Christians and Artificial Reproductive Technologies
Since Adam and Eve, God has designed Christian couples as image bearers to be fruitful and multiply in bearing biological children (Gen 1:27–28). In a 2017 study, about 12% of women in the U.S. ages 15 to 44 had difficulty of getting pregnant or finishing to term.1 In this study, 35% of the couples who reported infertility, both husband and wife were infertile and in 8% of couples, only the male was infertile.2 Christian couples can circumvent infertility through artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs) that have become common amongst couples in the 21st century. Yet not every ART option is biblically permissible for the Christian. It will be argued that the usage of ARTs by Christian couples is biblically permissible if these technologies honor the sanctity of marriage, protect the sanctity of life of the embryo, and are done with the right motives.
Since the patriarchs, there are biblical examples of those who have sought to circumvent their infertility through human means. Abraham and Jacob laid with their maid servants, the Jews instituted Levirate marriage, and Boaz was Ruth’s kinsmen redeemer (Gen 16:4; 30:4, 9; Deut 25:5–10; Ruth 4:13–15). As J. Kerby Anderson in his article “Artificial Reproduction: A Biblical Appraisal” writes, infertility is immediately caused by physical deficiencies, but it is ultimately a result of the Fall (Gen 3).3 Not all attempts to circumvent infertility, are explicitly condemned or condoned, but they can be evaluated by the ethical principles that are outlined in Scripture.
The Ethical Principle of Sanctity of Marriage
The first ethical principle that Christian couples can use, is whether the technology in question upholds the sanctity of marriage. The ART options available should be evaluated on how each either supports or destroys God’s purposes for sex in marriage. A theological concern that Anderson brings up against ARTs, is that methods such as artificial insemination by husband (AIH) and artificial insemination by donor (AID), dismantle God’s purpose of sex within marriage because conception now can occur without sexual intercourse.4 Thus, it is necessary that Christian couples solidify their biblical convictions of sex in marriage first before they evaluate ARTs.
A biblical worldview believes sex has been given by God as the act through which procreation occurs in marriage. With the very first married couple, God commanded them to multiply themselves by procreation through sex because they were made in His image (Gen 1:27–28). Starting from the Adam and Eve, a consequence of the act of sex is that a new life is the fruit of a couple’s self-giving act toward one another during sex (Gen 4:1–2). Thus, humanity in its image bearing, share in God’s creating activity through sex.
Procreation is not the only purpose of sex. Dennis Hollinger provides the four purposes of sex to be: consummation, procreation, love, and pleasure all of which having equal value and are interconnected in a marriage in his chapter in The Reproduction Revolution.5 Adam and Eve model this in that the act of sex is the physical symbol of the man and wife becoming one through consummation (Gen 2:24–25). Scripture is clear that sex is a mutual physical self–giving representing the relational self–giving that takes place in marriage (Song 2:2–4; 1 Cor 7:2–4). Scripture is also clear that sex functions as an act of pleasure between the married couple (Prov 5:18–19). All these purposes are bound by the relational connection between the husband and wife which is the most intimate of human relationships. The covenant established should not be broken because of its sanctity.
A common practice of ARTs is that they invite third parties into the procreation process through medical physicians or gamete donation. Christians must decide whether this violates sexual intimacy. This is a legitimate moral dilemma to consider because Scripture prohibits violations sexual intimacy and condemns it as adultery because marriage and sex is between a husband and wife (Exod 20:14; Lev 18:20; Deut 5:18; Matt 19:5; 1 Cor 6:9–11; Eph 5:28–31; Heb 13:4). Not all methods of ARTs are the same and they must be evaluated on how they treat the sanctity of marriage.
Of the permissible of ART methods are AIH and in vitro fertilization (IVF) and its variations of gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT), zygote intra-fallopian transfer (ZIFT), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). If these methods utilize the egg and sperm of the husband and wife, they serve to assist the procreation process and do not necessarily separate sex from procreation. Although conception does not happen directly from sexual activity with these methods, Scott B. Rae in his book Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics argues that these methods still uphold the exclusivity of the husband and wife and the connection of sex and procreation if the husband’s sperm is attained through sex and saved for insemination.6
The methods of AID and egg donation are prohibited because they use third-party gametes and violate the sanctity of marriage. Southwestern professor, Evan Lenow provides the reasonign that third-party gametes redefine God’s design of the family in that it no longer is biologically exclusive to husband and wife.7 Lenow also argues through the definition of what a sexual process is that the coming of a sperm and egg is a sexual process and thus that third–party gametes coming together can be considered an act of sex.8 Lenow brings into question whether third-party gametes can be considered adultery because of Jesus’ elevation of the prohibition of adultery going beyond the physical act of sex but also lust of the heart and eyes (Matt 5:27–28).9
In addition, surrogate motherhood which utilizes the technologies above to be inseminated is to be prohibited whether gestational, a woman donates her womb and carries an implanted embryo, or genetic, which the woman donates her egg and carries the embryo to term. Like AID and egg donation, surrogacy brings a third party into the procreation process through an external womb. The child could then have three to four parents. As Gilbert Meilaender argues in his book Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, as the Son was begotten by the Father, children are begotten of the unity between their parents.10 Thus, a child born of a third-party through any of the ART methods above, reflects the marital disunity between their parents.
