Why Southern Baptists Are Wary of IVF

O n June 12, messengers from the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, approved a resolution on in vitro fertilization. Despite the breathless headlines and cable-media chyrons describing this action as a “ban on IVF” or motivated by nefarious political concerns, the measure merely calls for ethical reflection on reproductive technologies, even as it expresses deep moral concern about IVF in particular. In part, it reads:

WHEREAS, All children are a gift from the Lord regardless of the circumstances of their conception (Psalm 127:3); and

WHEREAS, Though all children are to be fully respected and protected, not all technological means of assisting human reproduction are equally God-honoring or morally justified; and

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically affirmed the value of every human life and opposed the use of technology that disregards the sanctity of human life; and

WHEREAS, The In Vitro Fertilization process routinely generates more embryos than can be safely implanted, thus resulting in the continued freezing, stockpiling, and ultimate destruction of human embryos, some of whom may also be subjected to medical experimentation; and

WHEREAS, In Vitro Fertilization most often participates in the destruction of embryonic human life and increasingly engages in dehumanizing methods for determining suitability for life and genetic sorting, based on notions of genetic fitness and parental preferences; and

WHEREAS, Estimates suggest that between 1 million and 1.5 million human beings are currently stored in cryogenic freezers in an embryonic state throughout the United States, with most unquestionably destined for eventual destruction; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 11–12, 2024, call on Southern Baptists to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation especially in the number of embryos generated in the IVF process; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm all children, no matter the circumstances of their conception, are gifts from God and loved by him; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptists to love all of their neighbors in accordance with their God-given dignity as image bearers and to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.

The consideration of the resolution included sustained debate on the floor, from both sides of the IVF debate, but an overwhelming majority eventually voted to approve. It’s important to note that a resolution is not binding but reflects the will of the messengers convened at that particular convention. Still, these pronouncements often elicit conversation both within the denomination and without.

Written by Andrew Walker and Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, the resolution is in response both to the ruling by an Alabama court that assigned personhood to frozen embryos and to the corresponding legislative efforts of Republican senators Katie Britt (Ala.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) that punishes states who ban IVF. Conservative ethicists are split on whether the use of IVF is ethical. Some, such as Wayne Grudem see the freezing and keeping of embryos in storage facilities as problematic, but approve of a more restrained process that doesn’t allow the creation or destruction of additional embryos. Others, such as Matthew Lee Anderson, find the entire process at odds with the procreation process of God’s created order.

What is clear is that most Christians, particularly Evangelical, have not been exposed to much ethical reflection on the topic. A recent poll showed that a majority approve of the procedure. Passing this resolution was sure to generate controversy, as many Evangelical couples, struggling with infertility, have employed IVF and borne children as a result.

Yet, despite the backlash, it was wise for the SBC to take up this issue and urge more-critical reflection. At the very least, it might cause couples to look more deeply into just what happens in the IVF process. In a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal, Ericka Anderson laments the lack of information she and her husband were given by doctors as they pursued solutions for their infertility. She expresses regret that her successful treatments resulted in the destruction of so many embryos:

IVF ultimately gave me my two children, for which I am eternally grateful. But multiple embryos remain on ice, which breaks my heart. The embryos that became my children were simply chosen first. Each embryo already has the genetic blueprint that sets each of us apart. We all began the same way, at conception.

She went on to say that she wishes she had been more informed about more-ethical fertility options. One pastor, in response to the SBC resolution, expressed thanks that this action can serve as a framework in his counseling of members seeking guidance.

Furthermore, a resolution by the nation’s largest Protestant body should increase the public’s attention to the industry around reproductive technologies. In recent decades, it has become a kind of wild west. In addition to millions of embryos sitting in cryogenic freezers around the country, there is the largely unregulated sperm-donation industry, which treats procreation like a sport. One donor has, according to the Wall Street Journal, 96 children. And there is the Orwellian science of genetic testing, which, when combined with IVF, allows parents to play God and choose “designer babies.”

We can empathize with couples who struggle with the pain of infertility. Christians see every child as a gift from the Lord and heartily champion medical innovations that bring healing and hope. That’s why this resolution offers careful language, standing with those who struggle to bear children while awakening Christians to the ways in which reproductive technologies might violate the Christian doctrine of the imago Dei. This is largely the same moral framework in which the concept of human dignity was introduced in the world.

At a time when 86 percent of the country supports IVF, what Baptists declared on June 12 is definitively countercultural. Neither side of the political aisle is eager to legislate against the practice. Americans should be glad that conservative Christians are asking these questions about a largely unregulated industry. Scientific innovation is good, but history shows that, without ethics, it can become exploitative and dehumanizing. You may not be Baptist. You may not even be religious. But you should be glad that some Christians are willing to serve as the conscience of the country.