Scott Tibbs


Repeating talking points is not valid argumentation

By Scott Tibbs, March 6, 2024

The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that fertility clinics must protect frozen embryos has the Left in a tizzy, as seen by Charles M. Blow's hysterical reaction in the New York Times. Writing about the ASC's designation of frozen embryos as "persons," Blow writes:
The idea is absurd and unscientific.
Whether Blow thinks granting constitutional rights is "absurd" or not, his grasp on science is weak. When sperm and egg join, a new organism is created, with a completely unique DNA code. That organism resides in and is connected to the mother's body, but is not part of the mother's body. In the case of fertility clinics, that new person resides in a test tube. All that is needed for an embryo to grow and develop is nutrition and shelter. This is basic elementary school biology.
It is instead tied to a religious crusade to downgrade the personhood of women by conferring personhood on frozen embryos.
This is nonsense, and shows how Blow cannot get out of robotically repeating his talking points. Granting personhood to embryos frozen in a laboratory does not impact pregnant women at all. We see this emphasized when Blow quotes Sean Tipton of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine:
"One of the points in the abortion debate is, 'Is it really about abortion or is it about controlling women and controlling sex?' And this clearly exposes the idea that it’s not just about abortion."
This is laughable. There is no sex involved when a baby is created via in vitro fertilization. Sperm and egg are combined in a laboratory, and then frozen to be implanted later. It is actually possible for a woman who has never had intercourse to become pregnant via IVF. No one is controlling anyone's sex life by placing restrictions on what fertility clinics can do with frozen embryos and how those babies are stored. Do Blow and Tipton actually know how in vitro fertilization works?

Tipton continues:
"There is no more pro-life medical treatment available, ever, than in vitro fertilization"
This stretches the definition of "pro-life" to the breaking point. By that definition, experimenting on human beings to create clones - many of which would be deformed or disabled, or live very short and painful lives - is a "pro-life" activity. Pro-life does not mean creating life by any means necessary. It means protecting existing life from harm or death. An industry that regularly destroys (kills) human beings at the very earliest stages of development should never be recognized as "pro-life."
But now Trump is reportedly talking privately about supporting a national 16-week abortion ban, with some exceptions.

This is what many of his supporters want, and many of them believe he has been singularly chosen by God to advance their theocratic aims.
Blow shows he does not understand the pro-life movement, and equates support for Trump with the movement. A so-called "ban" on abortion at that stage would leave 93% of all abortions untouched, and the vast majority of abortions would move forward. As someone who has been involved in the pro-life movement since 1996, I can tell you that a ban at 16 weeks has never been the end goal of the pro-life movement. The end goal has always been protecting innocent human life from fertilization to natural death.

No, most pro-lifers do not think Trump "has been singularly chosen by God" to advance theocracy. There are some fanatical supporters of Trump, sure, but most people recognize Trump for what he is: A transactional politician who understands who his supporters and opponents are. Pro-life voters cast ballots for Trump in 2016 because he promised to implement pro-life policy, and because Hillary Clinton is openly hostile to the pro-life movement. Pro-life voters cast ballots for Trump in 2020 because he actually did implement pro-life policy, and because Joe Biden is openly hostile to the pro-life movement.

Blow may get adulation from liberal readers of the New York Times for his column, but he fails to make a solid argument. Repeating talking points about sexual freedom that have nothing whatsoever to do with storage and care of frozen embryos at fertility clinics, and his ignorance of the pro-life movement's end goals, shows that Blow needs to expand his horizons beyond liberal elitist circles in New York City. His column was an embarrassment both for him and the Times.


Opinion Archives

E-mail Scott

Scott's Links

About the Author

ConservaTibbs.com