In-Vitro Fertilization
March 2nd, 2007
Several weeks ago, Tim Challies posted an excellent two-part series on birth control (here and here). A related issue, and one which some Christian couples face, is that of in-vitro fertilization.
What follows is a list of initial conclusions that resulted from a discussion between our pastoral staff and Dr. Michael Frields, who serves as the chairman of gynecology at Glendale Adventist Hospital and is a member of Grace Community Church.
All conclusions reflect the following biblical presuppositions:
- God opens and closes the womb according to His sovereign will (Gen. 29:31; 30:22; Ps. 127:3; 1 Sam. 1:5-6).
- It is acceptable for Christians to take advantage of extant medical technology as long as the specific methods do not violate the clear teaching of Scripture or the believer’s conscience (cf. Rom. 14).
- Life begins at conception (Ps. 51:5; 139:13-16).
- No human life should be destroyed (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 20:13).
- Physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is the means God designed to produce offspring (Gen. 2:24; Prov. 5:16-17).
Initial Conclusions:
(1) All couples desiring to have children, whether naturally or with medical assistance, should carefully examine their motives to ensure that the desire to have a child has not become idolatry of the heart. This kind of self-examination should continue to take place even after children are born.
(2) Neither in-vitro fertilization nor surrogacy is a legitimate option for a single individual who is seeking to have a child without a biblical marriage.
(3) Neither in-vitro fertilization nor surrogacy is a legitimate option for a couple involved in an unbiblical union (e.g., a homosexual or lesbian relationship; an unmarried man and woman who are living together).
(4) Every embryo created between a husband and a wife—that is, every egg fertilized—should be implanted.
(5) A maximum of three eggs (preferably, only two) should be fertilized, since that is the greatest number the womb can reasonably sustain; when more than three are implanted, the additional embryos usually face death or serious defects.
(6) If freezing is necessary as part of the in-vitro process because of impending medical treatment (e.g., radiation or chemotherapy), the wife’s eggs and the husband’s sperm should be frozen separately.
(7) If frozen fertilized eggs exist, preferably all of them (not exceeding three at a time) should be implanted in the biological mother. They should never be discarded or destroyed.
(8) Scripture does not specifically address in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy per se. However, as stated at the outset, physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is the means God designed to produce offspring. For this reason, we believe that Christians should not use methods that employ donated eggs or sperm from a third party. Nor should they use methods that utilize a third party as the carrier of a baby resulting from the implantation of a husband’s sperm and his wife’s egg (such as surrogacy). The disastrous ramifications of Abraham and Sarai’s attempt to use Hagar as a third party in order to continue Abraham’s line in Genesis 16—particularly the tension that resulted between the two women—may serve as a warning for those intending to pursue methods involving a third party.
(9) The increasing legal and custody issues surrounding surrogacy provide an additional warning to those considering a method such as surrogacy. Moreover, the costs involved should cause Christians to consider whether or not in-vitro fertilization is the wisest stewardship of their God-given resources.
(10) Along with various medical options, Christian couples should seriously consider adoption, which is both a viable and God-honoring option (cf. Jam. 1:27).
Thank you for this! As one who has wrestled with this very issue, I think your post will prove to be of GREAT value for many Christian couples longing to have children.
By God’s providence my womb is closed–I am barren. I’ve been married 24 yrs. and spent 19 of those childless. Through this trial God has taught me so much about His sovereignty–difficult lessons, but priceless and precious lessons!
When it became clear that conception would not be a “given” for us, we considered the options available and determined which (if any) we could support/attempt in good conscience before God. I’m so glad we did that because the intense emotion of the struggle and medical process(es) are often very overwhelming–often leading to a “give me children of I die” mentality. This is especially true in our ever-increasing culture of pragmatism.
Finally, in reference to point #10 of your post, I rejoice that by God’s providence we are now a family of four! I am the delighted mother of two teenage daughters–through international adoption. And, as you might imagine God continues to teach me(us) MUCH about Himself through adoption!!
Ooops! That should read, “give me children OR I die”.
Thank you, Connie, for your testimony! There are many children who long to have a home and a family who love them. Adoption is also another avenue in which we can spread the Gospel. By adopting potentially “lost children of society”, we give them a Christian home to be raised in and can potentially add to the next generation more grounded Christians. Although these children would become Christians anyway even if they are not adopted (if they are chosen), it is just another way in which we can obey His command to spread the Gospel and give to others.
Thanks for an excellent look into a tough issue.
This is a helpful article addressing a difficult subject. What about the fact that while limiting the number of embryos implanted deals with the difficulty of the destruction of embryos, it still means that there is an increased risk of premature birth and therefore birth defects? While I have read that this increased risk is similar to that of naturally conceived multiples, is there any difficulty in making an active choice in this regard?
#8 may need some more careful nuancing. The underlying principle stated there could be used to forbid adoption, which is in essence looking for donated sperms and eggs, the major difference being the awareness of the adoptive parents at the time of conception.
I could see the basis for most of your statements. However, I had difficulty understanding your reasoning for the disposition of cyropreserved eggs. Why exactly should they not be destroyed? And why did you not include the disposition of sperm if you think eggs should never be destroyed? They are no more valuable than sperm, and in the female body, they are naturally destroyed if they are not fertilized…what about being frozen unfertilized egg makes its disposition any different?
I agree with every point except part of #8:
>For this reason, we believe that Christians
>should not use methods that employ donated eggs
>or sperm from a third party.
Somebody explain to me how this practice is different from Christian adoption. My wife’s egss were unable to produce children. We had donated eggs. The donator had several children of her own, and while staying anonymous is aware of our situaton and agreed to help.
We now have a wonderful Christian child, growing up in a Christian home. To state the obvious, of course I don’t know how she’ll turn out.
To deny invetro to a Christian couple that wants to have children, including the option of donating eggs, would be like saying to a cripple, you can’t have artificial limbs as it is not how God intended it to be, and look how you could accidently hurt yourself with those artificial limbs. In #7, you use “Hagar” as an example. You could use that same Hagar example to argue against adoption of any kind. Doesn’t work.
“Scripture does not specifically address in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy per se.”
Is that not the same reasoning liberals minded Christian use to justify certain sins these days? Ahh but does not this get addressed when it is said the Lord is the one who opens and closes the womb? We don’t know why the Lord chooses that some not have children naturally however we must believe it is for His glory and for the true believer…for their good also. Does it not start from a selfish motive to even consider in vitro…the initial thought is “I can’t and I want” are they not? It’s amazing what Christians try to justify these days (but I venture to say if the US economy were not so great and we didn’t have all the “luxuries” we have here…we would not consider man’s attempts at playing God).