IssuesRead Next
Politics
Bishop of Arlington denounces ‘radically unjust’ abortion amendment
Bernadette Pate
·Spotlight Articles
BREAKING BOUNDARIES: How IVF is paving the way to a dystopian nightmare
“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning… has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to man…. We shall… be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?”
(This is part two of a series. Read part one.)
Societal compromise on IVF, which disregards the dignity of the human embryo, is paving the way for the advancement of even more radical technologies, like in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG).
Children created via IVG won’t necessarily have both a genetic mother and a father; instead, they could have one genetic parent, multiple genetic parents, two same-sex genetic parents, and so forth.
Aborted babies and IVF-produced human embryos have been used in research that has aided in the advancement of IVG technologies.
Big Fertility and radical ideology are blurring the lines between legitimate struggles with infertility and something referred to as "social infertility" (two same-sex people who cannot reproduce on their own biologically/naturally) – helping to excuse and fuel the progress of IVG. They are redefining infertility itself.
Scientists and other Big Fertility proponents are hoping that IVG will either replace IVF or make it more accessible and affordable—claiming that eventually IVG might be cheaper, since egg retrieval would hypothetically not be necessary.
IVG is an emerging, Frankensteinian technology that “reprograms” adult blood or skin cells and manipulates them to mimic those found in embryonic cells, which are additionally manipulated to imitate sperm or egg cells. The imitation sperm/egg cells that result are then used to create embryos through IVF (in-vitro fertilization). In a nutshell, this means the children who are created won’t necessarily have both a genetic mother and a father; instead, they could have one genetic parent, multiple genetic parents, two same-sex genetic parents, and so forth.
During a 2023 National Academies multi-day conference on IVG, multiple panelists explained the various ways aborted babies and IVF-produced human embryos have been used in research that has aided in the advancement of IVG technologies.
Live Action News reported how Cornell University professor Paula Cohen flippantly spoke of grafting fetal ovaries from aborted female babies and xenographed them into mice to “look at meiosis,” which is important for IVG advancements. Azim Surani with the University of Cambridge explained how the genital ridges, or the developing gonads, are taken from aborted babies to then “sort primordial germ cells from them.”
The IVF industry has contributed to the widespread acceptance of the commodification and destruction of human beings while simultaneously helping to blur the lines between legitimate struggles with infertility and coveting of biological reality – helping to excuse and fuel the progress of IVG. IVF/IVG proponents speak of fertility as a “right” for all, regardless of sexual orientation and biological reality and utilizing their attempts to change the meaning of the word infertility and eugenics.
During the conference, Andrea Braverman, OBGYN director with Thomas Jefferson University and board member of fertility industry advocacy group RESOLVE, compared IVG advancements with birth control due to the “freedom of family building” the advancements would offer, stating that the desire to “have a genetic offspring is a strong one.”
Live Action News previously reported how IVF groups like RESOLVE and the Gay Parenting Assistance Program (GPAP, a.k.a. Men Having Babies) have seen legislative success in changing the definition of infertility to be more “inclusive” of LGBTQ individuals who may not actually be biologically infertile at all.
The reality is that the male and female body are complementary, and when joined together, are the only sexual union that has the capacity to result in natural procreation. Reasons why a normative couple may struggle with infertility (or the inability to conceive after at least one year) are often emotionally taxing and complex and are deserving of medical approaches aiming to uncover and treat the root cause.
In “The Facts of Life: A Review of the Science and Ethics of IVF” Dr. David Prentice with the Science Alliance for Life and Technology (SALT) wrote that IVF is not a treatment for infertility — rather, it is a “technical workaround in attempts to have a baby.”
IVG proponents aim to use the technology to “work around” not only infertility but biology itself, labeling the inability of two same-sex individuals to procreate as “social infertility.”
Stanford professor and author Henry Greely stated that he believes there should be no distinction between “social infertility” and actual infertility, stating:
“Much of the social infertility... certainly has a biological basis to it, such as in the aging situation; society plays a role by leading people to wait, encouraging people to wait until it becomes a biological problem. Same with the LGBTQ+ issues... but there are social issues because of biology.
... People want to have babies and if people want to have babies we better have a damn good reason to tell them that they can’t. Frankly I think the most important and the most shameful of the social infertility we’ve got in the United States, at least, is if you don’t have money and you’re infertile, you’re out of luck.”
