In almost half of all IVF cycles or more, the fertilized embryos (i.e. living human beings) are screened for desirable genetic traits, including biological sex. This method of testing (PGT) selects the embryo with the most desirable traits to be gestated and born, while the others are typically discarded (i.e. intentionally killed) or, less commonly, frozen indefinitely.

In 2022, the CDC recorded a total of 98,289 live-born infants through IVF.¹ Of those, at least 44,132 involved screening with PGT.²

If those infants had been born normally, we would expect there to be 22,596 boys and 21,536 girls, based on a natural sex ratio at birth of 105 males to 100 females. But this procedure doesn’t equal the natural sex ratio. The PGT sex ratio is 115 males to 100 females, meaning that female embryos are discarded at a disproportionately high rate, because they are female.³ That means that the PGT infants who were allowed to be born were actually 23,611 boys and 20,521 girls.

The risk of girls being killed or frozen because they are female is 89 times higher than the risk of mothers dying during pregnancy.

IVF is a more common and more deliberate cause of death than pregnancy. If the goal is to prevent the deaths of women and girls, banning IVF is a good place to start.

Instead of trying to remedy infertility, this approach to IVF seeks to manufacture an ideal “product” that suits the preferences of the consumer. It can’t even succeed on its own merits, because there are always unforeseen tradeoffs when breeding for genetic traits. Even if it does succeed, the approach treats each rejected embryo like an injured racehorse that is killed instead of cared for.

The approach also treats each born child like her existence depends on whether she measures up to certain “ideal” qualities. If the parents selected her because her genetic test results indicated a higher IQ, then she would be expected to perform well academically or else her birth could be deemed a “mistake”. Eugenic goals can become the standard by which her entire life is measured. When embryos are screened for preference, the parents’ love may even appear to be conditional on those preferences. If parents don’t love their sons and daughters unconditionally, they do violence to their children’s development.

A novel use of IVF also allows the return of an ancient tendency among society’s elites: polygyny. For those who can easily afford the procedure, IVF allows biological parenthood to be mass-produced. For example, an uber-wealthy father could pay to inseminate dozens or hundreds of different mothers, seeing it more as an investment opportunity rather than a loving relationship.

It might seem like science fiction, but IVF can benefit those who have the wealth and desire to reshape the real world into their preferred dystopia. Unlike the better intentions of Isabella and James in the previous page, this is a desire for individual legacy, to create as much of the world as possible in one’s own image.

We shouldn’t be fooled by the new method, because the tendency is as old as recorded history: the libido dominandi (“lust of domination”).

…we must speak also of the earthly city, which, though the people serve it, is itself dominated by its lust of domination.

St. Augustine, The City of God, Preface

Though declining fertility is a problem at the societal level, IVF is not the solution. It makes children into tools to serve their parents’ libido dominandi, whether the parents realize it or not.

Aside from IVF, other “Assisted Reproductive Technologies” (ARTs) also seek to conceive children through novel means, all of which are retro-engineered from the natural process of procreation. Any ART that separates the unitive meaning of conjugal love from the procreative meaning is just as immoral as IVF. Any ART that treats a fertilized embryo like a commercial product that can be deliberately killed, suspended at an early level of development, sold, or replicated should be avoided, just as IVF should be.