Reproductive technology has become a hot topic as the field of study is rapidly developing and all sorts of questions on morality are being raised. One area which many are concerned about is third party sperm donation. This is the practice of extracting an egg from the woman and taking sperm from an anonymous man, fertilizing the egg and then implanting the embryo in the woman. Third party sperm donation is neither moral nor immoral of its own nature, but there are many areas which must be considered before forming a conviction on this matter. Man was commanded to subdue the earth and to reproduce fruitfully. On the other hand, many argue that the book of Genesis suggests that God’s plan was for a single, unaltered family unit and that bringing in genetic material from another family would be sinful. Regardless of whether you find the practice immoral or not, it is critical to consider the possibility of life for the extra embryos which are created as a byproduct of this procedure.
Reproductive technology works well with God’s command to “…Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1.28). Certainly, God intended that man and woman be able to have children, but it is not always possible. Often men are not capable of creating sperm qualified for fertilizing an egg. In this case, a third party donor is often considered. Since there is no intercourse between the wife and the donor, there is no possible argument for adultery. In most cases the donor is actually kept anonymous. There is no direct break of command when it comes to the practice of third party sperm donation, however many will argue that it defies God’s plan, therefore challenging His sovereignty. This is a narrow- minded view. God Himself commanded that we “subdue the earth” (Gen. 1.28). This means we are to make use of its resources in every way possible. To make use of this technology is to recognize His sovereignty.
Many will argue that Genesis suggests, on a contextual level, that introducing genetic material which is not from the man or wife, would defy God’s intention for marriage; “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2.24). The argument of the greater context of the passage is a weak argument in that they are making symbolic assumptions in order to form an alternate context. For example, in verse 23 Adam says, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2.23). The assumption is that it is symbolizing an autonomous family relationship. This contextual argument is actually defying proper hermeneutic. Since the passage is narrative, it should be taken literally at first. Symbolism should only be derived further if it is consistent with the rest of scripture, which in this case it is not. The better understanding of “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” is that Eve was literally created from the bone and flesh of Adam and she was created for Adam. The passage has to do with marriage between a man and a woman, not with family autonomy.
The practice of third party sperm donation can quickly become unethical when the procedure itself is considered. Typically, they create more embryos than they actually need since the implantation process is often unsuccessful. This cuts costs in the event that the woman would like to try again if they are lost. If the procedure is successful, then the embryos must be dealt with. Either they can be destroyed or they can be implanted at a later date. If they are destroyed, then it is no different than abortion. It is unethical because it is killing an unborn child. If they are implanted at a later date, then it can be considered moral because it no longer directly defies God’s commands. There is a second problem. The doctor will usually implant four embryos in hopes that at least one will survive. In the event that all of them survive, they will usually suggest that at least one be removed. The most responsible way for this procedure to be done is to fertilize six eggs and implant them three at a time. This gives the greatest possibility of having at least one child, but the man and woman must be ready to have up to six children, should they all survive.
Ultimately, it is up to each individual to form their own convictions on the matter. This is not a push for relativism or socially constructed ethics; rather, the heart must be right before God. Seek the counsel of the Holy Spirit. Above all, consider the benefit for the gospel when making convictions as directed in First Thessalonians; the “gospel did not come to you in word only, but also…with full conviction” (1 Thes 1.5). The gospel is our greatest tool for determining whether something is right or wrong. Mohler says, “Understanding the culture…[is] a matter of evangelical urgency” (2008). For purposes of third party sperm donation, we must consider the evangelical benefit of our decision, which will be relative to cultures since each culture will react differently. In some cultures this act may discredit the gospel, where in others it may not. If we somehow discredit the gospel or the church through any action, we can be confident that the action is immoral.
References
Mohler Jr., R. Albert. (2008). Culture Shift. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Multnomah Books
Image Credits: mzacha, sxc.hu
Reproductive Technology: Third Party Sperm Donation