You can set the ground rules, as far as how many embryos (babies) you want "made" (conceived). (Don't you see how the terminology they use really waters this down, making it more "tasteful"?)
However, from what I understand, it costs just as much to "make" a dozen as it does three. There's a very big chance that three will naturally abort on first try, so there's the dilemma: do you pay thousands of dollars for a very large gamble, or do you pay the same ammount for more embryos (babies) with a bigger chance that you'll get at least one baby out of the bunch? And why even conceive three knowing that most likely one or all three won't make it?
To me it's a very low view of life to think that it's worth two babies dying in order to get one. In reality, in most cases it ends up being more than that. For my friend, seven babies died in order for her to have her first. I didn't have the heart to ask her how many they implanted for the second one, nor how many times they tried, before one "took" and made it to birth. It really sickens me.
I posted this article because I wished to laud and defend big families and older-motherhood. OK so far. But I brushed past the issue of in-vitro fertilization much too fast --- almost parenthetically.
The fact is that IVF virtually always involves the death of 2 or 3 embryos, and often many more. This in itself is a very grave evil.
Moreover, even if IVF didn't involve generating human life and then destroying it, the process itself turns human procreation into a commercial transaction and a laboratory technique, which is inherently dehumanizing ---and it's part of the larger project of the deadly "commodifying" of human values which we see all around us.
I am convinced that IVF is morally objectionable in all cases. So although I can respect this mother-of-12's good intentions and wish her and her husband well with their precious little ones, I regret giving the impression that laboratory procreation is something to celebrate.
Please think this through carefully. I didn't at first.