Noted: IVF is immoral. Deliberately creating fatherless children is immoral. Nothing here should be construed as supportive of anything in the realm of such wrong-headed reproductive technologies, but would it be facetious to suggest that the clinics at least show a little restraint in their creativity?
If this client had six fatherless children, why would they enable her in more? Sure she evidently paid the fee, but if you're not going to follow the Church's mandate to honour the dignity of the child with his conception (a loving embrace and not a petri dish) couldn't you at least consider the Church's wise approach to NFP?
In the application of natural family planning, the Church entrusts to the couple the ability to make decisions about the spacing of their children. True, a husband and wife in a sacramental union have certain graces to make such decisions prudently which are lacking outside holy matrimony, but any clinic could make an effort to sit down with the mother (as collaborator in the creation of human life) and say, "Gee, how are the existing bambinos faring? How's your emotional and physical state? Everybody eating well and finding the bare necessities?"
Isn't this what husband and wife ask themselves? "Is it time for us to share in God's desire to be fruitful? Should we wait until Dad finds a job or just operate on trust? If your post-partem depression hasn't dissipated, dear, I wouldn't want to burden you just yet..."
Of course, IVF clinics have never operated according to Divine commands or even the well-being of the children created (those who see the light of day or those targeted for "reduction.") Now we see that even the respectful conversation about what's best within a given family is ignored for a buck.
Someday, God willing, the wisdom of the Church will be more readily recognised. Until then, their stock soars.

UPDATE: the discussion, evidently, is already underway, although the euphemisms abound in their usual insidiousness. A very troubling quote from Robert George who is supposed to represent Catholic teaching:
[Robert] George said that, based on the information available, his personal ethical decision would probably support the woman's choice to carry all the babies to term. But he said that selective reduction is not the same as traditional
abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than
the termination of a pregnancy.. "The babies didn't put themselves there; it's not their fault," George said. "There does seem to be a serious ethical question [?] about killing one or more of them, even for the sake of maternal health."
We have to see if he clarifies this elsewhere -- perhaps he was taken out of context -- but he leads one to believe that the evil of selective reductions are mitigated by the good end. "A serious ethical question," to the mind of the layman, seems enormously ... understated. (I have contacted him privately for a clarification.)
UPDATE NEXT: Professor George was gracious enough to provide a very long explanation of what happened, which I am happy to send to interested readers. In short, he begins:
Thanks for calling this to my attention. I gave an interview to the reporter yesterday, but hadn't seen the article in which she quoted me until I opened the link you kindly provided. I see exactly the problem you are concerned about, based on the way she described my position outside the quotation marks, and the material she quoted. It is very misleading, though I don't think she intended to mislead. It was a very long interview that unavoidably required the introduction of some complicated scientific and philosophical issues. At the beginning of the interview, I explained why I and others are opposed to IVF in principle in the first place. I then explained the health and safety issues that exist even if we lay aside the question of the morality of IVF -- issues
having to do with the safety of mothers and the health of children they may conceive by IVF.
Then I explained the European regulations that limit the number of embryos that may be implanted ...
We would do well always to remember that most people in the media have little to no background in theology, philosophy or medicine. Thus, good will may be compromised by a limited ability to follow a complicated strain of thought. Needless to say, many of these quandaries could be avoided if we didn't insist on replacing God with our own "super powers." Pray for these confused souls and for an to "children as consumer goods."
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.