(LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Craig Turczynski is the former director of in-vitro fertilization, andrology, and hormone assay laboratories at Louisiana State University Medical Center-Shreveport — emphasis on former. In a recent clip posted to X by children’s rights advocate Katy Faust, he explained why he decided to leave the industry:
Dr. Craig Turczynski left the #IVF industry after seeing how easily parents could create embryos, then discard the ones they didn’t want. He realized the system treated human life as disposable—and he couldn’t be part of it anymore. pic.twitter.com/kyDvIlCaCO
— Katy Faust (@Advo_Katy) March 22, 2025
“Most of the time, the ‘excess embryos’ are cryopreserved,” Turczynski said. “The couple, of course, has very little understanding of the consequences. To comprehend that decision is very, very difficult. But it’s a way to defer the decision of what to do with those embryos until later. So most of them are frozen, but in some cases the patient may simply decide to discard those embryos.”
“That was the final event that occurred in my career that really solidified the fact that I couldn’t continue doing this,” he reflected. “When everything I was doing was at least designed to try to produce a child. To produce life. It was inconceivable to me that a couple could just say ‘I want these two embryos, throw the rest away’ when there are so many others that are suffering and can’t conceive and aren’t successful.”
As I noted earlier this year in a First Things in a column on President Donald Trump’s executive order on IVF, the reproductive technology industry is creating multiple, simultaneous moral crises, the gravest of which is the storage of more than a million, and likely far more, children who have been frozen and are being stored in freezers. Even many Christians like to pretend that the reproductive technology industry has merely met the needs of childless parents. The reality is a moral horror show.
Consider another viral clip on X, this one of a “surrogate” mother sobbing as she gives birth to a child — that she is not allowed to hold. As Genevieve Gluck noted, “Women who act as ‘surrogates’ are bound by contracts to avoid even touching the babies they give birth to. The reason for this is to prevent bonding. That privilege goes to the buyers.”
Allie Beth Stuckey shared a similarly heartbreaking story:
I’ll never forget my conversation with a surrogate mom, Brittany, who was diagnosed with cancer while carrying a baby for two men. The couple was livid. The doctors assured them she could deliver early and that she and the little boy would be fine. But the men said no. They didn’t want to deal with a premature baby. Brittany begged the men to let her adopt him. They refused and cut all contact with her. They just wanted to “try again” with a new, healthier surrogate. She delivered early, and the baby boy died. There was no one there to claim him or care for his remains. He was simply discarded like trash. This isn’t just an extreme example; it highlights the inherent problem of surrogacy. The surrogate and baby create a strong, physiological bond, but the baby isn’t biologically hers, so she has no claim over him. The couple, despite at least one of them being biologically related to the child, feel little obligation to him because they’re totally removed from his development. It’s a broken, messy situation without a single consideration of how the child is affected. And he IS affected. We are all affected by our gestation and the earliest stages of our lives in ways we can’t fully grasp. Surrogacy — ESPECIALLY the kind that takes babies away from a mother — is an abomination. It must be universally banned
Where is all this going? Those who can spare a sleepless night or two should read investigative journalist Jennifer Bilek’s latest newsletter “Will the Gender Industry and Technological Reproduction Liberate Women from Gestation?” The short answer is that the Silicon Valley elites are working hard at this goal. As Bilek writes:
Emma Waters, in her 2024 analysis of Silicon Valley’s growing focus on reproductive technologies, highlights how artificial reproduction compartmentalizes marriage from sex, sex from procreation, conception from pregnancy, and pregnancy from motherhood. Motherhood itself is increasingly viewed as surrogate motherhood, where the surrogate becomes a nameless, sexless “gestational carrier.”
In Silicon Valley’s pronatalism, a selective approach to reproduction is emerging, where wealthy elites invest heavily in technologies that enable the creation of genetically “superior” children — chosen for health, creativity, or other traits. Waters notes that in 2022 alone, $800 million was poured into fertility tech startups, with a focus not on addressing the U.S. birth rate decline but on curating the best possible offspring.
IVF, surrogacy, and other reproductive technologies are not about creating happy, child-filled families. The IVF industry has filled freezers with tiny children; surrogacy has commodified both women and children, largely for the benefit of celebrities and homosexual couples; babies, as always, pay the price for our attempts at playing God.
