Both political conservatives and liberals love it. It is praised across the cultural spectrum and almost universally defended. It is often portrayed as compassionate medicine, a triumph of modern science, and a solution to heartbreaking suffering.

But in reality, it results in the destruction of human life on a scale that rivals—and often exceeds—abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. And society frames it as good and right, while ignoring a dark side that is rarely discussed, one that is deeply disturbing, morally grotesque, and fundamentally unjust.

Morally, this technology is often presented as trying to promote life, unlike elective abortion, which intentionally destroys life. This is the good part, the intent is good. However, the destruction and harm it causes far outweigh the intended benefit. Good intentions cannot justify systematic killing of human life.

A Good Desire Does Not Justify Every Means

Let’s be clear before getting into the topic. The desire to have children is good. Married couples want kids and sometimes cannot. That is genuinely sad and deeply frustrating. The longing for a child is powerful, emotional, and understandable. It is precisely because of that pain that people turn to this technology. But the hideous, unspoken truth is that this practice results in more death than Planned Parenthood. Children die. Babies are killed. The depth of the desire does not change that reality. No matter how sincere or painful the longing, it does not justify every possible means of fulfilling it.

We also have to remember that there are many ways children can come into existence that are still immoral. Fornication can result in children, but that does not make it good. Adultery can produce children, but it remains a grave wrongdoing. Rape can result in children, yet no one argues that the outcome redeems the act. In every one of these cases, the existence of a child does not erase the moral violation that preceded it. The same principle applies here. A good end does not transform unjust means into moral ones.

Compassion Cannot Override Moral Principle

A consistent moral framework cannot allow compassion to override principle. If human life has intrinsic value, that value cannot depend on whether the child is wanted, healthy, genetically ideal, or convenient to bring into the world.

So what is the issue with this technology?

Life Engineered, Selected, and Discarded

The technology I’m talking about is IVF. It conditions people to see life as something to be engineered, optimized, selected, and discarded. Over time, this reshapes how society understands children—not as persons with inherent worth, but as products of technological success. Yet this is actually one of the lesser problems.

Clinics routinely create large numbers of embryos with full knowledge that most will never be allowed to live. Some are discarded immediately. Others are destroyed during genetic screening. Countless more are frozen indefinitely, effectively abandoned. This loss of life is not accidental or rare; it is a built-in feature designed to maximize efficiency and success rates. Measured purely by outcomes, this practice results in more embryonic deaths than many abortion providers, yet it escapes scrutiny because it is framed as helping families rather than ending lives. It is celebrated, protected, and praised.

The Language That Hides the Moral Reality

This moral reality is concealed behind clinical language—the same kind used in abortion debates. Embryos are labeled “extra,” “unused,” or “non-viable,” disguising the fact that they are complete human organisms at an early stage of development. The practice normalizes the idea that human beings may be intentionally created with the expectation that most will be destroyed. The moral question is not whether a child is eventually born, but whether it is acceptable to sacrifice multiple human lives to achieve that result. Cultural sympathy for infertility makes this emotionally difficult, but moral clarity demands that it be confronted honestly.

The Return of Eugenics—Now Sanitized by Technology

Beyond this, there are additional moral failures wit IVF that rarely receive attention.

One is the normalization of modern eugenics. Genetic screening is routinely used to determine which embryos deserve to live and which are destroyed. Embryos are eliminated for genetic abnormalities, disease risk, sex, or other traits. Even when framed as compassion or disease prevention, the underlying assumption is that some human lives are more valuable than others. This reinforces discrimination against the disabled and conditions society to believe that imperfection justifies death.

Closely related is sex selection. The ability to choose a child’s sex reduces children to customizable outcomes and reinforces the idea that their worth depends on meeting parental preferences. Historically, sex selection has produced demographic imbalances and intensified gender discrimination, yet it is quietly normalized under this technology.

When Children Become Products

Another issue is the commodification of children. This practice introduces market logic into human reproduction. Life becomes subject to contracts, payments, guarantees, success rates, and refunds. Children are no longer begotten; they are produced. Once money governs reproduction, human beings are subtly transformed into products rather than persons.