Any form of surrogacy and third-party gamete donation causes confusion between the bond of the parent and child. Rae provides the argument against surrogacy in that when a wife bears a child from conception to birth, there is a unique emotional connection she has with that child that lasts for a lifetime.11 With surrogacy, a mother has no obligation to uphold that bond once the child is born because she legally gives up the child to the parents thus depriving both the biological mother and child that relationship. AID and egg donation are the same in that the donors never relationally know the child. When evaluating ART methods, Christians should commit to utilizing their own gametes and abstain from surrogacy to uphold the sanctity and exclusivity of their marriage.
The Ethical Principle of Sanctity of Life
A second ethical principle is whether the method in question protects the sanctity of human life. There are certain methods that do put the lives of the embryos and the mother at risk. Christians must respect human life because every human is made in the imago Dei, and God prohibits the unjust taking of life (Exod 20:13; Lev 24:17; Deut 5:18; Matt 5:21–22). This leads to requiring Christians to decide when life begins during pregnancy. This paper takes the position that life begins at conception because of the examples in Scripture that speak to personhood while in the womb and its assumed at the earliest moment (Exod 21:22; Ps 139:13–16; Jer 1:4–5; Matt 1:20–21).12
With these scriptural parameters, Christian couples are to respect the sanctity of the embryos through the methods of IVF, ZIFT, and GIFT. With these methods, medical professionals fertilize multiple, up to four, eggs from the wife and will either implant all of them or implant one while storing the rest for later use. When all the embryos are implanted, either they will implant, or they will abort. If multiple do implant successfully, the couple is faced with the decision to selectively abort the additional embryos because multiple pregnancies are a risk to the wife. Whether the abortion of these multiple embryos is selective or spontaneous John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg argue that because these embryos are human lives, the couple and the medical professional are morally responsible for their demise.13 Köstenberger warns Christian couples of the medical verbiage of “selective reduction” in which the couple is advised to select only one successful embryo to survive while the others are aborted.14 Couples must decide to only implant one embryo at a time, although it may reduce the success rate of a successful pregnancy, to protect the life of the mother and prevent the abortion of embryos.
Christians must also understand and decide what happens to unused embryos. It is impermissible for Christian couples to destroy unused embryos. If one does not view embryos as persons, then there is no reason to keep and protect them. However, if a Christian holds the perspective that the embryos are made in the image of God as a born human, then they will not be discarded because that is considered an unjust taking of life. John F. Kilner in his chapter “Bioethics and A Better Birth,” concludes from the understanding of the imago Dei that “in developmental terms, embryos are persons with potential rather than potential persons…their moral significance is rooted in what they are, not merely in what they have the potential to become.”15 To destroy an unused embryo is equivalent to the taking of an adult human life and should not be permitted.
The personhood of the embryo also protects the stored embryos from being experimented on. Christian couples must understand that the stored embryos are not an object that if they offer their embryos for experimentation, like stem cell research, they eventually will be discarded after the experimentation because they are no longer able to be implanted.16 Children, in whatever developmental stage, are persons, but they are also not an object. Scripture makes clear that children are not a right but are a gift from the Creator (Ps 127:3). As gifts, they have a right to life and protection from being discarded at any point of pregnancy.
The Ethical Principle of Right Motives
The last ethical criteria couples should have with regards to their decision on ARTs is making sure they have the right motives in having children. The desire to have biological children is a natural desire, however it can easily become idolatrous and unhealthy if one finds their identity in, which violate the second and tenth commandments (Exod 20:4, 17; Deut 5:8, 21).17 An unhealthy desire to bear children can lead a Christian couple to make decisions that could hurt their marriage and relationship with God. For example, as David Gushee and Glen Harold Stassen describe, IVF is an extremely expensive process that costs $10,000–$30,000 per procedure.18 Depending upon a couple’s financial position, $10,000–$30,000, may be unwise and bebe badtewardship of financial resources especially if multiple procedures are done.
