"40% of those who think IVF is always morally wrong believe that truth can only be found in one religion"
To me, that "truth can only be found in one religion" formulation is odd and I wonder if it produces unexpected results. It appears to be a way of trying to capture firm believers as opposed to people with a more relativistic or post-modern approach to religious truth. Yet -- perhaps this is again my literal-mindedness -- I'd consider myself a traditional, conservative, orthodox Christian, and I couldn't agree with it. Salvation can only be found through one religion, but other religions contain at least some truths. At a very minimum, I don't know how you could begin to argue that there is zero truth in Judaism when it uses many of the same Scriptures!
IVF seems like a good thing. The western world desperately needs more births, and also needs more parents. People with kids are generally better for civilization than people without kids. IVF makes it possible for more people to be parents. What's the problem?
The dirty little secret about IVF is that quite frequently (if not almost always) quite a few more embryos are created than end up being implanted --- to make sure that the procedure and expense do not need to be repeated, etc. This necessarily implies that the rest of the created embryos are either eventually killed or --- more likely --- "donated" to science for experimentation. Not to mention that many of the created embryos are "non-viable": which means technically alive, but with severe problems --- and their fate too is their quick death at a scientist bench. I do not understand how a person can be pro-life and still support IVF.
In addition to that, IVF is the beginning of the implementation of the commodification of man: through IVF, already human beings are treated as objects to be bought, modified, and potentially mass-produced for profit or experimentation.
"It's, by far, an overall negative for the birth rate"
This is a data driven Substack, so can you point me to some data that if the United States would prohibit IVF that women would be having more children?
Japan has substantially increased parental leave from 25% of salary to 67% of salary and the end result was a net birth rate decline 5% from 2022 to 2023.
What is the total dollar value of the change in maternity benefits?
How does that compare to the cost of raising a kid for 18+ years?
I simply don't buy the idea that governments can't affect fertility. They certainly can't do so on the cheap, which is the only kind of effort any developed country has ever tried, but this is a political problem. It's cheaper to buy the votes of the poor or the old then to buy the votes of middle class parents (those kids don't vote, and they don't increase GDP till long after the politician is dead), and the political systems incentives naturally try to reach 51% in the most efficient way possible.
I don’t know how much weight to give these numbers, but it looks like Japan birth rate is going up so far in 2024. Could it be a delayed response to the policy changes (which weren’t all implemented until October 2022)? https://database.earth/population/japan/fertility-rate
The most pro-IVF country in the world is Israel and it is the only first world country with above replacement fertility, even amongst its secular population.
Without even reading it, I'm guessing that they are trying to put unrelated riders in. For instance, you can support IVF while not supporting commercial surrogacy or whatever. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
When IVF first became a thing, I opposed be because people who could not conceive should adopt children who need parents rather than manufacture a new baby. Since then I've changed my stance and no long have any problem with it.
Not related to this specific topic, but I just wanted to comment to thank you, Ryan, for including the bolded lines in each of your posts, which provide a quick way to read through the essay. With some essays, I will read the entire article because the topic is of particular interest to me. Others, like this one, are intriguing, but I just want the summary. I am grateful to you for providing that through your use of bolded lines.
Keep up the excellent, thoughtful, and interesting work!
The Alabama case was brought by people using IVF against a clinic that had practiced gross negligence resulting in the death of their embryos. They had no intent to make IVF illegal and the court ruling itself doesn't suggest that its finding makes IVF illegal.
Clinics could easily have decided to interpret it narrowly, that they would be held liable if they were grossly negligent but not if they followed ordinary procedures. But that wouldn't generate a favorable 24 hour news cycle to try and link something repulsive (abortion) with something popular and good (IVF).
Ultimately, legislatures will pass bills that will allow IVF clinics the political cover to go back to operating. Some people will unfortunately have their IVF journey interrupted for not good reason, and its possible such legislation will allow IVF clinics to get away with the kind of negligence that led to this situation. Let alone a case of purposeful malice.
Something the court brought up that I never thought of is that a ruling that only embryos in uterus's are alive means that when artificial wombs get here the children growing inside them won't be considered alive. We all also need legislation to understand what "being born" means in such a context.
