This was painful to read but so comprehensive & informing on this procedure & it's true cost in lives. Being firmly, unmovably prolife, I find myself wondering how this dreadful truth about IVF & freezing wasn't already residing somewhere in my conscience.
It hit me reading this article that my brain would perceive the words, ‘frozen eggs’ to be synonymous with ‘frozen embryos’ not connecting ‘embryo’ to BABY!! I have never agreed with IVF and had a hard time putting my finger on the precise reasons why and reading this nailed it! I am very much pro-life, but the words ‘frozen baby girl’ or ‘frozen baby boy’ hit really hard - who are we to freeze our babies?? Freezing babies alive!! Are they playing god in doing this?! I think they are - just like abortion chooses who lives or dies.
I'm anti-IVF for a variety of reasons, and agree with this article. However, I think the most common of negative responses to an article like this is not adequately dealt with in its content: the idea that it's either freezer or no life at all for these children, and ought we choose life even if there are inherent risks?
I do not yet have an adequate response to this on any level other than theological or instinctual, which is not enough in our modern environment. I'm not sure that "you wouldn't treat a child at a later developmental stage that way" works here, as we're talking about whether or not to bring that life into being. It's a 2-5% mortality rate when that life is already in being. It's not a 2-5% mortality rate if we're talking about whether that life should be brought into existence in the first place (I assume these parents would willingly accept those odds for natural conception as well). Wondering as a teammate if you've given this thought?
This was painful to read but so comprehensive & informing on this procedure & it's true cost in lives. Being firmly, unmovably prolife, I find myself wondering how this dreadful truth about IVF & freezing wasn't already residing somewhere in my conscience.
Holy crap!
Pardon the profanity but I find this profoundly shocking. Does medicine’s commercial imperative have no ethical bounds whatsoever?
It hit me reading this article that my brain would perceive the words, ‘frozen eggs’ to be synonymous with ‘frozen embryos’ not connecting ‘embryo’ to BABY!! I have never agreed with IVF and had a hard time putting my finger on the precise reasons why and reading this nailed it! I am very much pro-life, but the words ‘frozen baby girl’ or ‘frozen baby boy’ hit really hard - who are we to freeze our babies?? Freezing babies alive!! Are they playing god in doing this?! I think they are - just like abortion chooses who lives or dies.
Thank you for this elucidating and impactful explanation. This is horrifying and all the more reason to vehemently oppose IVF, surrogacy, etc.
I'm anti-IVF for a variety of reasons, and agree with this article. However, I think the most common of negative responses to an article like this is not adequately dealt with in its content: the idea that it's either freezer or no life at all for these children, and ought we choose life even if there are inherent risks?
I do not yet have an adequate response to this on any level other than theological or instinctual, which is not enough in our modern environment. I'm not sure that "you wouldn't treat a child at a later developmental stage that way" works here, as we're talking about whether or not to bring that life into being. It's a 2-5% mortality rate when that life is already in being. It's not a 2-5% mortality rate if we're talking about whether that life should be brought into existence in the first place (I assume these parents would willingly accept those odds for natural conception as well). Wondering as a teammate if you've given this thought?
That's why we have no problem killing full term babies. It has to start from somewhere 🥺