A California congressional candidate, an art dealer named Esther Kim Varet, recently articulated a challenging truth regarding in vitro fertilization – a truth that exposes a fundamental similarity between IVF and abortion. Her candid remarks, shared in a podcast interview, have ignited a debate about the moral implications of both procedures.
Varet spoke openly about her own experiences with abortion, describing two procedures performed early in her life with a matter-of-factness that some found jarring. She contrasted these decisions with her later choice to pursue IVF at age 41, revealing a significant detail often overlooked in discussions about reproductive technology.
During the IVF process, Varet explained, multiple embryos are created, yet not all are implanted. Currently, she and her husband have five embryos remaining in storage. This reality, she pointed out, presents a parallel to abortion: the deliberate choice to end potential life.
Varet’s reasoning for limiting her family size extended beyond personal preference. She and her husband identify as “big environmentalists” and expressed a desire to minimize their impact on the planet, factoring into their decision to not pursue further pregnancies.
The core of her argument, however, wasn’t about the environmental impact. It was a direct comparison of the choices inherent in both IVF and abortion. She asserted that individuals undergoing IVF are, in effect, making the same kinds of decisions about which lives proceed and which do not.
This perspective challenges conventional thinking. While many view IVF as a pathway to creating life, Varet’s words highlight the unavoidable reality of embryo selection and potential disposal. The process inherently involves creating life with the understanding that not all created lives will be brought to term.
The implications for those who oppose abortion are particularly stark. If the sanctity of life is paramount, the discarding of viable embryos during IVF presents a moral inconsistency. It demands a reckoning with the fact that the creation of life through IVF also necessitates the potential for its destruction.
In vitro fertilization, as defined by medical experts, involves fertilizing eggs outside the body and then implanting them in the uterus. But the process doesn’t end with implantation. What becomes of the unused, fertilized eggs? They represent potential human life, and their fate is a critical component of the ethical debate.
Ultimately, Varet’s comments force a difficult but necessary conversation. The choice to create life in a lab also carries with it the responsibility – and the difficult decision – of determining which lives will continue and which will not. This is a truth that cannot be ignored.