It is true that those who feel abortion is always wrong did not generally oppose IVF. But the data does seem to show that those who oppose IVF were very likely to believe abortion is always wrong. So there is some connection between IVF and abortion opposition, in that IVF opposition may be a subset of the pro-life movement.
I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion on the IVF v view of religion graph. Yes, the group thatis morally against IVF did not have a majority answer that there is primarily truth in one religion, but it seems that it was generally an unpopular choice regardless which I would say points to a poorly worded survey question. That 32 point gap between always morally acceptable and always morally wrong seems pretty significant to me. I think we need a more specific survey question to explore the topic further.
I do think that the primary driving force for people opposed to IVF is religious convictions. At the very least we need to acknowledge that religion played a role in this case. The judge who made this ruling referenced the Bible and multiple theologians to explain his reasoning and also provided this gem of a quote: “[Human life] cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself."
I think that breaking down by religion would have been more informative than by strength of belief, particularly in the manner that that survey used. Catholicism teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil. I think that it also teaches the same about IVF, but I am not sure which aspects of it lead to that conclusion (definitely the disposal of unused embryos, but I am not sure whether it would still be considered an intrinsic evil without that). Catholicism also teaches that, while many other religions have some aspects of Truth, only Catholicism has it fully (I also think that this style of position is common among Abrahamic faiths). Thus, I would expect conservative or traditional Catholics to be more aligned on thinking that both are morally reprehensible in all cases.
I see what you're getting at, but I've concluded that breaking down by nominal religion is generally not too informative, because different religious traditions differ a lot in terms of how "sticky" the identity is. In other words, some religious identities, like Catholicism, are more likely to be maintained by people brought up in the tradition who have since rejected most or all of the doctrine.
So when you compare self-identified Catholics and self-identified evangelicals in a poll, the difference in opinion is often driven by the larger share of self-identified Catholics who are nominals, rather than the difference in opinion between actual churchgoing Catholics and evangelicals.
Something like frequency of church attendance is probably a better indicator.
Thanks. I think that, having seen that, I agree with Spouting Thomas that attendance frequency (perhaps also by religion) would shed more light. My pet theory is that the more traditional the Christian, the less likely they are to approve of either abortion or IVF. I cannot speak to other kinds of faiths though...
I wonder how many people fully realize that IVF, as typically done, means that many embryos are created in the process with the goal of having one successful pregnancy? Which means that the embryos that didn't happen to be the one (or two) that successfully implanted are "destroyed" or "wasted" or "weren't given a chance". And, sometimes, there are more than than one or two that are "successful", but a pregnancy with multiple embryos is a high-risk pregnancy, so usually in the first trimester there will be a "selective abortion" in order to give the one or two the best possible chance of a successful birth.
Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to use multiple embryos in the process. If it was just one at a time, it would greatly lengthen the odds of success, most often add many months to the timeline, and greatly increase the financial costs, plus add a lot of additional physical stress to the woman.
But then I don't think that "life begins at conception." Nor has that even been an idea for most of human history.
I just wonder if those who do think "life begins at conception" realize how many of those "lives" don't make it past the very first steps of the IVF process.
Yes, this is the philosophical/theological basis for opposition from Christians. It's an effort to be philosophically consistent.
The numbers here suggest a large gap between those who report believing life begins at conception and those who are opposed to IVF. Maybe roughly 50/50. It's a worthwhile question to ask, is this a matter of not knowing the material facts about IVF, or not subscribing to the moral reasoning of the theologians?
I'm not sure, but I'd guess some of both. For what it's worth, I don't think IVF is morally equivalent to abortion. Still probably wrong in my view and not something I'd choose personally, but murky enough that I see how other Christians could conclude otherwise. Something like the Doctrine of Double Effect is in play here. In the case of IVF, killing the embryos is an unhappy side effect of the process (whose end goal is fundamentally good). Whereas in the case of abortion, it's the entire purpose.
Ah, but sometimes with abortion, the goal is to have a healthy mother who can take care of older children. So it's a choice between a physically and/or emotionally and/or financially stressed care-giver for children who have already been living for a few years for the sake of a fetus that has yet to be born who would also have to be cared for by the stressed parent versus a healthier and more capable parent for the older children.
