Assisted Reproductive Technology: IVF
Biblical Basis
Technical & Medical Basis
Pastoral Application
No quote yet
—Genesis 1:26-28 ESV
Understanding Assisted Reproductive Technology Through Scripture
Biblical Basis
If you search the pages of the Bible, you will not find the words in vitro fertilization (IVF) written in its pages. Yet it would be wrong to assume the Bible has nothing to say on the subject. While the language of modern medicine is absent, the underlying moral and theological questions that IVF raises are clearly addressed in God’s Word.
The Bible gives us a clear vision of the sanctity of life, the exclusivity of marriage, the “package deal” of marriage, sex, and children, and the ways technology hone or hinder a godly view of children as gifts received.
At the center of the Christian vision of human life is the doctrine of the Imago Dei. Every human being is created in God’s image and likeness from the very moment of conception when sperm fertilizes an egg, and not just when a viable pregnancy begins (Gen. 1:27; Ps. 139:13–17; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:41–44 ESV).
These human embryos, at their earliest stage of development, are not “potential” lives or the building blocks of life, but they are complete, distinct, and unique human beings with their own genetic code and capacity to grow into mature humans, if placed in the right environment. Every human embryo bears the image of God, no matter how small, fragile, or vulnerable he or she is.
The “What” Purpose of Man and Woman
As the Psalmist says, “it is God who made us, and we are His” (Psalm 100:3). We did not create ourselves. We do not determine our own limits, freedoms, or even who we are. God does. As such, we look to His Word to understand whose we are, who we are, and how we ought to live today.
God created us in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-28). We are not God, but we bear His attributes and characteristics from speech, creativity, love, and relationality, to eternal life. This means that from the moment of conception at the earliest stage of embryonic development to the frail final moments before death, human life is endowed with inherent worth and dignity.
Likewise, God blessed the man and the woman to be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over all that God had created. In particular, this blessing calls Adam and Eve to steward rather than exert God-like control, in their pursuit of fruitfulness. While this fruitfulness describes all aspects of our work from our vocation, how we provide for our family, creation care, and so on, one of the key ways that God blesses Adam and Eve is in the procreation of children.
Indeed, this blessing of children is part of what it means to be human and flourish. Genesis’ emphasis on God’s blessing of Adam and Eve is key here, especially when it comes to children. It is God who gives us blessings—good gifts from above—and our posture is one of thankful reception. Like all God’s good gifts, we are to earnestly desire to receive them, but ultimately, we do not dictate when, how, or what we receive.
The “How” of Procreation within Marriage
From Genesis 2:22-24 onwards, the Bible depicts marriage as an exclusive, lifelong, and covenantal union between one man and one woman. And, as the Book of Common Prayer describes it, marriage is for the four-fold purpose of the procreation of children, protection from sin, mutual pleasure and companionship, and for the upbuilding of Christ’s kingdom on earth through the Church, family, and society.
Sexual union, likewise, is both unitive and inherently oriented toward life, with marriage providing the exclusive covenantal context in which this union rightly flourishes. Taken together, it is within this one-flesh union of marriage that God unites sex and procreation together as distinct and interconnected parts of the Bible’s “package deal” of marriage, sex, and procreation.
The Bible’s “Package Deal” or Marriage, Sex, and Procreation
For some people reading this, it may seem self-explanatory: Marriage is between one man and one woman, sex is for marriage alone (Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:28; 1 Corinthians 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 6:18; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3), and as a result of that children (unless otherwise prevented or absent due to infertility) naturally occur within this context. Or another way of putting it, you either get all three or you get none.
This pattern of the “package deal” occurs throughout the Old and New Testament. In Psalm 127 and Psalm 128, the Psalmist describes children within the context of marriage as a fruitful vine from one’s wife and arrows in the hands of a mighty warrior.
Mark 10:7-9 reiterates Genesis 2:24 and adds that “what therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” emphasizing a unified vision of marriage.
Even in Luke 20:27-40, Jesus describes marriage with the expectation of children, and concludes that this is a temporal reality, in the eternal and bodily resurrection men and women will be like the angels who “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (20:35), thus implying that neither sex nor additional children will be present either.
Perhaps the most direct biblical witness to this vision appears in Malachi 2:15, where the prophet reminds Israel,
Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
Here the Bible clearly describes the fruitful nature of marriage, faithfulness to one’s wife (i.e., sex within marriage alone and with one’s spouse), and for what purpose? Godly offspring.
