I think there is more debate about abortion than in-vitro fertilization because the latter is a very expensive procedure, and abortion is more common. I'm not sure what the statistics are on couples who use in-vitro, but I'm pretty sure that most people are able to conceive the natural way, so that could be why many pro-lifers don't know a whole lot about it.

As for me...I've never really thought about it. Guess I still have some thinking to do.

i think that if people do in-vitro fertilization, they should not fertilize more eggs than they are wiling to implant right then.

I agree with you.  I think you have made a valid point.  I havent personally met anyone who opposed abortion who didnt oppose IVF.  I was raised Catholic and while most people have come along for the fertilization ride, I know that some very devout religious people are deeply opposed to stem-cell research.  They are also opposed to IVF because it is not the natural way to conception.  Their belief is if God meant for you to have a child he would allow you to have one the "right" way.  He wouldn't have given you biological hinderences. 

On that note, I believe that if we werent meant to conceive, then the human intellect couldnt have thought up and developed IVF!

@tiny_fists_of_fury@xanga - I am pro-choice, but would probably have a hard time choosing abortion.  I say this bc that is my choice and I enjoy having it.  Pro-choice doesnt mean "I believe in what you are doing" it means "I believe in your right to make your own decision."

@tiny_fists_of_fury@xanga -

@FallenStar82387@xanga - Thanks so much for responding so kindly.  I know this is a touchy subject so I appreciate your tact in answering and discussing it with me.  The only thing I want to say is I agree with you in that I believe that they have a right to make their own decisions.  Yes others have the right to choose to shoot another person or kill others.  Sure, they have free will.  But we have laws in place that are meant to keep that from happening.  In the same way, I feel as though, there should be laws in place to keep mothers from murdering their babies.

I mean what is the difference between saying to a serial killer, "it's your choice to kill this person or that person" and saying to a mother, "it's your choice to kill your baby."  Sure.  They have that choice; they have free will to choose that, but the real question is should it be legal to do either one of those things?  We say no to the former so why not to the latter?  They are the same thing.  The only difference is one is COMPLETELY defenseless.  Pro-choice means I think it should be legal to kill your baby, it's not about a choice, it's about whether it's right or wrong.  You can have the choice no matter if it's a law or not.

If you don't believe in what they are doing, why support it?

@TheSutraDude@xanga - Some are.  Not all.  Issues like self defense, just war and the death penalty involve the right to life vs. the person who seeks to wrongly deprive a person of it.  These have limited applications, such as the minimum necessary use of force, just cause and so on.  Concepts such as Double Effect strongly limit when lethal force can be used.  So really, this is comparing apples and oranges in most cases.

Note I said "most."  It is unfortunately true that some within the prolife cause don't hold to their position more consistently, placing political views above moral obligations.  However you would have to take it up with inconsistent groups, and be sure not to lump all pro-lifers together.

In my own religious beliefs (Catholic), we believe war is a last resort, capital punishment is a last resort, and taking a life in self defense is a last resort.  If it is possible to defend oneself, society or the nation without making use of these, we are obligated to do so.  We are also to assist those in need. 

However, we also need to make sure that we do not confuse the end (helping those in need) with the means (political program "X").  A person who does not necessarily agree with the means might support the end and think a different approach would be better.

So on one hand, we need to distinguish between the person who says "War is good" (a hawk) and the person who says "this war is necessary" (such a person need not be a hawk).  On the other hand, we also need to distinguish between the person who says "We need to help people in need" and those who say "We need a government program to help people in need.  In the latter case both see the need, but disagree on the means to the end

@sarahzthoughts@xanga - @tiny_fists_of_fury@xanga - @Arnobius_of_Sicca@xanga - 

personally, i would never have an abortion (for many reasons, but not because i think abortion is inherently wrong or murder).  but, i am thankful that i am allowed to make that choice, and that it is not forced upon me.  i do not view having sex as an automatic consent to becoming a parent, or at the very least a 9-month incubator, any more than i view it as consent to acquire an STD or any other side effect of sex. 

i draw the line at physical dependency.  unlike Average Joe walking down the street, a fetus is physically dependent upon a single other human being and quite literally cannot exist without being attached to it.  i do not consider a fetus to have the same rights as an independent human being, because i do not see human DNA as the only requirement for rights or recognition by law... and when it comes to that kind of physical relationship, i believe the woman should be the only person allowed to determine whether it will continue. 

