General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WTF-- IVF is the same as murder? [View all]joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It makes an objective argument to placate the philosophical natalists. Human life, if it is viable, is therefore sacred. The IVF argument is philosophical, but until the technology exists, they won't be able to truly make the argument.
However, the technology (ectogenesis) does exist for lab animals and will exist for humans, and once it does, then abortion and IVF will be banned outright. You will still be able to get a zygote legally removed, but it would go from being an out patient procedure to a very expensive surgery and very expensive surgeons and life support stuff will be required. Thus making an "abortion" cost tens of thousands of dollars, along with likely forcing the "genetic-donor parents" to still care for the "sacred-zygote births" since there exists virtually no system of welfare for them.
Long term the arguments will be made for preserving the DNA of the zygotes and permitting the zygote to be destroyed but only if the DNA still exists, and then you'd have X amount of zygotes brought into existence.
Meanwhile we have decades of debate about what power women should have over themselves and their bodies, and there's not a whole lot we can do but to pack the fuck out of the courts. It's the only option at this point because this woman will be confirmed. And the lawsuits that they have triggered and ready to go will make their way up the ladder as she helps erode these rights.