When one wades into the uncomfortably necessary topic of being pro-life, the conversation almost invariably ends up at the same place.
And that’s abortion.
But the pro-life argument extends well beyond that one vile action, and it’s about time to have an uncomfortably necessary conversation about in vitro fertilization.
IVF, despite generally having bipartisan support, is very much a part of the pro-life conversation, and it’s certainly a thorny topic.
On the one hand, yes, more people having children is absolutely a good thing, and IVF is primarily pursued in response to infertility.
But on the other hand, the ends do not justify the means, and the means are utterly horrific.
Imagine this dystopian scenario: Your wife is pregnant. The doctor informs you that early testing suggests there’s a chance that the child may have a medical issue. So instead of birthing a child who might have health issues, you simply opt to kill the child.
Or worse yet, freeze him or her indefinitely.
That’s the sort of practice IVF is using, and it’s abhorrent, no matter who may support it currently.
Should this type of technology be banned?
The horrors of IVF were crystallized this week when, in a sickening non-April Fools’ joke, The New York Times gleefully released an article about a medical company called Orchid.
The company “screens embryos’ DNA for hundreds of conditions, such as retinitis pigmentosa, which can be traced to a single genetic variant. But the company also goes further, offering what is known as polygenic screening, which gives parents what is essentially a risk profile on each embryo’s propensity for conditions such as heart disease, for which the genetic component is far more complex.”
To the shock of nobody, the Times danced around what happens to the babies who do screen positive for health conditions.
As mentioned above, it’s not pretty for “embryos” or humans, if you have a conscience.
Orchid founder Noor Siddiqui took to X to crow about the article, and share some of her admittedly touching (yet still misguided) reason for starting all this:
“When I was in elementary school, my mom started going blind. Retinitis pigmentosa,” Siddiqui posted.
“No family history. No treatments. No cure. I got lucky. She didn’t.”
In this quest for all-consuming knowledge, Siddiqui formed Orchid, which clearly has a mission of rearranging how humans repopulate to bring out the most “desirable” traits.
What’s the word for that, again? Oh, right:
Just so we’re all very clear, eugenics repackaged as technology to screen out the undesirables is…still eugenics. https://t.co/MVUiJ8QNPD
— Melanie Israel (@Melanie_Israel) April 2, 2025
This is eugenics and has no place in a moral society. https://t.co/jdZYDI5ACP
— Hooch (@CompanyHooch) April 2, 2025
“This is eugenics and has no place in a moral society,” one X user said, lambasting Siddiqui.
Roman Catholic philosophy professor Edward Feser didn’t even need the “eugenics” word to perfectly illustrate the horror of what Siddiqui was so gleefully selling.
This isn’t a matter of saving any baby from these disorders, but of discarding embryos who may have them. It shows no compassion for any child, but only the most obscene selfishness on the part of parents. It isn’t good, but unspeakably evil. And it’s what promoting IVF entails. https://t.co/LAtRIwyOYx
— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) April 2, 2025
“This isn’t a matter of saving any baby from these disorders, but of discarding embryos who may have them,” Feser posted.
“It shows no compassion for any child, but only the most obscene selfishness on the part of parents,” he warned. “It isn’t good, but unspeakably evil. And it’s what promoting IVF entails.”
I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