"If you don't believe in what they are
doing, why support it?"

why must it be one or the other?  i don't believe in a LOT of things (homeschooling, tanning, and buying $5000 purses all come to mind), but i'm not about to say that they should all be illegal. 

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - My comment was about people who really do see abortion as murder, not just something that's "not right" or "not the best decision." You have to admit that it is a little hypocritical for someone who truly sees abortion as horrible as stabbing a full-grown person to be perfectly fine with other people making the choice to abort. However, this is completely besides the point of the post.

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - hello.  I do see your point but I would like to present an argument to it. If you draw the line at physical dependency, then what about a newborn?  They physically need the mother or anyone to care for it and give it everything it requires just like a fetus would.  They have that same dependency and would die if they didn't have it.  You can't leave a baby out on the street to fend for itself.  In your argument you were comparing a person that can walk down the street to a fetus.  One is much more advanced in development as a person than the other.  Human life has processes of development which begin at conception.  There's no argument there with science.   

The second point you said was about how you don't agree in making things illegal just because you don't agree with something.  Homeschooling, tanning, etc. is on a completely different level and don't compare to the value of a human life.  There's a difference between making a personal choice that affects your own health (ie tanning) and making a personal choice that affects the health and life of another person (and I don't mean quality of life, I mean life or death).  THAT is the reason that I feel it shouldn't be looked over.

Thanks for listening.  I really do appreciate it. :o)

@TheSutraDude@xanga - That is because we are a multi-cultural democracy and trying to be all things to all people results in a lot of inconsistency and mixed policies.  You also can't just lump all pro-lifers together as a group and then compare them against policy stances as if there is complete overlap. 

Catholic teaching on these matters is precisely consistent.  The Catholic Church strongly supported health care reform and spends more money on social services in this country than any other organization as a whole AND offers that assistance to ALL regardless of religious affiliation and requires nothing in return.  When the Church teaches abstinence they also offer classes on human sexuality.  When they teach pro-life they offer help to learn NFP, they offer homes for pregnant moms, they offer all sorts of financial, material and emotional assistance, they even offer adoption assistance if that is the chosen route.  The thing the Church does NOT teach is that it is the government's job to provide all of these things and then sit on their butt waiting for someone else to do it for them like most of American society seems to want to do. 

People in this country want whatever they want whenever they want without any responsibility for their actions.  THAT selfish, childish attitude is what so many conservatives are reacting against when they oppose supposedly "good" social programs.  It's easy to say "Republicans oppose school funding" without actually investigating the depth of the issue and the fact that more money does not produce better results.  We need to stop being a soundbite nation and return to being a nation of people who actually know how to think deeply.  But that is an entirely different issue.

Not all infertility treatments involve IVF and this an important distinction to remember. Some infertility treatments merely involve a simple inexpensive medication called clomid, which induces ovulation. From a theological perspective I have no problem at all with basic infertility treatments. When my husband and I had the conversation about IVF we both agreed that we did not feel it was right and despite our desire to have our own child we agreed that we would not take that step. We did struggle with infertility and we did not feel called to adoption, which is extraordinarily expensive and an incredibly difficult process, even when one is attempting to adopt from the foster care system. (I am a pastor and my husband is a public servant so we couldn't have afforded IVF either, even if we had been so inclined.)

If a person has a heart condition they seek the treatment of a medical doctor. The same is true of those who have cancer or any other illness. Infertility is considered a disease of the reproductive system and it it too is an illness for which individuals seek out medical care, and rightly so.  There are a great many medical treatments that are highly controversial and even ethically questionable, which go far beyond what takes place during infertility treatments.  I have served as a chaplain in a level one trauma center and teaching hospital where I participated in a variety of ethical round table discussions. During that  season of my life I learned something very important and that is the simple reality that as Christians we need to remember that God can and does often work through medical science, flawed though it may be!!

In the end my wonderful doctors did not help either my husband or myself, our daughter came to be without the aid of any assistance. He and I are numbered among the lucky ones. There are many couples who are good, faithful, Christian people who have not been similarly blessed and they walk an extremely difficult journey.