A desire to have children can also be done in arrogance and pride. Rae describes how certain ART methods such as egg donation, allow for couples to pick and choose the best qualities and prevent defects to make the perfect child either through their own genes or the genes of specific donors that they can screen.19 Whatever ART method a Christian couple desires to explore, they must remember child bearing is procreation and is a miracle that God is sovereign over. Lenow supports this claim in writing there exists a distinction between manufacturing a child and procreating one that in “having a child is procreation, it reflects the life-giving nature of the bond of marriage. Having a child is not simply the mechanical reproduction of a machine.”20 Christian couples must make sure their desire to use ARTs is to overcome their infertility and not a deeper matter of the heart. If the desire to use ARTs is fueled by sinful motives, Christian couples will compromise their biblical convictions on marriage and personhood and thus it is best they not use ARTs in that case.
Alternatives
If ARTs are a temptation for infertile Christian couples to compromise their biblical convictions, they can still be faithful to the command of being fruitful through their marriage without having their own biological children. There is biblical precedent for couples to adopt children and raise them in the ways of the Lord to become disciples through the examples of Moses, Esther, Jesus who was adopted by Joseph, James admonishing believers to care for orphans (Exod 2:10; Est 2:7; Matt 2:13–15; Luke 2:22–24, James 1:27).21 Even if legal adoption is not possible, Christian couples can spiritually adopt children in their church serving as spiritual parents for those whose parents are not spiritually active or supporting the work of their parents who are spiritually active. When Moses instructs the nation of Israel to pass on obedience to God to the next generation as they journeyed into the Promised Land, he did not just speak this to parents, he spoke this to all of Israel (Deut 6:4–9). Thus, all adult Christians in a local church parent or not are entrusted to invest in the spiritual lives of the children in their church. In addition, Paul has the understanding that all believers have been adopted into God’s family which should thus fuel the biblical ethic of reciprocating one’s faith to another individual (Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5).22
In addition, fruitfulness and multiplication within a marriage is not exclusive to specifically bearing offspring. Although the desire to have children is natural, God is ultimately sovereign over child bearing. Couples who cannot have children biologically or within the biblical parameters of having children through ARTs should not be viewed as sinning against God. As Anderson describes, couples who are childless do not displease God, but He does hear their cries and, in some cases, does through his sovereignty bless them with children after years of trying (Gen 18; 29–30; 1 Sam 1; Luke 2:36–38).23 Fruitfulness for a married couple is also being good stewards of the financial resources given to them, growing in their relationship with Christ and obedience to Him, as well as being faithful towards one another and serving one another like Christ (Eph 5:21–32). Thus, physical infertility is not the final word for Christian couples and should never lead them to spiritual infertility.
Conclusion
This paper made the argument that it is biblically permissible for Christian couples to use ARTs if the technologies chosen honor the sanctity of marriage, protect the sanctity of life of the embryo, and are done with the right motives. Christians as image bearers must understand that they have dominion over the earth of which includes technology and humanity’s freedom to utilize it (Gen 1:29–30). This mandate permits Christians to utilize these technologies but also holds them accountable for any breaking of God’s commandments through them. Thus, to have proper dominion over ARTs requires that a Christian have a full understanding of the biblical convictions that pertain to the usage of ARTs. These biblical convictions as Rae describes functions as helpful “fence posts” to guide the Christian in the rapidly developing world of reproductive technologies.24
As new ARTs are being introduced and current ones becoming more developed, Christian couples must understand the biblical mandate of them as image bearers having the responsibility to have dominion over technology. Walter C. Kaiser in his chapter on “Genetic Engineering and Artificial Reproduction” points out that just because the technology is available does not mean that Christians are obligated to use it. Kaiser argues from Genesis 1:28, as image bearers, because the technology is available, Christians have the responsibility in protecting God’s Created Order and abstain from that which technology jeopardizes God’s intended design.25 Ultimately, what determines how a Christian will respond and make moral decision when it comes to child bearing and ARTs will hinge upon who they believe they are and to whom their moral obligation comes from. Due to Christians having the conviction that they are made in the imago Dei, will result in them evaluating ARTs carefully according to Scripture and limit them from using ARTs that go outside the bounds of the husband and wife.