I am also a Christian. Most of life does not involve clear-cut choices between "good" and "evil". It is far more often the ethical dilemma of choosing between less than perfect things. And often it's more than just "two" separate things that are part of any particular situation.
For my faith life as a Christian, rather than debating the ethics of abortion, I put more energy into trying to help create systems that will provide support for families who are physically and/or emotionally and/or financially stressed.
I think most people balk at the idea that getting abortion allows one to have more children later in life because it doesn't match reality.
People who support abortion have way fewer children than people that oppose it. So there is something going on there that is anti-child rather than just wanting to change around the timing.
I can see some situations where abortion could increase fertility. Say if you abort a Downs Syndrome kid you might have the resources to raise more children (as would society).
But your average abortion is just some slut that wants to have unprotected sex and doesn't want a brat getting in the way of her self-centered lifestyle. Most people understand this and its why they find it disgusting.
I think the “abortion for any reason” label is unfortunate. It seems what is meant “abortion is wrong in at least some circumstances” is meant. Obviously 32% cannot believe abortion for any reason is wrong—this number must logically be less than the various circumstances spelled out. Also, one objection to IVF that is left-adjacent is spending money on IVF when an adoption that could save a life (from an agency in a failed state, maybe?) would merge the desire to parent with a more generally altruistic urge might be considered at the same cost. The medical staff devoted to IVF being reallocated on a cost benefit basis.
"40% of those who think IVF is always morally wrong believe that truth can only be found in one religion"
To me, that "truth can only be found in one religion" formulation is odd and I wonder if it produces unexpected results. It appears to be a way of trying to capture firm believers as opposed to people with a more relativistic or post-modern approach to religious truth. Yet -- perhaps this is again my literal-mindedness -- I'd consider myself a traditional, conservative, orthodox Christian, and I couldn't agree with it. Salvation can only be found through one religion, but other religions contain at least some truths. At a very minimum, I don't know how you could begin to argue that there is zero truth in Judaism when it uses many of the same Scriptures!
I wonder, is it possible that the poll allowed multiple answers for that question?
IVF seems like a good thing. The western world desperately needs more births, and also needs more parents. People with kids are generally better for civilization than people without kids. IVF makes it possible for more people to be parents. What's the problem?
The dirty little secret about IVF is that quite frequently (if not almost always) quite a few more embryos are created than end up being implanted --- to make sure that the procedure and expense do not need to be repeated, etc. This necessarily implies that the rest of the created embryos are either eventually killed or --- more likely --- "donated" to science for experimentation. Not to mention that many of the created embryos are "non-viable": which means technically alive, but with severe problems --- and their fate too is their quick death at a scientist bench. I do not understand how a person can be pro-life and still support IVF.
In addition to that, IVF is the beginning of the implementation of the commodification of man: through IVF, already human beings are treated as objects to be bought, modified, and potentially mass-produced for profit or experimentation.
It's not a dirty secret. It's totally irrelevant and most people don't care.
"It's, by far, an overall negative for the birth rate"
This is a data driven Substack, so can you point me to some data that if the United States would prohibit IVF that women would be having more children?
Japan has substantially increased parental leave from 25% of salary to 67% of salary and the end result was a net birth rate decline 5% from 2022 to 2023.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/28/birth-rate-japan-record-low-2023-data-details
So, I am not sure there is anything government can do to substantially drive up fertility rates if the culture is not willing to change.
What is the total dollar value of the change in maternity benefits?
How does that compare to the cost of raising a kid for 18+ years?
I simply don't buy the idea that governments can't affect fertility. They certainly can't do so on the cheap, which is the only kind of effort any developed country has ever tried, but this is a political problem. It's cheaper to buy the votes of the poor or the old then to buy the votes of middle class parents (those kids don't vote, and they don't increase GDP till long after the politician is dead), and the political systems incentives naturally try to reach 51% in the most efficient way possible.
I don’t know how much weight to give these numbers, but it looks like Japan birth rate is going up so far in 2024. Could it be a delayed response to the policy changes (which weren’t all implemented until October 2022)? https://database.earth/population/japan/fertility-rate
The most pro-IVF country in the world is Israel and it is the only first world country with above replacement fertility, even amongst its secular population.
