Much discussion has revolved around the topic of in vitro fertilization (IVF). (This process involves the fertilization of the egg outside of the womb previous to being implanted in a women’s uterus). This method is controversial for many reasons. One is the idea of creating life in a Petri dish. However, others consider the procedure to be the answer to their prayers, providing an opportunity that would have otherwise been impossible.

Numerous individuals take issue with this process for several reasons. In order for an embryo to survive, frequently other implanted embryos must be aborted. The reasons for controversy here are obvious, as they are with all other pro-life adversaries. Throughout there process there is a greater risk of ectopic pregnancies, where the embryo develops in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. Taken as a whole, the success rate is exceptionally low at between 2 to15 percent. With all the risks and aborted embryos many are left wondering whether this process is doing more harm than good.

Although the process of IVF takes much heat, it is extremely difficult to tell an infertile couple that they have no chance of having a family. Although adoption is often seen as the "better" option for said couples, the two cannot be adequately compared. The desire for many women to have their child develop inside of their own body is deeply embedded and cannot be simply replaced. Furthermore, adoption does carry a heftier bill of approximately 25,000 dollars opposed to in vitro, normally footing a 15,000 bill.

In addition to these negative consequences, the effect of IVF on all involved is impossible to be measure. According to Donald DeMarco, when a child is created in a Petri dish it becomes harder to relate to them as a free individual rather than a possession. This is evident in the case Davis v. Davis in 1992, where divorced husband and wife contested whether they should destroy their seven frozen embryos or donate them to other infertile couples. Many feel that an embryo has all the potential to be a human being and should have the same rights. In such cases a child is often led to question whether they were actually wanted out of love or simply a desire to have satisfied.

Whether right or wrong, the practice has been getting tons of media attention. "Octomom" has graced the headlines of newspapers and television screens across the nation.

Nadya Suleman is a single, unemployed, mother of fourteen, eight being infants. At the age of 49, Suleman has been criticized countless times for her methods and dependence on the public for financial support, being considered a huge burden on the economy especially in these trying times. Now not only is Octomom being targeted for her alleged irresponsibility, but the doctor who implanted the eight embryos is facing legal repercussions. The limit for a mother over the age of 35 is two implanted embryos, clearly surpassed in Suleman’s case.

Though in vitro fertilization is a highly controversial issue, most feel that these individuals should be given the same respect and rights of any other.