Pro-life video of the day: IVF procedure done on live TV
by Hans Johnson
Editor’s Note (9-30-13): The use of this video as an informational piece in no way means that we endorse the use of IVF. IVF is not a pro-life procedure. Hopefully this will put to rest any further questioning on the matter.
Tuesday morning on TODAY, contributor Jessica Menkhausen had eggs removed live on the program. When mixed in a petri dish with her fiance Derek Manion’s sperm, she will have “viable embryos” inserted in her uterus live on Friday.
This was Tuesday’s segment on TODAY:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/xVvPwd50Cuk[/youtube]
Today’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman, present in the operating room – and apparently lending endorsement to this procedure which needlessly takes so many preborn children’s lives by its nature – is a eugenic abortion advocate.
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Susan Allen]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What is strange is that they are engaged and could not afford a wedding until after their IVF treatments. What????
My first thought too Susie.
“The couple have put off a wedding until next year citing the cost of IVF which averages $12,000 to $17,000 per cycle and it’s often not covered by insurance.”
Maybe we should put some donations together so this couple can have their dream wedding.
Did they get paid for doing this on live TV?
How much does a marriage license cost?
License?
What about the dress, Susie? It’s all about the dress! You know, the one the kids will spit up on.
Oh, and the ice sculpture and harpist.
Uhh, IVF is NOT pro-life…
I was conceived using IVF. I’m still struggling to come to terms not only with being conceived in such a cold, unnatural way, but also with the fact that I was the only one of the three embryos to survive the process. My parents still don’t consider my two siblings to be their children, just “potential” children.
This is disgusting. How dare they showcase IVF as if it’s entertainment? We need to start treating IVF for what it is – a violation of a person’s right to be conceived in love.
Thank you, ersatz, for your comment. You’re 100% genuine, by the way! ;>)
IVF has too many drawbacks and too many embryos that don’t get to grow up. It’s insane that one set of children are legally aborted, while another set is created for huge sums of money.
Jill,
I love your website and agree with you 98% of the time but it is disgusting to label IVF as “pro-life” on your website.
Pete
Why in the world is this under the heading of Pro-life video? There is nothing pro-life about manufacturing babies like this. C’mon… :(
In fairness, all topics stemming from the Life issue are discussed here. That includes the good, the bad, and the ugly. A post on child slavery or sneaking a woman an abortion pill certainly doesn’t mean these things are supported.
Perhaps we could include a question mark in the title, but hopefully the vast majority of readers of this blog will understand that’s implied.
It’s funny, this is far from the first pro-life video of the day about something that’s not being supported, and yet it is the first time I’ve seen people react this way.
I could see thinking IFV is not pro-life when un-needed embryos are thrown away, but couldn’t it be if they were all used? (either all by the biological family and/or some donated to another family)
Also, what they do about their wedding is their buisness in my opinion, but if cost is an issue why not have a small wedding now and a big renewal ceremony later?
A lot of good, Christian people who are naturally pro-life (i.e., who are disgusted by abortion but who are not informed pro-life activists) don’t see the problem with IVF. This use extreme measures to manufacture a child seems good to them, if a couple wants a child badly enough.
It’s hard to speak against this moral disorder. People don’t have a moral vocabulary anymore; they don’t use words like “disordered desires.”
It try to explain it this way:
– People who strive against God and Nature and who don’t want children use contraception and abortion.
– People who strive against God and Nature and who do want children use IVF.
In both cases, we desire to artificially control against a natural process that is God’s will for us.
The common point is that Eve did not pluck an apple from the Tree — It was a vial of pills. The Serpent lied, saying, “God does not want you to be happy. With these pills, you will be like God. You can take control your own destiny and design a better plan for yourself.”
Sometimes, this discussion bears fruitful conversation with folks who already understand that God’s desire for our happiness exceeds our own desire. It does not touch the hearts of those unhappy people who already insist that God is a demon who seeks to frustrate their desires and damn them to Hell.