So please explain the Senate refusing to consider the bill to protect IVF yesterday?
Without even reading it, I'm guessing that they are trying to put unrelated riders in. For instance, you can support IVF while not supporting commercial surrogacy or whatever. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
When IVF first became a thing, I opposed be because people who could not conceive should adopt children who need parents rather than manufacture a new baby. Since then I've changed my stance and no long have any problem with it.
Not related to this specific topic, but I just wanted to comment to thank you, Ryan, for including the bolded lines in each of your posts, which provide a quick way to read through the essay. With some essays, I will read the entire article because the topic is of particular interest to me. Others, like this one, are intriguing, but I just want the summary. I am grateful to you for providing that through your use of bolded lines.
Keep up the excellent, thoughtful, and interesting work!
Appreciate this, Andrew. Hard to know what is working and what isn't. Feedback is helpful.
Same with doing the voice-overs. I have no idea how many people list to these posts.
Just trying to make the work accessible.
The bolded lines also help those of us with ADHD. Not sure I can explain why, but it does.
The Alabama case was brought by people using IVF against a clinic that had practiced gross negligence resulting in the death of their embryos. They had no intent to make IVF illegal and the court ruling itself doesn't suggest that its finding makes IVF illegal.
Clinics could easily have decided to interpret it narrowly, that they would be held liable if they were grossly negligent but not if they followed ordinary procedures. But that wouldn't generate a favorable 24 hour news cycle to try and link something repulsive (abortion) with something popular and good (IVF).
Ultimately, legislatures will pass bills that will allow IVF clinics the political cover to go back to operating. Some people will unfortunately have their IVF journey interrupted for not good reason, and its possible such legislation will allow IVF clinics to get away with the kind of negligence that led to this situation. Let alone a case of purposeful malice.
Something the court brought up that I never thought of is that a ruling that only embryos in uterus's are alive means that when artificial wombs get here the children growing inside them won't be considered alive. We all also need legislation to understand what "being born" means in such a context.
It is true that those who feel abortion is always wrong did not generally oppose IVF. But the data does seem to show that those who oppose IVF were very likely to believe abortion is always wrong. So there is some connection between IVF and abortion opposition, in that IVF opposition may be a subset of the pro-life movement.
I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion on the IVF v view of religion graph. Yes, the group thatis morally against IVF did not have a majority answer that there is primarily truth in one religion, but it seems that it was generally an unpopular choice regardless which I would say points to a poorly worded survey question. That 32 point gap between always morally acceptable and always morally wrong seems pretty significant to me. I think we need a more specific survey question to explore the topic further.
I do think that the primary driving force for people opposed to IVF is religious convictions. At the very least we need to acknowledge that religion played a role in this case. The judge who made this ruling referenced the Bible and multiple theologians to explain his reasoning and also provided this gem of a quote: “[Human life] cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself."
I think that breaking down by religion would have been more informative than by strength of belief, particularly in the manner that that survey used. Catholicism teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil. I think that it also teaches the same about IVF, but I am not sure which aspects of it lead to that conclusion (definitely the disposal of unused embryos, but I am not sure whether it would still be considered an intrinsic evil without that). Catholicism also teaches that, while many other religions have some aspects of Truth, only Catholicism has it fully (I also think that this style of position is common among Abrahamic faiths). Thus, I would expect conservative or traditional Catholics to be more aligned on thinking that both are morally reprehensible in all cases.
I see what you're getting at, but I've concluded that breaking down by nominal religion is generally not too informative, because different religious traditions differ a lot in terms of how "sticky" the identity is. In other words, some religious identities, like Catholicism, are more likely to be maintained by people brought up in the tradition who have since rejected most or all of the doctrine.
So when you compare self-identified Catholics and self-identified evangelicals in a poll, the difference in opinion is often driven by the larger share of self-identified Catholics who are nominals, rather than the difference in opinion between actual churchgoing Catholics and evangelicals.
Something like frequency of church attendance is probably a better indicator.
