think we all have an instinctive drive to protect the weak and defenceless - which I think came about because of evolutionary pressures, but that doesn't make it any less strong a feeling.

For some people that instinct is directed at unborn babies - for others it's directed at pregnant women who find themselves in heartbreaking circumstances - but it's the same instinct that we all feel.

@Loics @Lesserspottedmama

I’m aware not all pro-life advocates are actively religious church goers. But the religious argument and the non-religious argument are the same.

I would hope that these issues matter when a woman is alive as well as when she is dead, and would be taken into account when deciding what a country's laws on abortion are!

Well, clearly they don't and they aren't, despite your hope.

So the question remains.

And in some cases, the answer really is very simple, so simple in fact that I am highly suspicious of anyone who claims it isn't. Allow women the choice of whether or not they wish to subject themselves to the huge and irreversible risks and changes of pregnancy and childbirth. That alone would negate a huge amount of the harm done to them by misogyny.

Legislate on the assumption that women matter at least as much as an unformed, incomplete person, or a dead one.

Or do they not?

I'm Pro life and Pro choice.
My children are the result of IVF where not 1 embryo was discarded, every one was given the chance of life in my womb. Just 1 came to be my darling child - the embryo I was told should really be discarded, but I couldn't because all life is precious. That 1 grew to be my baby.
My other children are the result of adoption, a gift so amazing I know every day how blessed I am.
So yes, it's possible to get a clinic to co-operate with no discarding of embryos, but more expensive, and much much less likely to work because you use the best embryo first, then have the lower grades ones to use if you choose to keep them all as I did. But as we all know, it only takes 1 😉

The vast majority of people do not believe that abortion is always morally acceptable.

According to Pew Research, only 13% of religiously unaffiliated people think abortion is always morally acceptable and 25% of atheists think so. 9% of all Americans thinks so.

Of course living women matter more than dead ones. But questions of organ harvesting are different to questions of abortion, and getting the ethics of either wrong has serious consequences.