George Washington University Professor and founding director of Health Law Initiative Sonia Suter agreed, but felt that the line of acceptance must be drawn there to avoid solo parenting:
“... I think we want a broader definition of social infertility to avoid the kind of discrimination that occurs if we just limited to medical infertility…
So I do not see any distinction between same-sex reproduction and reproduction between two individuals who can’t reproduce either for social reasons if they’re opposite sex or medical reasons, but I do think that when we start to think about something like solo IVG…
I think the risks… are pretty significant.”
During the National Academies IVG conference, Katherine Kraschel, executive director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, argued that denying access to artificial reproductive technology like IVF and IVG is akin to “forced sterilization.”
Kraschel claimed that restrictions placed on ART technologies like IVF (and IVG, once advanced) is the “new eugenics” because impoverished people cannot afford it and because those in same-sex relationships cannot naturally reproduce with each other.
Kraschel claimed that the efforts to include LGBTQ under the “infertility” definition is an issue of “reproductive justice” because, according to her, heterosexual individuals can just “go try another partner” if a spouse is struggling with infertility.
When IVF was first pitched to society, it was done under the auspices of helping women struggling with infertility. Live Action News exposed how the ‘dark’ legacy of early IVF pioneers, Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards, with ties to the eugenics and abortion movement, was ethically questionable and done with the intent to mock God.
Live Action News reported that in 2023 alone, an estimated 3.8 million human embryos were created through IVF cycles, nearly half of which were “...estimated to have not survived beyond the next two stages: the blastocyst stage and the genetic testing stage.”
Live Action News further reported:
“Of the remaining estimate of 1,946,884 embryos, 91,360 were automatically "banked" for "future use." Of the remainder, only 95,860 survived to birth after being graded, labeled, selected, and transferred. This leaves 1,759,664 human embryos unaccounted for, who were either frozen, miscarried, donated to research, or released for embryo adoption (with the adoption rate at just 1-6%). In comparison, there were an estimated 1,037,880 abortions in 2024 in the U.S. (and 1,053,430 abortions in 2024).”
“IVF recognizes the biological fact that a human life begins at fertilization. But the IVF industry has been unregulated and unaccountable in providing a standard of medical care that recognizes and protects the lives involved,” wrote Dr. David Prentice.
Scientists and other Big Fertility proponents are hoping that IVG will either replace IVF or make it more accessible and affordable—claiming that eventually IVG might be cheaper, since egg retrieval would hypothetically not be necessary.
And it is this natural restriction, the limited availability to the female gamete, the egg, that currently limits the amount of human destruction caused by IVF… for now.
If (or when) IVG advances, this limitation would no longer act as a protective barrier to the mass destruction of human embryos, and the moral compromises made for IVF will ensure the unfettered transition for IVG.
Katherine Kraschel stated that “IVF may have uniquely persuaded people on the fence about the ethics of embryo destruction because of the necessity of discarding—creating and then often discarding excess embryos in order for IVF to be a clinically viable solution for people seeking to get pregnant.” And this, she said, could make it easier to accept IVG – but she still has concerns about a “different type of ethical discussion and perhaps more people or fewer people who may not be on board in the same way,” that they are with IVF because it would “creat[e] many more embryos that may ultimately be destroyed.”
However, in a 2022 journal article, Henry Greely claimed that IVF is so “politically popular” that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v Jackson decision is “unlikely to affect IVF very much." He wrote that “... many pro-life advocates like IVF” because “[t]hey like babies and that is what IVF provides.”
Greely believes the acceptance of embryo destruction in IVF has helped to thwart pro-life protections for preborn children in numerous states.
During the IVG conference, Greely said he believed that if IVG were proven “safe and effective,” people would want to utilize the technology and view it “in the same light as IVF.”
Through the acceptance of IVF, the moral ground has been compromised and the arguments to protect human dignity and life itself fail. Professor Suter pointed this out in a recent op-ed at The Hill, writing that abortion and IVF are “actually two sides of the same issue.”
“Each procedure allows people to make decisions about creating a family,” she wrote. "Moreover, IVF, like abortion, involves control over prenatal life.” But the truth is that both IVF and abortion control who lives and who dies. And when there is no moral principle or rational restraint left to impede its progress, IVG will merely be the natural progression of scientific advancements.
The manipulation of natural human reproductive powers through IVG advancements will lead to the ultimate objectification of human beings. And it is in this way that human nature will become “the last part of Nature to surrender to man.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bernadette Pate
·
Human Interest
Nancy Flanders
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·
Issues
Nancy Flanders
·
Issues
Anne Marie Williams, RN, BSN
·
Human Interest
Nancy Flanders
·
Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Opinion
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·BREAKING BOUNDARIES: How IVF is paving the way to a dystopian nightmare
“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning… has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to man…. We shall… be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?”
