This is a constant nag for me when reading anti-abortion opinions that take the "life begins at conception" stance: that those people don't seem to be against in vitro fertilization (IVF). For those who aren't aware, IVF typically involves fertilizing several eggs and implanting the ones that are most viable 5-6 days later. The remaining fertilized eggs can be stored for future use, donated, or discarded/destroyed. The "fertilization = life" crowd seems unbothered by this. They'll complain about birth control, the morning after pill, and any form of abortion because it supposedly destroys a human life. Yet, they seem to ignore IVF. Even states with the most restrictive stances on abortion, like Alabama (which banned all abortions except in very specific circumstances), have exceptions for IVF. I personally find this inconsistency to be one of the more glaring tells that anti-abortion laws are more about controlling women, and about slut-shaming, than they are about "protecting life." They wouldn't specifically carve out exceptions for IVF if they truly believed a fertilized egg was the same as a baby.
Get over it! So the sperm meets the egg in a different manner. It still ends up in the woman. Why should they have a problem with this?
