IVF AIN'T MAHA

LINK to online version

Donald Trump is considered to be the most pro-life president in U.S. history because he delivered on his promise to overturn Roe v Wade. However, his recent support for IVF (in-vitro fertilization) has been a cause of consternation for many hardline pro-lifers.

This is the problem when we opt for euphemisms instead of exact language. Pro-Lifers don’t like the label “anti-abortion,” and Pro-Choice-ers don’t like the label “pro-abortion,” but “life” and “choice” are not the issues. Abortion is.

Trump wasn’t even really anti-abortion. He was anti-Roe. He considered it bad law and he wasn’t alone. The late Justice Ginsburg, a staunch pro-abort, thought the same.

That said, I believe Trump is wrong about his support for IVF. However, at least for the purposes of this column, I am not opposing Trump’s position on moral grounds. I’ll explain that in a bit. But first, what is IVF?

Here’s a quick AI description: 1) The patient takes fertility drugs to stimulate the ovaries to produce eggs. 2) The eggs are removed from the ovaries. 3.) The eggs are fertilized with sperm in a laboratory. 4) One or more fertilized eggs are transferred to the uterus. 5)Pregnancy occurs when the embryo attaches to the lining of the uterus.

So what is the problem? Isn’t IVF “pro-life?” Well, yes and no. (And that’s the problem with the language.) IVF is “pro-life” in that the intent is to bring about a new human. And IVF is not pro-life in that for every baby born, there are approximately 15-20 embryonic human beings who are “discarded."

According to the CDC, in 2021, there were 238,000 IVF procedures in the U.S. At 7 to 8 eggs per try, that’s a total of nearly 2 million embryos with only about 100,000 who made it. That means nearly 1.8 million embryonic humans were discarded in 2021, a number that is nearly one million more than the number of reported abortions for the same year.

Perhaps because we are just discarding a microscopic “thing” in a glass tube, it doesn’t bother us as much as “disassembling” a baby-looking thing in the womb - which is what abortion is. But if we are going to argue that life begins at conception, then it doesn’t matter if that child is being pulled out of a womb and dumped into a bio-waste can, or dumped out of a test tube into the same can.

Most institutional religions don’t have a clear position on IVF, but the Catholic Church does:

“Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques…infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage…They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. (CCC 2376-7)

However, according to a Pew poll, only 13% of Catholics believe IVF is wrong. So I can’t get worked up about Catholic pro-lifers criticizing non-Catholic Trump for his position. We need to get our own house in order first.

Meanwhile, though, the more tangible problem with Trump’s support of IVF is that it “ain’t" MAHA - RFK, Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again.”

MAHA is all about going beyond our band-aid medical culture, getting to the root cause of disease, and then doing something about it.

Infertility is as old as Abraham and Sarah, but it’s never been common. Today it is. The World Health Organization reports that 1 in 6 people globally experience infertility. The WHO defines infertility as a “disease” and lists IVF as a “treatment.”

Obviously, IVF is not a treatment for infertility. Just like so many medical “treatments,” it’s a temporary technological workaround. And what it “works around” is the “something else” that is wrong. And what is that?

Well we can start with the fact that women are waiting longer to have children and during this “waiting” many women are chemically altering their reproductive system (with the pill) to not to do the thing that nature wants to do (ovulate). So you might say nature is slapping back.

However, beyond that, and according to a study published in the Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) is the leading cause of infertility. And, according to the CDC, insulin resistance is a major cause of PCOS. And guess what is the major cause of insulin resistance? Bad diet and lifestyle. Surprise.

Bottom line: IVF “ain’t" MAHA.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com  

LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN JAMES MOYLAN ON IVF LEGISLATION

 

LINK to online version

Dear Congressman James Moylan,

Recently, I was made aware that on May 20, U.S. Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Cruz, R-Tex., introduced the IVF Protection Act in order to ensure that no state prohibits access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) services. As of June 5, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that he had already begun the process of bringing a legislative package aimed at protecting Americans’ access to assistive reproductive technology to the floor for a vote.

