In the world of pregnancy and fertility, there are two practices which generate much discussion because of their embryonic or fetal deaths: in vitro fertilization (IVF) and abortion. While these two practices differ in purpose, each involves the termination of an embryo or fetus, raising moral, religious, and ethical questions over which practice results in greater embryonic or fetal deaths each year.  

What is In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)? 

In Latin, the words “in vitro” means “in glass.” This is because in in vitro fertilization (IVF), “fertilization occurs outside the body, in a laboratory dish under controlled conditions. IVF is the most common type of assisted reproductive technology (ART),” according to Yale Medicine. 

IVF involves a series of procedures most commonly employed by couples experiencing infertility. During IVF, “mature eggs are collected from ovaries and fertilized by sperm in a lab.” After fertilization, the next procedure involves placing one or more of the fertilized eggs — embryos — into the mother’s uterus. This entire process is known as a “cycle” and typically takes around two or three weeks. 

What is Abortion? 

An induced abortion is a procedure that terminates a pregnancy through the removal of a baby from the womb. The procedure is performed in two different ways: procedural abortion or medical abortion.  

Depending on how far along a woman is in her pregnancy, a procedural abortion involves either a vacuum aspiration, a dilation and evacuation (D&E), or a dilation and extraction (D&X). Medical abortions can end an early pregnancy at home with a prescription drug, typically mifepristone followed by misoprostol. 

As opposed to a spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, in which a mother loses her pregnancy before the 20th week, an abortion is often voluntary and performed with the intention of ending the pregnancy.  

Which Practice Results in More Embryonic or Fetal Losses? 

Both IVF and abortion result in the termination of life. With IVF, multiple embryos are lost due to the nature of the procedure; with abortion, the very purpose is to terminate a life in the womb. The question is which practice results in a greater loss of life? 

IVF offers a 50-55% chance of a healthy pregnancy, leading Clinics to create more embryos than they intend to bring to term. This results in a large number of embryonic losses. In a typical IVF cycle, Clinics extract around 10-20 eggs, with about 80% being mature enough for fertilization. This leaves a couple with a limited number of embryos — typically around eight — to attempt a pregnancy. 

After embryo creation comes embryo transfer. According to Arc Fertility, it was once a common practice to transfer multiple embryos “in the hope of maximizing the chance of success, but this often resulted in twins or rarely triplets, both of which are associated with preterm birth and other serious complications to both babies and mother.” Now, it is more common to insert only one embryo at a time, maximizing safety. 

If a woman successfully bears one or multiple children through one or more IVF cycles, the clinic will likely have excess embryos to either freeze or discard. In fact, estimates suggest that about 60-70% of embryos created through IVF do not survive for implantation or result in a pregnancy. 

Furthermore, according to Catholic News Agency, “The CDC estimates that more than 238,000 patients attempted IVF in 2021. If clinics created between seven and eight embryos for every patient, that would yield about 1.6 million to 1.9 million over a year. Despite these high numbers, fewer than 100,000 embryos were brought to term, which suggests that somewhere between 1.5 million and 1.8 million embryos created through IVF were never born.” 

Although IVF is touted as a hopeful solution to couples facing infertility, the number of embryos either frozen or discarded in the process is much higher than the number of babies brought to term. 

Compared to IVF, the loss of life from abortion is less, with an estimated 1,026,700 abortions in 2023, as reported by the Guttmacher Institute. The study shows that there were approximately 642,700 medical abortions, accounting for 63% of abortions in the US in 2023. 

Comparing IVF and abortion, IVF contributes more to embryonic or fetal loss each year, with around 500,000-800,000 more prenatal deaths.  

Moral Perspectives on Embryonic or Fetal Deaths in the Context of IVF and Abortion 

There are a variety of standpoints regarding IVF and abortion. Below are outlined some common perceptions of life, IVF, and abortion from various religious and ethical viewpoints. 

Religious Perspectives 

The sanctity of life has different meanings in various religions. Below you’ll find some of the most common beliefs across the world.

Christian Perspectives on IVF and Abortion 

Christians believe in the sanctity of life, arguing that life begins at conception. This belief disqualifies any participation in abortion; however, IVF is where the two groups may differ.  

As stated by a study in the National Library of Medicine, “While assisted reproduction is not accepted by the Vatican, it may be practiced by Protestant, Anglican and other denominations. According to traditional Christian views, beginning at conception, the embryo has moral status as a human being, and thus most assisted reproductive technologies are forbidden.” 

Judaic Perspectives on IVF and Abortion 

According to Joseph G Schenker in “Assisted reproductive practice: religious perspectives,” many Jews get their views on procreation from the first commandment God gave to Adam, stating “Be fruitful and multiply.” Judaism allows the practice of all techniques of assisted reproduction, including IVF, when the egg and sperm originate from the wife and husband, respectively.  

Islamic Perspectives on IVF and Abortion 

While Muslims hold no one specific attitude toward abortion, IVF is generally acceptable. However, similar to Judaism, the procedure may only be performed for a husband and wife. 

Ethical Perspectives on IVF 

There are various viewpoints on ethics that hold what is determined to be the right based on the circumstance.

Utilitarianism 

Utilitarianism is a school of ethical thought that focuses on outcomes more than actions. Followers of this system determine right and wrong based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people, basing decisions on this standard. Following this train of thought, Utilitarian views might argue that successful pregnancies resulting from IVF justify the losses of embryos in the process. Parents have the joy of a newborn child, which outweighs the loss of any unused embryos in the process.  

