At the end of a carefully crafted article about IVF and the Court’s ruling on the accidental destruction of human embryos, the author, attorney Sarah Stula, explains her relationship to the question at hand:

My husband and I suffered from infertility for almost seven years before we were able to adopt our baby girl. To some women who suffer from infertility, this is small potatoes. But I remember the pain. I remember the longing for motherhood deep inside my bones. The countless negative pregnancy tests. The baby showers I skipped because I couldn’t hold it together. The pithy platitudes (often Christianese) that felt like daggers. The many medical tests, pricking, poking, prodding to figure out what was wrong, with no answer. The dreaded holiday seasons and church baby dedications. The depression I tried to mask with a smile. The time an adoption fell through last minute. Infertility feels like a death, over and over again.

This adds tremendous weight to her plea to her coreligionists to eschew the use of IVF for the sake of their own infertility:

The evangelical community’s response to the Alabama ruling has been confusing, proclaiming that life begins at conception on the one hand and fighting the ruling on the other. But how can one justify the protection of the unborn at conception inside the womb but the destruction of that same embryo outside the womb? Isn’t an embryo outside the womb more vulnerable than one safe inside her mother? Is an embryo less human outside the womb than when, seconds later, a doctor delivers her into the womb? It makes no sense.

and later

Evangelicals fight to protect embryos inside the womb at the moment of conception, but many of them ignore the fate of embryos destroyed or stored in a freezer indefinitely. Churches apply Psalm 139 to abortion but don’t wrestle with its implications for IVF. Talking about IVF is uncomfortable—there are IVF babies in our pews, after all—so it’s largely left untouched…. Perhaps the answer is that many evangelicals have embraced the concept of planned parenthood—the belief that I get to be a parent (or not) on my terms.

One side of this coin is the woman with an unplanned pregnancy who chooses to abort her child—it’s parenthood on her terms, and her terms are not now, no matter the cost. Evangelicals have long opposed this as part of a life-at-conception worldview. But the other side of this coin is the woman who wants to be pregnant and creates “unused” embryos through IVF—it’s parenthood on her terms, and her terms are now, no matter the cost. The same ethos is at the root of both choices.

Exactly. Which is why the Catholic Church has seamlessly condemned both abortion and IVF (strengthening the argument with its condemnation of both contraception and masturbation, for good measure). I cannot speak to the pain of infertility, but I can speak to the trauma attached to being unwanted, inconvenient, and a burden on those who should have loved me. I imagine it borders on the angst that children internalise to know they ran a gauntlet to survive when their siblings didn’t. Children are a gift, and given on those terms. Anything that forces the hand of the Giver sullies the outcome.