I’ll have to second the suggestion. Jill, would there at least be any way of adding some sort of caveat in the description, saying that IVF is being brought up as an issue of contention against “pro-life”, rather than a demonstration OF “pro-life” (or something to that effect)?
IVF, despite any and all sincerity on the part of would-be parents and advocates, is a strikingly grave evil, on many levels. It sets up millions of children per year for dismemberment and slaughter each year (the so-called “excess embryos”, which are either flushed down the sewer or turned over for vivisection in stem-cell research laboratories). It reduces the child from a “gift” (which only theists would have a chance of understanding, anyway) to the level of a product, or commodity ordered for the pleasure of the “customers”.
A child is violated grievously if he/she is not allowed to be a freely-given gift to parents, born of the conjugal love (however imperfect) of his/her parents, and valued for his/her own sake (and not simply for the pleasure or sense of fulfillment that he/she gives the people who want to “have a child”).
NO ONE has the “right” to a child. NO ONE. No one has the right to a free gift. To think otherwise is to treat a person (a child) as a “thing to be used”, rather than a person to be loved.
(For the record: my wife and I are infertile, and we’d rather die than partake of this grave evil for the sake of “trying to acquire a child”. Though I suppose that comment will lead some careless readers [read: trolls, and the like] to say, “That’s all well and good for you, but don’t try to bind others by your own opinions…” *sigh* As if they were my mere opinions, and not objective reality…)
I have no clue why anyone would question whether or not Jill or anyone at this site endorses IVF after the myriad of stories she has covered up to this point, but I’ve posted a disclaimer nonetheless. Hopefully this can end now. Thanks.
Thanks, Kel!
It wasn’t so much for our sake (i.e. the “regulars”–though I have to smile at calling myself a “regular”, since I’ve been away for so long!); my concern (and probably the concern of others) was for the sake of new/infrequent visitors who probably wouldn’t have had the foggiest idea what Jill (or anyone else on this blog) would have written about this (or any other) topic. I certainly didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings by the request, and I certainly know that Jill (and you, and the other mods) had no intention of promoting this! But in this age where roughly 90% of Catholics in the pews (for example) have no problem with the use of artificial contraception, and since many of those would be aghast that someone could have the audacity to be *against* such a supposed “life-giving” procedure as IVF, we really do need to be careful.
Paladin, it appears that no one read further down in the post past the video, which states that IVF takes many preborn lives. Everyone just had their typical, knee-jerk reactions of outrage.
I should be used to it after four years, but it surprises me every time.
Next thing you’ll see is “outrage” over graphics. I personally would like a disclaimer that neither Jill nor Hans endorse the smiling mugs of this couple. LOL…
Kel,
I understand. But even on this thread alone, there are people who sincerely ask if IVF would be morally allowable “if all the embryos could be implanted” (i.e. none of them died)… which is not an unreasonable question (though the answer is stiil “no”). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be a bit careful about this issue about which opinions of pro-lifers are all over the map.
If it helps: only the first paragraph of my initial comment was directed at Jill (and/or you and the other mods); the other (far more severe-sounding) paragraphs were not specifically addressed to Jill (or to you) at all, but to the board at large… since this is a point of particular exasperation for me, especially in the light of so many pro-lifers (not necessarily on this board) who embrace IVF with both arms, and I felt a strong desire to sound the alarm where it might be needed.
Translation: I was not trying to scold or come down on you (Kel) or Jill. Does that help, a bit? I do apologise for any confusion, in that regard…
“–though I have to smile at calling myself a “regular”, since I’ve been away for so long!”
Hi Paladin, I’d just like to say that it’s been nice having you around again!
:) Thank you kindly, JDC! (Sorry… I missed this message in the last few days of busy-ness!)
You’re very welcome, Paladin! Don’t worry about it, I never really expect a reply to these things anyway.