A Utilitarian perspective may also argue that a few children born of IVF are of a greater good to the world around them than the loss of many embryos in the process. The Utilitarian view could argue that children will grow up and contribute to society as they age — something of greater value compared to the loss of unused embryos. 

Deontology 

Deontology is also known as duty ethics, and it acts as a counter to Utilitarianism. Deontology focuses on actions and whether they adhere to universal rules, regardless of the outcome. Under this school of thought, the action carries greater weight than the outcome. Essentially, Deontology is based on the notion that some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.  

Depending on which rules, principles, or values you adhere to, IVF may or may not be an option. If one believes embryos have rights as humans, for example, one may feel convicted in disposing of them compared to someone who does not view an embryo as worthy of human rights. 

A Scientific Perspective into IVF and Embryonic Personhood 

Amidst varying religious and ethical perspectives on IVF and abortion, there are also biological processes that occur in fertilization and birth. Though much of the discourse outlined below is in regard to embryonic research, the same arguments may be applied to IVF and abortion, as each practice raises questions of personhood and human legitimacy before birth. 

Since 1979, human embryo research has had a recommended limit of up to 14 days after fertilization, which later led to the UK Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990. The reason for 14 days is stated in a journal article by Kirstin R. W. Matthews and Daniel Morali: “Human embryo research often has been viewed in terms of the first 14 days after fertilization before the formation of the primitive streak, which denotes the end of implantation and the beginning of gastrulation.” 

Gastrulation is a critical process that takes place during the third week of human development. Per the National Library of Medicine, gastrulation “is an early developmental process in which an embryo transforms from a one-dimensional layer of epithelial cells, a blastula, and reorganizes into a multilayered and multidimensional structure called the gastrula.” 

Along with gastrulation, the justification for the 14-day limit includes the following: 

Although the 14-day limit has been standard practice among the scientific community for decades, not all agreed on the 1990 decision, with “several members who opposed some or all human embryo research.”  

To this day, dissenting views on embryonic research remain within the scientific community, including Robert P. George and Patrick Lee. They believe that human embryos are indeed human beings who deserve the same level of protection and respect as living children outside the womb, arguing against “treating them as disposable research material.” 

George and Lee outline the process of conception, stating that “when a sperm cell unites with an oocyte, the two cease to be, and their constituents successfully enter into the makeup of a new and distinct organism, which is called a zygote in its original one-celled stage.” As this new and distinct organism grows and develops through the process of differentiated cell division, it becomes an embryo. 

George and Lee continue, stating the embryo’s “cells constitute a human organism, for they form a stable body and act together in a coordinated manner, which contributes to regular, predictable and determinate development toward the mature stage of a human being. That is, from the zygote stage onward, the human embryo has within it all of the internal information needed—including chiefly its genetic and epigenetic constitution—and the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human organism.” 

In other words, an embryo is a human in one of the smallest forms, and this is proven in its ability to develop into more mature human stages. In fact, George and Lee argue that “there is only a difference in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo to fetus, infant and so on” when it comes to human life. Thus, the embryo is as deserving of respect and protection as the preborn child and the infant. 

State Responses to Embryonic Death from IVF 

Given the variety of views regarding IVF, abortion, and where human life begins, it’s no surprise there are differing laws and legislations in various US states surrounding this issue. 

Most notably, in February of 2024, the “Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 16 declaring that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be considered children.” This caused several of the state’s IVF clinics to pause services, with lawmakers, doctors, and patients raising concerns about the impact the ruling would have on reproductive healthcare. 

Soon after the court ruling, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, “signed legislation that grants immunity to clinics when they ‘damage’ or cause the ‘death’ of human embryonic life in the process of providing in vitro fertilization (IVF) fertility treatments to women.” Ivey said in a statement that Alabama “works to foster a culture of life,” “supports growing families through IVF,” and is a “pro-life, pro-family state.” 

In contrast to Alabama’s legislation, New York state provides “that any fertilized human ovum or human embryo existing outside of a human uterus shall not be considered an unborn child or human being,” per The New York State Senate. 

After Alabama’s unprecedented ruling regarding IVF, other pro-life states remained silent on the issue. Additionally, now that legislation in Alabama allows clinics to resume IVF treatment, the number of discarded embryos is likely, to remain higher than infant deaths from abortion in the United States. 

Conclusion 

IVF is a solution commonly given to couples facing infertility. The practice aims to bring new life into the world through a series of procedures that, in almost every case, leads to the loss of human embryos.  

Abortion, on the other hand, is done with the intention of terminating a pregnancy — of ending a life. Despite the vast differences in intentions between these two practices, IVF is a more deadly practice for human embryos, resulting in more preborn deaths than abortion each year. 

Given IVF’s intention and ability to bring about life compared to abortion’s goal of death, many hold the practice in a different light. However, if we believe that human life begins at conception, an embryo holds just as much of a right to life as a child growing in or out of the womb. 

While the debate of whether an embryo deserves the status of “human” or not continues in the US, there is no denying that the practice of IVF causes more embryonic deaths compared to fetal deaths from abortion. As varying convictions and opinions circulate on this topic, clinics and practitioners may need to begin considering the various religious and ethical convictions of their patients as they move forward with IVF practices. 

Additional Sources: