In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the February 2024 decision of the Alabama Supreme Court regarding in vitro fertilization.

The issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) is not a new debate, but sadly, media coverage has over simplified and reduced a deeper analysis. The issue of manipulating human beings and playing God by creating, and then destroying human lives, has grave and dramatic implications for all of society, many of which are being ignored.

First and foremost is the issue of human ownership. There is no debate that these are human embryos. Yes, they can be preserved by cryogenic freezing, But they are indeed human and as the movie, “Jurassic Park” intimates, via IVF, there are implications to the use of science to both create, and then possibly destroy the life created. In that film, the issue revolved around using science to create dinosaurs, using cryogenic freezing of the embryos. But also shows the implications of the creation and theft of such cryogenic “property”.

President Trump was clear that it is a practice that should have parameters and limits. He endorses its use only for childless couples who are unable to conceive, not for routinely 'creating human lives.'

The issue of creating living property, “playing God,” is only the beginning. The idea of owning another human being is obviously at the heart of IVF issues when it comes to human reproduction. And the issue of owning a human being is clearly at the heart of both slavery and abortion. Western Civilization has recognized that it is unethical to claim ownership of another human being, much less destroy a human being you claim to own.

Brian continues the discussion by examining the work of the Swedish Council on Bioethics. In vitro fertilization is being practiced in Sweden, but there are grave implications which are impacting that culture. The Swedish culture is considered liberal and progressive, but the dire implications of owning and creating new human lives are only beginning to be understood. The Swedish Council on Bioethics is asking for a re-examination and some reasonable limitations to be put on this ‘practice of medicine.’