Test Tube Babies

When England created the first test tube baby through in vitro fertilization in 1978, many around the world didn't understand what it was, but they thought it could be a miracle for the hundreds of thousands of couples who couldn't conceive naturally. As I've made the case in the past though, scientists and doctors knew what it was, they just didn't have ethical constraints blocking them from doing what they were doing.

Up front IVF seems innocent enough, until you learn more about the procedure. Here's the rundown:

1) A woman donates eggs
2) A man donates sperm
3) The donated materials are placed in a sort of incubation process
4) The fertilized egg (human) is placed into the woman
5) The baby grows in the womb
6) The baby is born

Is that all there is?

Let's add a few kinks:

Here is a link to a cold, scientific analysis without looking at the reality of life and death, "just the facts":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-tube_baby

According to Wikipedia these are the ethical considerations. Well, they might be if you are an intellectual, scientist or a doctor:

Bypassing the natural method of conception.
Creating life in the laboratory.
Fertilizing more embryos than will be needed.
Discarding excess embryos.
Unnatural environment for embryos.
Using untested technology.
Not affordable for many.
Disallocation of medical resources.
Contributes to overpopulation.
Creating embryos, freezing them, and keeping them "in limbo".
Exposing embryos to unnatural substances.
Destroying embryos in research.
Potential to create embryos for medical purposes.
Potential to select embryos (PGD).
Potential to modify embryos.

The only one in that bunch which really describes the process without bias are the first two:

> Bypassing the natural method of conception.
> Creating life in the laboratory.

These two are 100% factual.

The others use the misleading term "embryo". It is fine to use the term embryo if you are talking about a stage of life. I know, factually speaking an embryo is a human being, but we use the term embryo so that we can do things to humans that we normally wouldn't do, like kill them, or use them for experiments.

Another item that isn't added into that list is "selective reduction". Selective reduction can be found on Wikipedia also, but not related to in vitro fertilization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_reduction

"is the practice of reducing the number of fetuses in a multifetal pregnancy (i.e. those involving more than one fetus). The aim of the procedure is to avoid the medical issues generally related to multiple births (including premature births, low birth weights and associated medical problems)."

This is true, and it is also used in the in vitro fertilization process which they don't mention.

This is the one that should shock most people though:

The procedure is generally carried out between 9 and 12 weeks of pregnancy. The most common method is to inject a chemical solution into the most easily accessible fetus, causing it to die.

Here is a link to folks who think in vitro fertilization is the world's answer to fertility problems:

http://www.inciid.org/article.php?cat=infertility101&id=47

5. "Selective/Fetal Reduction" For couples involved with in vitro fertilization or any other innovative treatment technology involving the transfer of more than one embryo per cycle, selective reduction is one of the most difficult decisions a couple may have to face during the course of treatment. Selective reduction involves the removal of one or more fetuses, either due to a physical/genetic abnormality or to reduce a pregnancy, e.g. from a triplet to a twin pregnancy. While most couples are prepared to welcome one or more children into their home and anxiously await positive pregnancy results, far fewer are prepared for the significant risks associated with multiple pregnancies.

"Reduce a pregnancy" How special.

How many people do you know who have gone through IVF? Did they have twins? Do you think they only had twins? It is likely they had more but the doctor talked them into killing their other children. Don't think I'm being harsh here, after all, the description above tells it like it is, that the doctors are "causing it to die".

As for the rest of the ones above, just replace "embryo" with "person" and you get my drift how IVF is a really bad thing.

Many people have used IVF to conceive. They think of it as a miracle. I'm sure the millions of people who have died because of it don't think so. It's not selfish of me to not want people to have children using IVF; quite the contrary, it's selfish of people to want to kill other people in order for them to conceive.

If we add the millions of people who have been killed or frozen because of IVF into the 46 million who have been killed since Roe v. Wade, we would probably wind up with a number surpassing 100 million killed.

We frequently talk about abortion but aren't as vocal as IVF. In vitro fertilization is just as bad as abortion and needs to stop.

Time for the end of article challenge to you.

Let's end the killing of our children. Join us at http://www.marchtogether.com.

Through our unity we will end abortion.