A couple thoughts about both articles. Grudem doesn’t seem to be arguing for IVF per se, but rather that it is permissible if certain standards are met (like ensuring no embryos are destroyed). This, it seems, is why he says he is not opposed to it “in principle.” The biggest problem with his article is that it is all theoretical, no dealing with the thorny difficulties of IVF procedures as they are done today.
Matthew Lee Anderson’s best points are when he’s not directly arguing with Grudem, but just making his case from the nature of sex and fertility. Despite his harsh words for Grudem’s arguments, the parts of the article where Anderson interacted with Grudem were extremely weak, and often illogical. Particularly his opening argument on preventing death through medical advancment, which bordered on incoherant.