Rhys Latus examines how the US has turned In-vitro Fertilization (IVF) into a moral battlefield and argues that Canada must defend IVF as a compassionate application of reproductive freedom.

__________________________________________

Last year, the Alabama Supreme court ruled that frozen embryos should be regarded as “unborn children,” prompting fertility clinics across the state to suspend services while they assessed potential liability risks. This decision reignited a decades-old debate in U.S. reproductive politics regarding the question of when exactly life begins. While this ruling reflects the growing influence of religious conservatism, a public backlash followed and Donald Trump expressed explicit support for IVF and has planned to reduce the cost of fertility drugs, framing it as part of his “pro-family policies.” Even within U.S. conservatism, this issue does not have a monolithic consensus, though IVF is largely opposed by the religious right.

In contrast, Canada as of 2025, continues to treat IVF as an essential and compassionate form of health care, a stance that is widely supported by both government and the public. However, the opposition to IVF within some sectors of American conservatism should make Canadians, and our government, reflect on how fragile reproductive rights become when religious ideology becomes influential.

The Alabama ruling is only a part of a growing trend in which anti-abortion arguments are being extended to embryos created outside of procreation. By declaring frozen embryos to be children, the possibility of wrongful-death lawsuits for laboratory accidents resulting in the destruction of embryos makes it extremely challenging to operate a clinic. Political and religious movements in several U.S. states have already framed assisted reproduction as unnatural, immoral, or as an affront to human dignity. For families enduring the stress of infertility, these legal attacks create anxiety over personal medical choices.

Photo Credit: Zappy’s/flickr. Image Description: A digitally created image of sperms and an egg.

These moral debates echo those from the 1970s when the first “test-tube baby,” Louise Brown, was born in Britain. Back then, the Catholic Church expressed mixed thoughts about the IVF process. Pope John Paul I voiced concern that reproductive technologies could lead to women being treated as baby factories and that children would become commodities, not gifts. However, he simultaneously refused to condemn the Browns themselves instead recognizing their desire for a family. This episode reveals how quickly ideology can eclipse compassion when reproductive care ceases to be just a medical issue and instead becomes a political one.

In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act of 2004 establishes limits on reproductive technology. It does everything from banning potential human cloning to the commercial trade of embryos or gametes, while also protecting patient autonomy and requiring informed, written consent before reproductive material is used. Furthermore, payment for surrogacy is prohibited except for reimbursement of expenses, which reflects how Canada puts forth a humane approach to reproductive technology that both permits freedom and prevents commodification.

Canada’s legal framework rests on secular ethics rather than theological definitions of life. The Assisted Human Reproduction Act is based on the principles of autonomy, justice, and compassion. It fosters the idea that infertility should be seen as a condition to be treated and not as a moral failure. By making these values law, Canada demonstrates that it is possible to regulate reproduction without moral panic. The law here aims to safeguard human dignity while recognizing reproductive options as a moral good.

The conflict over IVF often involves more than just embryos but instead reflects fundamentally different moral worldviews, which often are implemented differently in the US and Canada. Some absolutist positions assert that life begins at conception and deserves full protection, regardless of the context of the conception. On the other hand, care‐based ethics emphasize moral value in the intention that IVF enables. For IVF patients, the procedure is about nurturing life when all other options have failed. Moreover, defining embryos as legal persons, while meant to promote respect for life, can generate serious harms such as legal risks for clinics and their patients. Assisted fertility ultimately reveals how technology can serve humane ends when guided by an empathetic worldview and not ideology.

Although basic IVF access is relatively secure in Canada, we must not take this stability for granted. American cultural debates often spread northward and influence our political discourse and policy decisions. Even here, reproductive care is not free from attack. Public funding for IVF, where it exists, is limited and uneven across provinces. Programs such as Ontario’s single funded cycle per patient were only introduced after years of advocacy and many provinces and territories still go without similar financial supports for care. Furthermore, many Canadians still view IVF as a private procedure rather than something that should be covered as a form of healthcare. This shows us that there is still an ongoing debate over whether the ability to conceive a child via medical intervention should be considered healthcare.

Canada’s ethical framework does still show that reproductive technology can remain humane and responsible even amid disagreements over funding. Rather than viewing IVF as an assault on human dignity, Canadians should recognize it as a technology that, when utilized responsibly, expands our capacity to love, to choose, and to create families.

__________________________________________

Rhys Latus is a student at Memorial University of Newfoundland currently doing a joint major in History and Philosophy.