Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, ““It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.” Said another way, you make women de facto second-class citizens under the law, thus creating a de facto social (“institutional”) patriarchy. Also, my use of the phrase, “full control of her sexual choices as men are of theirs” would have been more clear if I’d used “full control of her sexual organs as men are of theirs.” Men must help, with their organs/bodies, women to *conceive*, but their organs/bodies do not BEAR the conceived life. Justice Ginsburg was saying that the bearing part, matters. And, that these policies weaponize women’s reproductive organs against them in upward social mobility. Thus de facto creating a second class citizen, not fully equal to men in society. Their interpretation of the Constitution of granting women equal citizen status with men is therefore irredeemably in conflict with pro-life legal theory. Logic crash (the real kind).

I mean, you can do it… but, then, you’re effectively a patriarchy. That’s what patriarchy is: a society where men have, by complete virtue of their sex, measurably more social upward mobility than do women. Whether they claim their society is ‘separate but equal,’ or not. It’s unequal. So, with the rare exceptions of pursuing a career in, say, weight deadlifting (where physical size allows us to reasonably make distinctions in competitions between sexes, just as we make “middleweight” and “heavyweight” classifications for men AND women in some sports), women are considered either cognitively and socially equal in upward social mobility (equally enfranchised, by virtue of their adulthood and humanity, to pursue the American Dream) to men in society, or they’re not. It cannot be had both ways (a pro-life society that’s not a patriarchy).

That’s another point: Children do not have the same rights under the Constitution as adult parents. Truancy, for example, is illegal. It therefore can be reasonably inferred that embryos likely have even fewer rights under the Constitution than do children.

Paul Ronco
4 hours ago
1.5 hours of me explaining can be found at my YouTube page. Title: “Is God Pro-Choice? Almost certainly.”

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
4 hours ago
How is trading a male embryo for a female embryo, or vice versa, “ridiculous” or a “moral problem”? A woman can attempt to put her baby up for adoption for ANY reason. Then, she could adopt a baby of the sex she desired. Parents “shop” for babies all of the time. Even fostering contains some element of arbitrary selectivity. It would seem you’re trying to create a straw man so that you can knock it down… no, this issue is not about ethical issues of dignity. It’s a life, period, and the IVF process includes, by necessity, killing conceived embryos. Game over. By your absolutist logic, you should be opposed to it.

You then conclude that “it’s important that women understand the dangers of it,” as if that’s your moral conclusion. Sorry, not good enough, you should want to make it ILLEGAL, like you’re trying to make everything else that has to do with destroying embryonic human life illegal.

Yeah, it’s important that women understand the dangers of carrying to term, too, especially if they don’t want to. To your side, however, that’s a red herring.

At any rate, I watched your video. I heard the two quotes from the ethics ‘experts.’ As expected, no good solutions were offered, just an assertion that “Houston, we have a problem.” Guess what? You have no solutions because it’s a problem you can’t solve. Because your entire premise that embryos have a right to life, or personhood, is flawed.

Innocence alone has never been a metric for precluding the taking of life. Just ask any pregnant woman who was in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden. Heck, in the Infantry, your tax dollars paid me to train how to blow up tanks with babies strapped to them… for your country.

Ava H
Ava H
2 years ago
Wow, I have always been against IVF because of my Catholic faith, but I had no idea this was all that it entailed! Thank you so much for spreading the word about this!

1

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
5 hours ago
“In Vitro Fertilization is a difficult issue for the Pro-Life Movement.” it’s not a difficult issue, it’s a checkmate. A game-ender.

Christian Vogel
Christian Vogel
2 years ago
Great informative video.I do not see any ethical dilemma when IVF does not kill people but as you said, currently the majority of times it does. n what situations are fertilized eggs not destroyed? How common is it?

1

The meow Cat
The meow Cat
2 years ago (edited)
When the parents of the newly-conceived embryos decide to donate them to another couple, or keep them on ice for later. However, unfortunately, what sometimes happens is that the embryos are either destroyed, or sent off to be used in “scientific research.” Also, IVF itself is not very successful, since it only works 40% of the time. So, when one conceives an IVF embryo, they basically set it up to fail.

I should know. I was conceived by IVF, and I was lucky to live.

6

Christian Vogel
Christian Vogel
2 years ago
@The meow Cat thanks for the response that was also very informative. And wow thanks for sharing that about yourself I’m glad you survived too

The meow Cat
The meow Cat
2 years ago (edited)
@Christian Vogel You’re welcome, anytime! Thanks, so am I.

betterleftunsed
betterleftunsed
1 year ago
@The meow Cat it’s a much lower success rate than 40%. But otherwise you nailed it: it basically CREATES an embryo knowing that there is about 80% chance it will be killed directly due to its treatment of that embryo.

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
5 hours ago
Yeah, I’m sure the wealthy White men architects of the pro-life movement in 1973 forgot all about it for honest reasons. Meanwhile, you’ve apparently been chanting their anti-women slogans for forty years.

Realistically Rose
Realistically Rose
6 months ago
Painful to watch but the ethical issue that arises can’t be ignored.

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
5 hours ago
Sure they can. Pro-life has done so ever since IVF was invented. Yet you’re still around, spouting misogynist nonsense. So, what’s the problem?

Chloe Peterson
Chloe Peterson
2 years ago
I get laughter out of this

3

Earl P.
Earl P.
9 months ago
That’s why the concept of soul is illogical – because of IVF. In theory embryos can be grown using artificial wombs. There are already artificial wombs working for lambs.

