No one fully loves this idea described by the PR term of “snowflake adoption,” but this IVF procedure has been extolled by some as a godly option to deal with leftover frozen embryos that the original parents do not want. This initially sounds loving and very pro-life, but it has some deeper theological problems, not about the lives themselves, which are not to be denied or devalued, but around the sanctity of the womb, the marital act, and the divine union of husband and wife.
The Lord gave His word “be fruitful and multiply” and He gave us one way to achieve that inbuilt purpose for marriage, and by extension how He expands humanity. We do not have to preach people to the marital act or give technical courses—and those who can avoid it without temptation need not be married at all. Our very nature and bodies impel to it. It is intrinsic to marriage, whereas IVF, in all its forms, is not so simple and easy to confine to God’s marriage.
There would be no leftover embryos without IVF (In Vitro [literally, glass] Fertilization), where the required DNA contributions from male and female are combined in a test tube of sorts, outside the woman’s body. But this is unnatural from the start. While not many would call it sinful, it is not natural or biologically respectful to God’s creative design. It brings medical technicians, exam rooms, and doctors into a sacred place—the women’s womb and the very start of human life within the union of husband and wife.
But if a child is the result of IVF, how can it be bad? Not the child himself, but the activity certainty can be ungodly, as in the case of extra-marital relations where a child can also be conceived, whether intended or not. This does not devalue any life or Christ’s salvation for the child, however they were brought into being. But life is not ours to manipulate and we have been given no alternative to marriage. God expressly connected the conception and birth of children only to marriage, by how they are naturally conceived in the holy act He made.
The main issue with IVF is that it by definition it combines any generic male and female DNA to create life outside the marriage bed—God’s instituted means—and brings in other parties besides husband and wife. This also means that others’ DNA may be used just as easily—husband and wife are not privileged in this procedure, leading to the result that one or none of the parents are actually genetically involved and related to the child. This is problematic, since marriage is not for children according to our own sinful will and choosing, since we do not create life—only God does. IVF, as a man-willed procedure does not inherently respect God who opens and closes the womb, and works through tangible means. Paying for an expensive procedure implies a child is more akin to a project than a free gift God bestows according to His will, as a regular part of marriage.
The other issue is that when an embryo that is someone else’s genetically, which is always the case in “snowflake adoption,” is occupying the mother’s womb, God cannot create a new child through the way He instituted from the very beginning of the creation of male and female, since the pregnancy is already started manually by medical means. It says “no” to the normal, creationally established means God intended.
It may seem that some couples can’t and won’t have children, but that is thinking in medical, earthly terms, not biblical. God opens and closes the womb in Scripture (and, of course, today as well). Would Abraham and Sarah have tried IVF, instead of using female servants as surrogates, denying the possibility of the promised Isaac? They wanted and expected a child, but not on God’s terms. Just because a couple has not been given a child for years on end, does not mean the Lord will not decide to give one in His own timing later. No human ever decides to bring forth life, without God’s blessing, though this has been denied in our culture’s godless thinking. The idea of control over life that society has accepted is mostly negative, except in IVF, which circumvents the marital act between husband and wife totally.
Snowflake-thinking treats the normal “be fruitful and multiply” imperative as optional, for the sake of a human-directed pregnancy.. Some may even avoid their own children, resulting in less over-all life, considering the embryo is confessed to already be a living person. It does not technically lead to more life but the same amount already existing.
In consideration of Christ’s imminent return, we do not have to do anything for life already made that exists in a limbo embryonic state. We have no promise that all life created will grow and be born. We can trust the Lord to sort out this mess of over a million frozen embryos. Though I can’t recall anyone advocating for the baptizing or teaching of such frozen embryos. IVF brings so many complications, whereas marital fruitfulness is simple and straightforward, but certainly not easy. If we could separate the human desire for a child on the sinner’s own terms, IVF in any possible use, has little to commend it.
Besides the cost, IVF implantations appear less successful than the normal route to childbirth. One CDC calculator estimates that IVF using the couples own genetic material at less than 50% successful, but over 50% for donor eggs. But for the Christian, who submits to God’s will, everything is successful, even when we don’t get what we want. More children, by any and all means outside of marriage, is not necessarily better. It is cheaper and morally clearer to submit to God’s will, but that requires real humbling, since in regards to children, as in everything else, God’s will is not our own. This is not to deny the real heartache and sorrow of those who have not been given a living child, but desire one in a godly way.
But the answer to sin and the curse of Adam is the Gospel, not getting what we crave and desire. Children are not salvation, but every child is loved by God, even if that child is not allowed to develop and grow up. IVF tends to let people think they are God with creative power. But submitting to marriage and its exclusiveness is humbling, no matter the number of children given.
Using IVF, which is always problematic in itself, to remedy the abuses of IVF in the first place, seems misguided. I am not advocating for destroying life, but is there a moral obligation upon Christians to ensure that life in its most fragile, beginning state is brought it to fruition? What is the end of life? Only death is a certainty. Especially troubling is when it interrupts the normal marital relationship God has ordained. But some people (heterosexual or otherwise; single or not) really want a child. That is good to value life, but a child is not a human decision of the will like some pet project or to-go food order.
Children were meant to be a regular part of marriage, but sin has affected that initial blessing of fruitfulness upon husband and wife. God’s timing is not our own. IVF allows the circumvention of marriage totally. Perhaps the unwanted embryos are in the same category as the life in the womb that dies in miscarriage, which is a real and sad tragedy, but not a matter of guilt or punishment. It is simply a fact of sin that we should mourn. But there would be no so-called “snowflake adoption” (adoption here is quite the euphemistic word for an expensive, invasive, and someone fraught procedure) without IVF in the first place.
A child was designed to be carried and birthed by his mother—not in another woman. It is rather odd to think about a woman, possibly even a single, or even celibate one, being impregnated with an embryo fertilized by a stranger. Medical technology has allowed some fascinating and frightening possibilities, but it cannot help us accept God’s will with humility and be thankful for that which He gives—even when it collides with our own will. —ed.
Christian News 