Marriage, sex, and children are not separate goods or projects to optimize or pursue in isolation. They form a single, integrated reality that reflects God’s relational nature, His vision for fruitfulness, and the ground for human flourishing in marriage and family.
What the Bible Says about Technology
The Bible reminds us that God sometimes limits human technologies to protect us from ourselves. At Babel, when men sought to use technology to ascend to heaven, the Lord intervened: “This is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” (Gen. 11:6). God confused their language, scattered His people, and paused their project; not because bricks were evil, but because their technological ambition led to idolatry. IVF presents a similar test. When we orient ourselves toward technological ambition to fill infertility grief, we are led into idolatry by playing the role of Creator in our lives. This temptation toward idolatry when it comes to children and our technical interventions isn’t new; it goes back to the fall of humanity itself.
To the woman, God says, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.” The Hebrew word translated as pain carries a depth that reaches far beyond physical labor. It is much broader than that. It refers to the emotional, mental, and physical pain that, due to sin entering the world, accompanies each aspect of procreation. It influences our desire, or lack thereof, to have children, as well as the anxiety of conception, miscarriage, infertility, pregnancy, labor, and caring for our children. The gift remains, but it is no longer untouched by sorrow.
What’s more, this particular Hebrew word carries with it the connotation of idolatry, reflecting how women and men would be tempted to control or idolize children—either in the making or taking of their life.
Where the Bible presents marriage, sex, and procreation as an inseparable “package deal,” each additional layer of separation introduced—whether by circumstance, sin, or technology—creates new opportunities for sin, suffering, and moral disorder.
Sin, by its very nature, separates and divides what God created. From there on out, God’s good design for the “package deal” of marriage, sex, and procreation was complicated. Where God established marriage as a holy covenant between one man and one woman with exclusive sexual unity, sin opened the door to sexual immorality, adultery, and polygamy. Where God crafted children as the overflow of marriage and sex, sin severed this natural unity with the introduction of infertility, miscarriage, stillbirths, and child abandonment. Each of these experiences—often through no fault of our own—add an additional degree of separation between the “package deal” of marriage, sex, and procreation.
Christians, therefore, must weigh IVF not only by the command to protect embryonic life, but by the broader biblical vision of marriage, sex, and procreation as a divinely ordained unity. God’s good design sets the horizon for our moral discernment, reminding us that children are never an entitlement to be grasped, but blessings to be received with open hands.
Additional Resources
- Add resources here
Technical & Medical Basis
Assisted Reproductive Technology from a medical and technical perspective
Assisted Reproductive Technology
Assisted reproductive technology (ART) refers to medical procedures designed to help individuals and couples conceive children. While ART includes techniques like gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) and intrauterine insemination (IUI), in practice ART is almost synonymous with IVF. According to the CDC, IVF makes up 99 percent of ART treatments in the United States.
The IVF process involves three main steps: ovarian stimulation, fertilization, and implantation. A woman’s ovaries are first stimulated with high doses of hormones—sometimes including off-label cancer drugs like Lupron which is used to “block puberty” in minors—to produce as many eggs as possible in one cycle. While a woman normally releases one mature egg per month, an egg extraction cycle may retrieve up to thirty-five eggs. This stimulation carries risks, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can be life-threatening. Egg retrieval itself requires a surgical procedure, passing a needle through the vaginal wall under ultrasound guidance. Sperm collection, by contrast, is straightforward, though not without its own moral challenges as men masturbate at the clinic using pornographic materials. In cases of severe male infertility sperm may be surgically extracted from the testes.
Once retrieved, the egg and sperm are placed in petri dishes at the fertility clinic. On average, 80 percent of the eggs are fertilized by the sperm, resulting in the creation of viable human embryos.
From there, parents have six options before them:
- they can implant the human embryos “fresh” soon after their creation,
- they can freeze the embryos for later use,
- they can subject them to preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)—a practice we explore further here—and if they choose not to use the embryos, either due to genetic or chromosomal concerns,
- they can donate the embryos to research (where they will be destroyed 14 days later),
- discard their human embryos, or
- donate the embryos to an adoption clinic.
Options #4 and #5 directly result in the intentional destruction of their embryonic children, options #2 and #6 result in indefinite freezing of their embryonic children in metal tanks, and option #3 eugenically grades human embryos as winners or losers before they’ve ever had a chance to take their first breath.
