IVF is ethically problematic; infertile couples should pursue alternative paths to parenthood
Source: Chaney Gooley. "14 Pro-Life Alternatives To IVF For Infertile Couples Who Want Kids." March 4, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that couples struggling with infertility should avoid IVF because it destroys embryos, which she considers morally equivalent to killing babies. Instead, she recommends 14 alternatives like adoption, foster care, helping other families, or accepting childlessness while finding meaning through spiritual parenthood.
Conclusion
Infertile couples should pursue alternatives to IVF rather than using IVF to achieve parenthood
Premises
- IVF frequently results in embryo destruction, with more embryos killed in the IVF industry than in the abortion industry annually
- IVF doesn't actually solve the underlying problem of infertility but bypasses it
- Multiple ethical alternatives exist for achieving parenthood, including adoption, foster care, and spiritual parenthood
- Restorative reproductive medicine can address infertility by restoring natural organ function rather than bypassing it
- Spiritual parenthood and childless couples can provide meaningful contributions to children's lives in the community
- These alternative paths can be pursued simultaneously and don't require giving up on biological conception entirely
Assumptions
- Embryos have moral status equivalent to born humans, making their destruction morally equivalent to killing
- Natural conception is morally superior to artificial reproductive technologies
- Parenthood can be meaningfully achieved through non-biological means
- The desire for biological children, while natural, should be subordinated to ethical considerations
- Conservative/pro-life couples share these moral frameworks about embryo status