Congressman, I do not support this bill and ask that you formally make every effort possible to speak against this bill through legislation! Our voices here on Guam must be heard! Do not delay!

The reasons stated by Sens. Cruz and Britt may convey a message of comfort to couples who desire to conceive a child of their own, but the underlying reasons to reject this bill are of moral and legal concerns. “The philosophy that underpins the moral and legal case for abortion dovetails with the philosophy that underpins the case for IVF.” 1

Congressman, as a Republican you may be persuaded to follow the lead of both Republican senators, but in all things, the truth is our guide. Whereas we already know that abortion is immoral, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, so is the IVF process and the catechism addresses these issues in the following paragraphs:

# 2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

#2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union. … Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”

To clarify, here are the links between abortion, which kills life, and the IVF process, which creates life:

1. The IVF process amounts to an early-stage form of eugenics. Both abortion and IVF treat human life in a callous, haphazard way. In the IVF process, clinicians use the process called “embryo grading.” 2 The embryos are evaluated and “graded” for their cellular quality, and assist a couple in determining the sex of their child, as well as the physical qualities of their child. Although some may be saved for future use, all unwanted embryos are literally discarded/aborted! Ultimately, the IVF process establishes “the domination of technology” 3 over human life. 

2. “A second link between abortion and IVF is that they share the same false anthropology. Abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide give humans the final say over the end of life whereas IVF gives humans the final say over the beginning of life.” “IVF distorts what it means for a child to be a gift [from God] by instrumentalizing the creation of new life. The IVF clinicians attempt to play God in the process.” 

3. A third link between abortion and IVF is that both have evolved to confuse mankind as to the purpose of sex, which is the creation of life and continuance of the human race. What this means is that a couple can indulge in sex-for-purely-pleasure, and abortion gives them “an out” or the ability to prevent the birth of the fetus. The other side of this purpose-of-sex-coin is that IVF demotes the value of sex by eliminating sex in the process of procreation: The ovaries are removed in a lab, the sperms are obtained via masturbation, and the embryos are created in a petri dish.

In summary, congressman, please read the article from Crisis Magazine, as well the paragraphs from the catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly explains why the IVF is a gravely immoral act. Lobby against the passage of the IVF Protection Act. If you have a question, or want to discuss strategy, please call me anytime after 7 a.m. Guam time.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Maria P. Espinoza

BEGOTTEN NOT MADE

By Tim Rohr

Recently the Alabama Supreme Court held that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be considered children. 

The ruling is the logical conclusion of the argument that "life begins at conception," and the decision has created a political conundrum. Many "pro-life" politicians have never considered the status or fate of children conceived in a tube and left in a medical deep-freeze, or selectively terminated after being implanted in somebody's womb.

Regardless of the politics, the elephant in the room is the relative silence of the Catholic Church at this point. 

The Catholic Church is probably the only "organized religion" which has clear position on reproductive technologies which separate what the Church calls "the unitive and the procreative." 

In short, the Church teaches that conception of children is to happen the way God designed it or not at all. IVF, in particular, is gravely immoral because it often involves the destruction of multiple children in embryo. 

This teaching is one of the Church's "best kept secrets." It's an issue that pastors generally want to avoid even more than abortion and contraception. However, if there ever was a time for the Catholic Church to take the lead, it is now. But, for the most part: "crickets." 

Meanwhile though, Catholic Church teaching is still "there" - lurking in the recesses of the Catechism and episcopal websites. Here's a decent exposition of the issue at the USCCB.

Begotten Not Made: A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology

And here is an honest article about the non-Catholic Christian view:

"It’s caused me to see my own experience with IVF differently and to wish I had been better informed. While the treatment was successful for me, helping me become pregnant with two healthy babies, the remaining embryos I have stored on ice have caused great heartache."

Also see: What Is the Catholic Church’s Position on IVF?