1

HowdyDoCowGirl CowGirl
HowdyDoCowGirl CowGirl
2 years ago
Never play God with life. His will be done.

8

Δnti Entropy
Δnti Entropy
2 months ago
What if His will is for IVF to be further developed so people who are infertile can have hope of having children?

Jillian Hayek
Jillian Hayek
8 months ago
This video is so misleading. The story of the woman who wanted to trade her embryo is an outrageous outlier. IVF patients long to be parents and would love to have a boy OR a girl. Patients are absolutely able to undergo IVF while upholding pro-life ideals- genetic testing is not required and a doctor cannot force you to discard any embryos. If you feel your family is complete and still have embryos left, there are many agencies that help couples adopt their embryos out to another couple.

1

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
5 hours ago
“Patients are absolutely able to undergo IVF while upholding pro-life ideals-“

Nah. Nope. It kills a conceived embryo. By your logic, game over.

xHuntedGunzPCGx
xHuntedGunzPCGx
2 months ago
It isn’t the end of the world to be pro-choice but still preach abstinence, and sound practices. Instead, you argue over what a woman can do with her own body, and vote on laws to control that. Very toxic.

Josh
Josh
1 year ago (edited)
So if it’s conceived in a Petri dish or by manual fertilization it’s still a life? Even if it is outside the human body?

I’m not sure what the data is, but I can tell you that a large percentage of IVF cycles result in unused embryos after the parents have finished completing their family.

So what do we do with those and what do we tell the parents? Everyone that goes into IVF should know that there is a very good chance they will have leftover unused embryos.

Polycystic ovarian syndrome is a very common cause of infertility and is increasing. Frequently they produce many embryos sometimes 20 or more.

Ashley Ruano
Ashley Ruano
1 year ago
I have pcos and i believe that it is possible to conceive naturally i did.. i changed my diet went low carb, did exercise, lost 6 lbs, took myoinisitol vitamin, b12, d3, and folic acid and after 2 years of infertility i got pregnang after a month of doing these changes.

Vanessa Loy
Vanessa Loy
1 year ago (edited)
You don’t create more human life than you are willing to gestate; that’s what you tell them. If the parents don’t want the extra embryos, they can be released for adoption.

betterleftunsed
betterleftunsed
1 year ago
The families that do IVF do know that there will be unused embryos after they are done. they just dont care. i’m not sure why you think this is hidden from parents. infertile couples are desperate to have children and even if they were pro-life before, usually, those beliefs go out the window the moment they realize they might not get what they want.

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
5 hours ago
A lot of arrogance is assumed by the pro-life movement when it declares that all of these pro-choice women have “lost all respect for Unborn, Truth & God.” Ask any of them if a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy at 8.5 months SIMPLY because she doesn’t “want” it, and almost all of them would agree with the pro-life position. Ask any of them if a woman should have a right to kill her baby AFTER it’s born, and 0% of them will agree that that makes sense. The way they’re being portrayed, however, they’re all harlots. Of course, that is an intended byproduct of the patriarchy movement going around calling itself “pro-life” that, for some curious reason, doesn’t care about IVF.

Their disregard for IVF isn’t a minor flaw in their argument, it is a glaring proof that their movement isn’t about protecting fetal life; and, it’s okay to rub their faces in it, because they’ll never be able to correct it. Why? Because IVF is a) EXTREMELY profitable, unlike abortion and b) caters to mostly older, White Americans. In other words, it’s everything pro-life ACTUALLY cares about. They’d never be able to garner political support to make IVF illegal, even as a false flag (e.g., them saying “We actually don’t care about IVF because it’s a clump of cells with no woman attached to it… but, we have to make it LOOK like we care.”) That’ll never happen.

LauraAnn
LauraAnn
2 months ago
So so much of this is so misleading. Firstly, most IVF is done with a woman’s own eggs, not a donor. A donor is used where the woman does not have viable eggs left because perhaps her age, genetic factors, or medical treatments such as cancer treatment she has undergone.

You make it seem like every embryo is always genetically tested. This is simply not true. Genetic testing is completely optional and an additional expense on top of an already highly expensive undertaking.

Today, it is standard procedure to transfer ONE embryo at a time, not four. The most a doctor may ethically transfer is 2.

This idea of having a huge cache of frozen embryos after a single IVF cycle is pretty absurd. This may happen to you if you are under 33 and have no fertility issues yourself and are doing IVF for male factor infertility or maybe have tubal factor. The fact is that many, many women are incredibly lucky to have ONE live birth from a single retrieval cycle. Many women require more than one to get one baby.

Some women get NO embryos out of any given cycle. There is so much grief and pain associated with infertility. The very least you could do is actually do some research.

Kajsa Brown
Kajsa Brown
1 month ago
This video was done in 2018.

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
5 hours ago
Sounds like you’re making lots of exceptions all of a sudden.

Paul Ronco
Paul Ronco
1 second ago
“There is so much grief and pain associated with infertility. The very least you could do is actually do some research.”

There’s a lot of grief and pain associated with cystic fibrosis, too. No cries for allowing stem cell research, there.

Did you know?

“What diseases could be treated by stem cell research?

“In theory, there’s no limit to the types of diseases that could be treated with stem cell research. Given that researchers may be able to study all cell types they have the potential to make breakthroughs in any disease.” –CIRM ca gov patients power-stem-cells#2