(LifeSiteNews) — During a recent “All-In” podcast discussion, the four male participants praised the way that IVF (in vitro fertilization) is being developed so that one day soon egg cells will no longer be harvested from a woman’s ovaries but instead will be produced from female or male skin cells and at any age, including the elderly.
“SUPER COOL!” exclaimed a citizen journalism X account with more than 800,000 followers in response to a video clip of the discussion.
“For kids, it’s not ‘cool.’ It’s CRUEL,” slapped back conservative author and activist Katy Faust, founder of the children’s rights organization, Them Before Us.
Faust described a dystopian future where the next stage of IVF — IVG, short for “In Vitro Gametogenesis” — could lead to endless horrifying possibilities for evil to be inflicted upon children brought into the world via this new technology.
“A man could be both father and mother to a child,” Faust explained.
“Two, three or four 80-year-olds could create and raise a baby to be their caregiver,” she predicted. “You could scratch someone’s skin and make their bio child without them knowing.”
This is called IVG.
– A man could be both father and mother to a child
– Two, three or four 80-year-olds could create and raise a baby to be their caregiver
– You could scratch someone’s skin and make their bio child without them knowing
For kids, it’s not “cool.” It’s CRUEL.
— Katy Faust (@Advo_Katy) March 15, 2025
Utilizing IVG technology, two women could become the genetic parents of the same child with no male involved in the child’s creation.
Cells could also be taken from a dead person to create children.
IVG technology “would allow same-sex couples to have children who are biologically related to both of them; allow single individuals to procreate without the genetic contribution of another individual; and facilitate “multiplex” parenting, where groups of more than two individuals procreate together, producing children who are the genetic progeny of them all,” noted Dr. Sonia Suter of George Washington University
The possibilities are endless.
Endless.
IVG will likely lead to far more children discarded as medical waste
One of the participants in the “All-In” discussion, comedian Andrew Schultz — who, with his wife, has had a child born via IVF — praised the prospect of IVG technology as “Fantastic” since it would be “a nice workaround for the people that are trying to ban IVF.” The procedure ends up aborting 93% of all children it creates.
However, the reality is that IVG will likely lead to parents and medical professionals disposing of far higher percentages of unwanted children as nothing more than medical waste.
Bioethicist Henry Greely has noted that individuals, couples of any sex combination, throuples, or any grouping of human beings will be able to select the most genetically desirable of dozens or even hundreds of embryos, far more than the number of embryos now produced for parents seeking to have children through IVF.
IVG will increase the slaughter of children, not decrease it.
IVG will lead to a dystopian future for the kids it creates
Dr. Michael Parker, an OB/GYN and then-president of the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), told LifeSiteNews in 2020 that “IVG has grave ethical concerns with regards to eugenics, custody, and the yet unknown effects on the children created.”
“Not only are we manipulating human life in such a way as to treat it as a commodity, but the creation of gametes from stem cells seems analogous to cloning — with a multitude of temptations to corrupt the intrinsic worth of a unique human being,” added Dr. Greg F. Burke, co-chair of CMA’s ethics committee. “Functionality would be favored over dignity, process over form and a desired outcome over sound moral absolutes.”
“Such technology, if applied to procreation, would fundamentally alter the Bible’s ‘package deal’ of marriage, sex, and procreation where children are received as a gift within the bond of man-woman marriage,” observed The Heritage Foundation’s Emma Waters. “Indeed, it is hard to read the Old or New Testament without stumbling across long generational lists where the Bible describes who begets who begets who. Such verses do not merely serve as a historical reference but reflect a person’s inherent desire to know who they are and from whom they come.”
“With IVG, generational identity could be lost as multiple generations of embryos are created — and destroyed — within the span of a week,” Waters predicted. “It will be children, unmoored from traditional relationships with their mother, father, and ancestors, who pay the price for our reproductive ‘progress.’”
“The next phase of familial ‘dismantling’ targets the importance of gender in the parent-child relationship,” Faust warned in 2020. “Activists have been using courts and legislatures to eliminate something that biology mandates — a mother and father.”
“Since Obergefell vs Hodges, efforts have been underway across the country to de-sex parenthood language, stripping the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from parenthood laws, requiring two moms to be listed on birth certificates, and determining that mentioning mothers and father in parenthood laws is ‘unconstitutional,’” Faust continued. “Yet when we listen to the stories of kids with same-sex parents, we learn that no matter what the law says, we cannot legislate away a child’s longing for both his mother and father.”
Could IVG lead to a backlash against so-called reproductive technologies?
In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Ari Schulman, editor of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, suggested that the world isn’t ready for what comes after IVF.
“Once a technology like I.V.G. enters the public view, will the sentiment about reproductive technologies stay settled?” Schulman asked. “After all, Americans sometimes make surprising turns against technologies they once embraced, and we are in the mood for backlash today.”
“Americans are disenchanted with smartphones for kids, social media, nuclear power and processed food, and their former faith in technology to solve the oldest human frustrations has recently frayed,” he continued. “A turning against reproductive technology could be next — not least because Silicon Valley, the focal point of much of today’s criticism, is getting more involved.”
“Classical-liberal critics of assisted reproductive technology, among whom I count myself, argue that it can unethically turn the arrival of a child, which should be considered a gift, into a project,” Schulman noted. “We undertake projects to realize our own ambitions. We exert control, select useful material to meet desired outcomes and throw out waste.”
