The Dysgenics Of IVF

You know IVF. In which a woman has eggs removed from her body, chucks them in with the pork chops in the freezer, and hopefully dated, where I use hopefully, as you will see, in its original sense. Some time later, a quack in a white coat retrieves the eggs.

The hunt for sperm commences. For even though Gender Theory insists it doesn’t matter, Mother Nature still rules. The white coat either heads off to a bank, which stores the results of men who have watched too much pornography, and makes a withdraw, or the women coaxes a man she knows to offer a sample. (Using what incentives, we do not know.)

Through miniature Hoovers and tiny wee tweezers, the white coat pokes sperm into some eggs. Surprisingly, this sometimes works. Most of the matches die, since the procedure is rather rude. The dead are flushed into the sewers. A few matches last a certain while. The white coat examines these, and chooses one which, to him, has the shiniest properties. The rest are presumably donated to Planned Parenthood for use in their ceremonies.

The next part is a little embarrassing. The white coat, who has only known our lady for a short while, mechanically has his way with the lady. You know what I mean. Often this is a performance for an audience.

Despite its technological sophistication, usually this coupling fails. Just as the microscopic human being gets used to his (or her!) home in a test tube, he (or she!) is forced to move. Which is too much for his (or her!) frail self, and he (or she!) dies.

And so the entire process repeats until one of the microscopic human beings gets squirted close enough to where he (or she!) needs to be inside the lady, or the lady runs out of money.

Many address the ethics and morality of this, but I’ll let that pass, because in a culture of utilitarians like ours such arguments sound like rap “music”. I’ll instead give you a utilitarian arguments against it: the IVF process is dysgenic.

Of course, arguments resting on biology are ignored by hardcore egalitarians because of their insistence on Equality. That audience will not be receptive as the lady willing to be prodded. And then most big-C conservatives can’t bear to hear any argument with words like “eugenics” in them; one whiff and they start spouting goofy euphemisms or tired slurs. I remind them that either they or their parents or both practiced eugenics when they decided just who they would marry and procreate with.

Briefly, since all know these things: Women are most fecund some short period after menarche, continuing into their mid-twenties, and then declining as rapidly as comprehension in a calculus lecture to college DIE administrators. Conceptions after 40 are rare and often troubled. The healthiest babies are born when the woman is young. Healthy babies are eugenic.

It is not just the age of the eggs, but of the woman. Thus freezing younger eggs, and hoping they are in no way altered, degraded or damaged by this process, are still put into an old body. And anyway, many who take IVF are not using frozen eggs, but current ones sucked out of older bodies. Obviously (I hope), the entire process is artificial, and this takes its toll, and that which takes a toll on miniature people is dysgenic.

The end is a child born from what would otherwise be an infertile mother. Infertility is passed on by artificial means, and this is dysgenic. That IVF is a possibility encourages some otherwise fertile women to spend their youth making PowerPoint decks, and to wait to attempt children, and that is dysgenic. Women putting off motherhood, and losing it often, has profound implications across an entire culture, all of which are dysgenic. Often these women, if they can conceive at all in their aged state, only have one child, and that too is dysgenic.

That ladies decide to wait encourages academics to give arguments why it is good to wait even longer, and when modern academics get involved, well you already know that is dysgenic.

Enter the peer-reviewed paper “Exploring Repro-Timing Harm and Benefit” by Davide Battisti and Gary David O’Brien in Bioethics. The Abstract is sufficient:

It is plausible that time of birth affects one’s prospects for wellbeing. Being born during a war or recession might have a negative impact on early life and lifetime wellbeing. In natural reproduction, delaying conception does not result in the same child being born later, but rather a different child altogether; therefore, prospective parents cannot harm/benefit their children by choosing their time of birth. However, we argue that for prospective parents undergoing the IVF process, things are different. Since it is possible to freeze and store embryos indefinitely before implantation, parents can choose their child’s time of birth. Because certain birth timings may better support wellbeing, this introduces the possibility of repro-timing harms and benefits. This paper explores this new concept by outlining its theoretical assumptions and examining the moral reasons prospective parents in IVF might have for delaying implantation in the short, medium, and long term.

“I’m sorry, ma’am, management has decided not to conduct any IVF until the current administration is replaced by one which has a better record of supporting reproductive rights. Besides, our AI told us climate change will be unsustainable eighteen years from now, when you’re child becomes an adult. And you don’t want to contribute to climate change, do you?”

Of course, the most dysgenic thing a woman can do is indulge in reproductive rights.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use PayPal. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.