IVF by religious tradition:
https://i.imgur.com/aY5Z72v.png
Thanks. I think that, having seen that, I agree with Spouting Thomas that attendance frequency (perhaps also by religion) would shed more light. My pet theory is that the more traditional the Christian, the less likely they are to approve of either abortion or IVF. I cannot speak to other kinds of faiths though...
I wonder how many people fully realize that IVF, as typically done, means that many embryos are created in the process with the goal of having one successful pregnancy? Which means that the embryos that didn't happen to be the one (or two) that successfully implanted are "destroyed" or "wasted" or "weren't given a chance". And, sometimes, there are more than than one or two that are "successful", but a pregnancy with multiple embryos is a high-risk pregnancy, so usually in the first trimester there will be a "selective abortion" in order to give the one or two the best possible chance of a successful birth.
Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to use multiple embryos in the process. If it was just one at a time, it would greatly lengthen the odds of success, most often add many months to the timeline, and greatly increase the financial costs, plus add a lot of additional physical stress to the woman.
But then I don't think that "life begins at conception." Nor has that even been an idea for most of human history.
I just wonder if those who do think "life begins at conception" realize how many of those "lives" don't make it past the very first steps of the IVF process.
Yes, this is the philosophical/theological basis for opposition from Christians. It's an effort to be philosophically consistent.
The numbers here suggest a large gap between those who report believing life begins at conception and those who are opposed to IVF. Maybe roughly 50/50. It's a worthwhile question to ask, is this a matter of not knowing the material facts about IVF, or not subscribing to the moral reasoning of the theologians?
I'm not sure, but I'd guess some of both. For what it's worth, I don't think IVF is morally equivalent to abortion. Still probably wrong in my view and not something I'd choose personally, but murky enough that I see how other Christians could conclude otherwise. Something like the Doctrine of Double Effect is in play here. In the case of IVF, killing the embryos is an unhappy side effect of the process (whose end goal is fundamentally good). Whereas in the case of abortion, it's the entire purpose.
Ah, but sometimes with abortion, the goal is to have a healthy mother who can take care of older children. So it's a choice between a physically and/or emotionally and/or financially stressed care-giver for children who have already been living for a few years for the sake of a fetus that has yet to be born who would also have to be cared for by the stressed parent versus a healthier and more capable parent for the older children.
I am also a Christian. Most of life does not involve clear-cut choices between "good" and "evil". It is far more often the ethical dilemma of choosing between less than perfect things. And often it's more than just "two" separate things that are part of any particular situation.
For my faith life as a Christian, rather than debating the ethics of abortion, I put more energy into trying to help create systems that will provide support for families who are physically and/or emotionally and/or financially stressed.
I think most people balk at the idea that getting abortion allows one to have more children later in life because it doesn't match reality.
People who support abortion have way fewer children than people that oppose it. So there is something going on there that is anti-child rather than just wanting to change around the timing.
I can see some situations where abortion could increase fertility. Say if you abort a Downs Syndrome kid you might have the resources to raise more children (as would society).
But your average abortion is just some slut that wants to have unprotected sex and doesn't want a brat getting in the way of her self-centered lifestyle. Most people understand this and its why they find it disgusting.
IVF makes babies. Making babies is good. If you found out your friend made an IVF baby, you would feel good about them.
Abortion kills babies. Killing babies is bad. If you found out your friend got an abortion, you would have a lower opinion of them.
The theology just isn't that important to anyone but autists.
For a sufficiently broad definition of "autist", you're probably about right.
I think the “abortion for any reason” label is unfortunate. It seems what is meant “abortion is wrong in at least some circumstances” is meant. Obviously 32% cannot believe abortion for any reason is wrong—this number must logically be less than the various circumstances spelled out. Also, one objection to IVF that is left-adjacent is spending money on IVF when an adoption that could save a life (from an agency in a failed state, maybe?) would merge the desire to parent with a more generally altruistic urge might be considered at the same cost. The medical staff devoted to IVF being reallocated on a cost benefit basis.
What social effects, greed, false promises, and barbarity do you see from IVF?
That may be true, but the fact remains that IFV is broadly popular, even among religious conservatives. We have to proceed with that reality in mind.