In a bold move that surprised absolutely no one paying attention, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has formally opposed in vitro fertilization (IVF) at its annual meeting. The convention’s delegates voted for a resolution urging members to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being, including frozen embryonic human beings. Yes, they've reached the 21st century and decided to park their wagons firmly in the lane of controversy.

Concerns over the creation and potential discarding of multiple embryos in the IVF process were central to the resolution. Jason Thacker, one of the convention’s eloquent spokespeople, said the resolution affirms that embryos are considered children, regardless of location. Presumably, this means that even embryos buried in the back of the freezer behind the peas and mystery meatloaf are to be given the same consideration as living, breathing children.

Furthermore, the resolution aims to promote adoption and even encourages adopting frozen embryos to "rescue those destined for destruction." Who knew we’d need superhero capes for adopting freezer-burned embryos?

Amidst already brewing controversies about IVF and anti-abortion movements, Democratic senators have introduced The Right to IVF Act, aimed at protecting access to IVF procedures. It seems Republicans also want to protect IVF, but with concerns raised about the scope of their own bill, one can only imagine the ongoing squabble around the legislative campfire.

Adding fuel to this stork-sized bonfire, the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling on frozen embryos has sparked national debate regarding their legal status as children, causing several clinics in Alabama to temporarily halt services. Because, clearly, nothing says "children" like spending eternity in cryogenic limbo.

This non-binding resolution by Southern Baptist delegates criticizing IVF is rife with divisions within the convention. Daniel Taylor argued against the resolution, citing the moral actions of his friends who used IVF, while Monica Hall and her personal experience with surrogacy and IVF added more complexity to the debate. The disconnect here is about as wide as the Grand Canyon, making any discussion as richly rewarding as a Thanksgiving dinner with everyone arguing politics.

Southern Baptist heavyweights like Al Mohler and Andrew Walker recommended the resolution. Al Mohler, true to his decades-long opposition to IVF, probably sighed in relief upon its passage. Meanwhile, the gathering would surely have needed more popcorn to watch conservative supporters of IVF who generally seem to oppose abortion, wrangle with the intricate ethical dilemmas IVF presents.

The resolution contends that IVF often results in the destruction of embryonic human life. Given that about 2% of births annually involve IVF, it’s not exactly a fringe concern. According to a Pew Research Center report, 63% of white evangelical Protestants believe IVF is a good thing, hence proving that internal opposition could inspire as much unity as trying to agree on the best flavor of church potluck jello.

Lastly, no large religious moral scuffle would be complete without the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission urging Congress to limit access and funding for IVF. It’s a classic case of “don’t touch that,” amplified to a national level.

In conclusion, this resolution wraps itself in a pious bow as Southern Baptists aim to navigate the turbulent waters of modern family planning with a map that, at times, still seems drawn in the era of ink and parchment. How this decision will play out remains to be seen, but rest assured, it will give folks plenty more to argue about, just like the good old church halls intended.