In Embryo Ruling, a Christian Divide
An Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos should be considered children has forced Americans to grapple with complicated realities about law, infertility and politics.
At the heart of the decision, there is Christian theology. “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God,” the court’s chief justice, Tom Parker, wrote in his decision.
Among conservative Christians, the belief that life begins at conception has been a driving force behind anti-abortion policies for years. Among the most ardent abortion opponents, that thinking has also led to uncompromising opposition to in vitro fertilization.
“That is the fundamental premise of our entire movement,” said Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life, which opposes abortion. I.V.F., she said, “is literally a business model built on disposable children.”
But on the morality of I.V.F., there is a more noticeable divide between Catholics and Protestants. Catholic teaching expressly forbids it. Protestants tend to be more open, in part because there is no similar top-down authority structure requiring a shared doctrine.
Evangelical tradition has built an identity on being pro-family, and many adherents see I.V.F. positively because it creates more children.
But the Alabama decision “is a very morally honest opinion,” said Andrew T. Walker, associate professor of Christian ethics and public theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky. The ruling, he said, shows the direct line of reasoning between belief that life begins at conception, and opposition to abortion and I.V.F. “It’s going to force conservative Christians to reckon with potentially their own complicity in the in vitro fertilization industry,” he said.
The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the largest institution that opposes I.V.F. Nearly all modern fertility interventions are morally forbidden.
The I.V.F. process typically includes many elements that the Catholic Church opposes. There’s masturbation — an “offense against chastity,” according to the catechism, or teaching — often required to collect sperm. There is the fertilization of an egg and sperm outside a woman’s body — outside the sacramental “conjugal act” of sex between a husband and wife. And there is the creation of multiple embryos that are often destroyed or not implanted — an “abortive practice.”
The church’s first major statement opposing I.V.F. came in response to the world’s first “test tube baby,” born in England in 1978. Written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, the document addressed a variety of fertility technologies, like artificial insemination, I.V.F. and surrogacy.
In January, Pope Francis condemned surrogacy and called for a ban on the practice.
Many Catholics use contraception and I.V.F. treatment in violation of church teaching. But for observant Catholics, opposition to I.V.F. is part of an ecosystem of beliefs about marriage, family and sex.
The bioethics of I.V.F. is not a subject most conservative Christians think about. Evangelicals typically rely on literal readings of the Bible, not centuries of Catholic social philosophy. And the Bible, an ancient text, does not mention I.V.F.
Mr. Walker said that when he had considered introducing a resolution about artificial reproductive technology at the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination, colleagues reacted with hesitation.
But evangelical and Catholic communities have increasingly blended together over conservative political beliefs.
Emma Waters, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation, hopes evangelical pastors will work to train their churches about the theological reasons to oppose I.V.F. She sees potential openings with Gen Z evangelicals who are opposed to hormonal birth control.
“I.V.F. is just the very beginning of reproductive technologies,” she said. “We are just woefully unprepared to address the onslaught of issues that are coming.”
Protestants are more open to I.V.F. than Catholics.