Your post is a good example of the hypocrisy of the Left: IVF should be against the law; it removes the one remaining evolutionary filter on the next generation: In sexual reproduction, the strongest, fastest sperm makes it to the ovum, ensuring the best chance for the resulting embryo to be healthy. Added to this is the obvious fact that both the male and the female need to be fertile. Survival of the Fittest is Darwin’s Law of evolution: it is unnatural and anti-evolution to artificially fertilise an egg with defective sperm in a test tube. If this practise becomes widespread, eventually no-one will be able to reproduce without IVF: do we really want that? And the morality of fertilising multiple eggs and then discarding the excess embryos as if they were garbage is just another reason IVF should be banned. Before IVF, adoption was common for would-be parents who were infertile: IVF is not the only solution.
Now to deal with your bizarre claim that Republican policy is “about controlling women, and the anti-abortion movement’s legislative apathy toward IVF proves it.” The solution is not more and easier abortions, it is to stop women getting pregnant in the first place. In 99% of unwanted pregnancies, the fault is the man’s for not wearing a condom. Simple: make it against the law for a man to have sex without a condom, unless in a committed relationship where children are wanted. The women can enforce this with a simple rule: do not consent to sex without a condom. “If it is not on, it is not on!”
“A woman’s right to choose” should be exercised before having sex, not afterwards. As a man I can guarantee that a man will choose to wear a condom if the alternative is to not have sex at all. It is time men took some responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancies, and avoiding the spread of STDs at the same time. The Pro-Abortion is very much about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff: why not be proactive for once? Women own the power of consent: they should exercise it!