(This is part two of a series. Read part one.)
Societal compromise on IVF, which disregards the dignity of the human embryo, is paving the way for the advancement of even more radical technologies, like in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG).
Children created via IVG won’t necessarily have both a genetic mother and a father; instead, they could have one genetic parent, multiple genetic parents, two same-sex genetic parents, and so forth.
Aborted babies and IVF-produced human embryos have been used in research that has aided in the advancement of IVG technologies.
Big Fertility and radical ideology are blurring the lines between legitimate struggles with infertility and something referred to as "social infertility" (two same-sex people who cannot reproduce on their own biologically/naturally) – helping to excuse and fuel the progress of IVG. They are redefining infertility itself.
Scientists and other Big Fertility proponents are hoping that IVG will either replace IVF or make it more accessible and affordable—claiming that eventually IVG might be cheaper, since egg retrieval would hypothetically not be necessary.
IVG is an emerging, Frankensteinian technology that “reprograms” adult blood or skin cells and manipulates them to mimic those found in embryonic cells, which are additionally manipulated to imitate sperm or egg cells. The imitation sperm/egg cells that result are then used to create embryos through IVF (in-vitro fertilization). In a nutshell, this means the children who are created won’t necessarily have both a genetic mother and a father; instead, they could have one genetic parent, multiple genetic parents, two same-sex genetic parents, and so forth.
During a 2023 National Academies multi-day conference on IVG, multiple panelists explained the various ways aborted babies and IVF-produced human embryos have been used in research that has aided in the advancement of IVG technologies.
Live Action News reported how Cornell University professor Paula Cohen flippantly spoke of grafting fetal ovaries from aborted female babies and xenographed them into mice to “look at meiosis,” which is important for IVG advancements. Azim Surani with the University of Cambridge explained how the genital ridges, or the developing gonads, are taken from aborted babies to then “sort primordial germ cells from them.”
The IVF industry has contributed to the widespread acceptance of the commodification and destruction of human beings while simultaneously helping to blur the lines between legitimate struggles with infertility and coveting of biological reality – helping to excuse and fuel the progress of IVG. IVF/IVG proponents speak of fertility as a “right” for all, regardless of sexual orientation and biological reality and utilizing their attempts to change the meaning of the word infertility and eugenics.
During the conference, Andrea Braverman, OBGYN director with Thomas Jefferson University and board member of fertility industry advocacy group RESOLVE, compared IVG advancements with birth control due to the “freedom of family building” the advancements would offer, stating that the desire to “have a genetic offspring is a strong one.”
Live Action News previously reported how IVF groups like RESOLVE and the Gay Parenting Assistance Program (GPAP, a.k.a. Men Having Babies) have seen legislative success in changing the definition of infertility to be more “inclusive” of LGBTQ individuals who may not actually be biologically infertile at all.
The reality is that the male and female body are complementary, and when joined together, are the only sexual union that has the capacity to result in natural procreation. Reasons why a normative couple may struggle with infertility (or the inability to conceive after at least one year) are often emotionally taxing and complex and are deserving of medical approaches aiming to uncover and treat the root cause.
In “The Facts of Life: A Review of the Science and Ethics of IVF” Dr. David Prentice with the Science Alliance for Life and Technology (SALT) wrote that IVF is not a treatment for infertility — rather, it is a “technical workaround in attempts to have a baby.”
IVG proponents aim to use the technology to “work around” not only infertility but biology itself, labeling the inability of two same-sex individuals to procreate as “social infertility.”
Stanford professor and author Henry Greely stated that he believes there should be no distinction between “social infertility” and actual infertility, stating:
“Much of the social infertility... certainly has a biological basis to it, such as in the aging situation; society plays a role by leading people to wait, encouraging people to wait until it becomes a biological problem. Same with the LGBTQ+ issues... but there are social issues because of biology.
... People want to have babies and if people want to have babies we better have a damn good reason to tell them that they can’t. Frankly I think the most important and the most shameful of the social infertility we’ve got in the United States, at least, is if you don’t have money and you’re infertile, you’re out of luck.”
