Ducharme, Jamie. “IVF Changed America. But Its Future Is Under Threat.” TIME, 7 Aug. 2024
In the well-written article, “IVF Changed America. But Its Future Is Under Threat,” Jamie Ducharme depicts the benefits of IVF (in vitro fertilization), as well as addresses the threats IVF faces against biased judges, churches, and governments. Ducharme claims that IVF has had a beneficial impact on those who undergo the in vitro fertilization procedure; she believes this treatment breaks the typical definition of family, providing mothers with more opportunities to conceive their own children. Additionally, Ducharme argues that queer parenthood has risen and people marry later in their lives, which allows for more flexibility with whom people settle. She contends that despite IVF’s benefits, biased judges and growing anti-IVF sentiment put the procedure at risk.
Throughout her article, Ducharme explains the importance of IVF and autonomy over people’s bodies, warning readers about approaching threats: the concept of prenatal parenthood and opinions regarding reproductive rights. Ducharme utilizes logical reasoning to persuade her audience about the benefits of IVF. For example, she references the total number of infants born annually– “nearly 100,000 annually” – to showcase the impact of in vitro fertilization on families, providing them easier access to reproduction. Additionally, she provides quotes from Laura Mamo, a professor of public health at San Francisco State University, studying the intersection of medicine and sexuality. Ducharme’s direct use of numbers and references to qualified professionals demonstrates her use of logos in order to persuade her audience. Utilizing logos in her argument solidifies her knowledge and credibility regarding IVF, allowing the audience to make clearer connections with Ducharme’s ideas. Similarly, Ducharme provides many different perspectives and areas surrounding IVF, like regarding “growing anti-IVF sentiment,” and “a crossroads for US culture,” but fails to provide information and sources to recognize her direct counterargument. This absent evidence demonstrates Ducharme’s bias toward this subject, as she cannot give specific data regarding anti-IVF. Despite her slight bias, Ducharme utilizes many significant pieces of evidence for her argument–both educational and persuasive–while also writing exquisitely with a professional and academic tone.
Primarily writing for individuals with an interest in reproductive rights, Ducharme advocates for reproductive health, legal professionals, policymakers, and people directly affected by IVF. This focus ensures her message reaches people who are most likely to take action, whether through advocacy, legal efforts, or personal decisions related to fertility. Reaching the right audience enhances Ducharme’s arguments, affecting those invested in the future of reproductive rights. Undoubtedly, Ducharme’s expert utilization of logos demonstrates her experience in writing about her passions, unafraid to capitalize on the importance of IVF and body autonomy.