The Paradox of IVF
The term “IVF” has entered (or rather, re-entered) American political discourse because of the mini-controversy caused by Vice-Presidential Candidate Tim Walz’s claim to having become a father because of it.
But, according to his wife, the procedure they used was not IVF (in vitro fertilization) but IUI (intrauterine insemination). The question has arisen as to why Walz would lie about it.
Some doctors have explained that the two terms are often confused by the general public, that couples come in asking for IVF when the procedure they actually have in mind is IUI.
Sure, but after researching the procedures with the doctor's help and deciding on one or the other, they should no longer be confused, especially as UIU is generally attempted before IVF, as it is the simpler and less expensive alternative.
But IVF is opposed by some pro-lifers, who tend to be on the right, so Walz may have just been wanting to tweak the sensibilities of these people.
Many people on both sides of the political aisle are debating the issue of “Why did Walz lie” versus “It wasn’t actually a lie.”
However, what I would like to examine is: why do some pro-lifers oppose IVF?