George Washington University Professor and founding director of Health Law Initiative Sonia Suter agreed, but felt that the line of acceptance must be drawn there to avoid solo parenting:
“... I think we want a broader definition of social infertility to avoid the kind of discrimination that occurs if we just limited to medical infertility…
So I do not see any distinction between same-sex reproduction and reproduction between two individuals who can’t reproduce either for social reasons if they’re opposite sex or medical reasons, but I do think that when we start to think about something like solo IVG…
I think the risks… are pretty significant.”
During the National Academies IVG conference, Katherine Kraschel, executive director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, argued that denying access to artificial reproductive technology like IVF and IVG is akin to “forced sterilization.”
Kraschel claimed that restrictions placed on ART technologies like IVF (and IVG, once advanced) is the “new eugenics” because impoverished people cannot afford it and because those in same-sex relationships cannot naturally reproduce with each other.
Kraschel claimed that the efforts to include LGBTQ under the “infertility” definition is an issue of “reproductive justice” because, according to her, heterosexual individuals can just “go try another partner” if a spouse is struggling with infertility.
When IVF was first pitched to society, it was done under the auspices of helping women struggling with infertility. Live Action News exposed how the ‘dark’ legacy of early IVF pioneers, Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards, with ties to the eugenics and abortion movement, was ethically questionable and done with the intent to mock God.
Live Action News reported that in 2023 alone, an estimated 3.8 million human embryos were created through IVF cycles, nearly half of which were “...estimated to have not survived beyond the next two stages: the blastocyst stage and the genetic testing stage.”
Live Action News further reported:
“Of the remaining estimate of 1,946,884 embryos, 91,360 were automatically "banked" for "future use." Of the remainder, only 95,860 survived to birth after being graded, labeled, selected, and transferred. This leaves 1,759,664 human embryos unaccounted for, who were either frozen, miscarried, donated to research, or released for embryo adoption (with the adoption rate at just 1-6%). In comparison, there were an estimated 1,037,880 abortions in 2024 in the U.S. (and 1,053,430 abortions in 2024).”
“IVF recognizes the biological fact that a human life begins at fertilization. But the IVF industry has been unregulated and unaccountable in providing a standard of medical care that recognizes and protects the lives involved,” wrote Dr. David Prentice.
Scientists and other Big Fertility proponents are hoping that IVG will either replace IVF or make it more accessible and affordable—claiming that eventually IVG might be cheaper, since egg retrieval would hypothetically not be necessary.
And it is this natural restriction, the limited availability to the female gamete, the egg, that currently limits the amount of human destruction caused by IVF… for now.
If (or when) IVG advances, this limitation would no longer act as a protective barrier to the mass destruction of human embryos, and the moral compromises made for IVF will ensure the unfettered transition for IVG.
Katherine Kraschel stated that “IVF may have uniquely persuaded people on the fence about the ethics of embryo destruction because of the necessity of discarding—creating and then often discarding excess embryos in order for IVF to be a clinically viable solution for people seeking to get pregnant.” And this, she said, could make it easier to accept IVG – but she still has concerns about a “different type of ethical discussion and perhaps more people or fewer people who may not be on board in the same way,” that they are with IVF because it would “creat[e] many more embryos that may ultimately be destroyed.”
However, in a 2022 journal article, Henry Greely claimed that IVF is so “politically popular” that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v Jackson decision is “unlikely to affect IVF very much." He wrote that “... many pro-life advocates like IVF” because “[t]hey like babies and that is what IVF provides.”
Greely believes the acceptance of embryo destruction in IVF has helped to thwart pro-life protections for preborn children in numerous states.
During the IVG conference, Greely said he believed that if IVG were proven “safe and effective,” people would want to utilize the technology and view it “in the same light as IVF.”
Through the acceptance of IVF, the moral ground has been compromised and the arguments to protect human dignity and life itself fail. Professor Suter pointed this out in a recent op-ed at The Hill, writing that abortion and IVF are “actually two sides of the same issue.”
“Each procedure allows people to make decisions about creating a family,” she wrote. "Moreover, IVF, like abortion, involves control over prenatal life.” But the truth is that both IVF and abortion control who lives and who dies. And when there is no moral principle or rational restraint left to impede its progress, IVG will merely be the natural progression of scientific advancements.
The manipulation of natural human reproductive powers through IVG advancements will lead to the ultimate objectification of human beings. And it is in this way that human nature will become “the last part of Nature to surrender to man.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bernadette Pate
·Human Interest
Nancy Flanders
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Issues
Nancy Flanders
·Issues
Anne Marie Williams, RN, BSN
·Human Interest
Nancy Flanders
·Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·Opinion
Sheena Rodriguez
·Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·