The Exploitation and Harm of Women

There is also the exploitation of women. Egg retrieval requires aggressive hormone stimulation, invasive procedures, and carries known and unknown medical risks. Women are subjected to physical harm and long-term health uncertainty to produce eggs, often under emotional distress or financial incentive. In donor contexts, economically vulnerable women are disproportionately recruited, turning bodily risk into a transaction.

Frozen Children and the Crisis of Abandonment

Frozen embryos introduce another moral catastrophe: abandonment. Hundreds of thousands exist in suspended animation because parents cannot bring themselves to destroy them but also will not allow them to be adopted. These children exist in legal and moral limbo, with no clear responsibility, no protection, and no future. Divorce, death, and financial strain only deepen this crisis.

Fragmented Parenthood and Broken Origins

Parenthood itself becomes fragmented. Genetic parents, gestational carriers, and social parents may all be different people. Responsibility is divided, identity is blurred, and children are left to navigate fractured origins. This fragmentation undermines the natural bonds that ground parental obligation and care.

Children conceived through donor material also face foreseeable psychological harm. Many experience identity confusion, grief, or a sense of loss over biological parents they will never know. Even when raised in loving homes, the moral question remains whether adults have the right to intentionally create children under conditions of built-in relational loss.

Sexual Ethics and the Hidden Cost of Sperm Acquisition

The method of sperm acquisition raises its own serious moral issues. In practice, sperm is commonly obtained through masturbation, often involving pornography. This ties the creation of human life to sexual acts that are themselves morally disordered, separating procreation from marital intimacy and reinforcing harmful sexual norms.

Donor involvement compounds the problem further. The use of third-party sperm or eggs amounts to high-tech fornication or adultery—reproduction detached from marital exclusivity. It creates biological parenthood outside the marital bond while attempting to preserve the appearance of family stability.

Medical Authority and Moral Desensitization

By placing reproduction entirely under medical authority, society becomes morally desensitized. What would be shocking in any other context becomes routine when performed by professionals in sterile labs. Once the destruction of life is justified for efficiency and success, it becomes difficult to resist more extreme technologies—gene editing, designer traits, artificial wombs—because the ethical boundary has already been crossed.

A Life-Affirming Alternative: Embryo Adoption

There is, however, one morally distinct response within this landscape: embryo adoption. Embryo adoption does not create new embryos or destroy existing ones. Instead, it seeks to rescue children already created and abandoned, giving them a chance at life. While it does not undo the moral failures that produced the crisis, it represents a response that affirms life rather than discards it.

The Hard Truth We Must Face

The difficult truth is that not every desire can be fulfilled without moral cost, and not every cost is acceptable. A society that claims to value human dignity must reject practices that achieve good outcomes through the routine destruction of innocent life. As commonly practiced, this technology fails that test. Embryo adoption, though imperfect, stands as a corrective response—one that seeks to preserve life rather than sacrifice it.

Key Takeaways

• • IVF is widely celebrated but results in the destruction of human life on a massive scale.

  • The desire for children, no matter how strong, does not justify immoral methods.

  • Children created through immoral or destructive means do not erase the wrongdoing involved.

  • IVF conditions society to view life as engineered, optimized, and disposable.

  • Genetic screening and sex selection embed a modern form of eugenics.

  • Children can be commodified when life is treated as a product rather than a person.

  • Women are physically and emotionally exploited through egg retrieval and donor programs.

  • Frozen embryos often remain abandoned, creating a moral and legal limbo.

  • Parenthood is fragmented, which can lead to identity confusion and relational loss for children.

  • Sperm acquisition through pornography or donor programs raises serious sexual and moral concerns.

  • Reliance on medical authority desensitizes society to the destruction of human life.

  • IVF normalizes a slippery slope toward more radical reproductive technologies.

  • Embryo adoption provides a life-affirming alternative, rescuing existing embryos rather than creating and destroying them.

  • True moral clarity requires rejecting good outcomes achieved through the routine destruction of innocent life.

I would love for you to come along with me and not miss a post! In the future, I plan on giving more resources and answers. Plus, I want to send you a Free Quick Guide why I think science points to God. I would love for you to have this Free Quick Guide and the latest posts straight to your inbox. Please grab your  Free Quick Guide why I think science points to God here. 

So, what did you think? Feel free to share your thoughts below!