Despite its prominence, IVF’s success rates remain modest. In 2021, over 413,000 ART cycles in the U.S. resulted in 97,128 infants born, a success rate of about 23 percent per cycle (on the whole, clinics estimate success rates of 25-35 percent). For women over 40, the rate drops to less than 10 percent, and after 42, less than 3 percent.
To compensate, clinics routinely create surplus embryos, leading to a staggering stockpile: estimates suggest over one million embryos are currently frozen in U.S. storage facilities. Some embryos remain frozen for decades; the record for a live birth from a frozen embryo is thirty years old. In another example, a woman gave birth to a frozen embryo that was conceived three years before the mother herself was born. Many will never be thawed, leaving them in a kind of suspended existence until couples decide whether to implant, donate, or destroy them.
These statistics, however, do not account for the total number of embryos produced in each cycle. IVF commonly involves creating multiple embryos, far more than are ultimately transferred into the uterus. For example, a study in the United Kingdom suggests that a typical cycle may generate around 15 embryos, yet only about 7 percent of those embryos ever result in a live birth.
Applying a conservative estimate of 10 embryos created per cycle, the 413,776 IVF cycles performed in the United States in 2021 would have produced over four million embryos. Of these, only 97,128 resulted in infants born alive—meaning that about 2.3 percent of embryos created through IVF led to a live birth.
In short, the vast majority of embryos created during IVF—whether discarded, frozen indefinitely, or those that miscarried or failed to implant—do not survive to birth.
Of the 413,776 IVF cycles performed in the United States in 2021, only 97,128 resulted in infants born alive—meaning that about 2.3% of embryos created through IVF led to a live birth.
Additional ART Techniques
Other ART techniques include:
- Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) –where doctors place sperm and eggs directly into the fallopian tube so that conception occur naturally
- Zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), where doctors implant a fertilized zygote into the tube. These approaches encourage a “single embryo” model.
- Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) – involves injecting a single sperm into an egg, often used in cases of male infertility, though it tends to result in lower success rates and higher genetic or chromosomal abnormalities.
- Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) or artificial insemination, is less invasive and introduces sperm directly into the uterus at ovulation.
It is important to note that contrary to root cause treatments for infertility, IVF bypasses the man and woman’s body. An IVF cycle may result in the successful creation of embryo(s), but it does nothing to improve the health or well-being of the men and women involved. In many cases, IVF worsens the woman’s health and the child’s health, too.
IVF bears significant health risks for the children and their mothers. Children conceived through IVF have statistically higher rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital heart defects, cancer, and neurological conditions such as cerebral palsy or autism. Mothers undergoing IVF face elevated risks of hypertensive disorders, severe maternal morbidity, gestational diabetes, and c-sections.
Cost wise, a single cycle of IVF may cost between $12,000-$30,000, with studies typically showing it costs an average of $61,000 (or 2.5 cycles) for the successful birth of a child. And, at the end of it all, if couples want to have more children or if the embryos did not implant, they will have to begin this process all over again.
From a purely medical standpoint, IVF is neither simple nor neutral. It is a procedure that creates, manipulates, and often destroys human embryos, while subjecting women to invasive and risky treatments.
Pastoral Application
Additional Resources
The story of Emma Gibson, conceived in 1992 and born in 2017 after 24 years frozen as an embryo, captures the moral paradox of IVF. Emma is a living witness that frozen embryos are not potential lives but actual human beings suspended in time. Her existence is a testimony to the dignity of embryonic life—and a haunting reminder of the many hundreds of thousands of other human beings who remain in storage, waiting for a future that may never come.
For pastors and churches, IVF poses a profound pastoral challenge. On the one hand, couples struggling with infertility often carry deep sorrow, longing desperately for children. Their pain is real, and their desire for children is good. The church must be a place of compassion, lament, and support for such couples, not a source of added shame or exclusion. On the other hand, faithfulness requires that we speak honestly about the moral limits of reproductive technology. IVF is not a morally neutral medical procedure. It routinely involves the destruction, freezing, or commodification of human embryos–practices incompatible with the sanctity of life–and fails to treat the underlying causes of infertility itself.
Here several guiding commitments emerge. First, Christians must reaffirm that children are always gifts, not a right. Likewise, marriage between one man and one woman is whole and complete in God’s sight.
Second, couples must remember that certain medical interventions are a tool under God’s sovereignty, not a substitute for His will. Wisdom requires asking not only whether something is possible, but whether it aligns with the Bible’s vision for the sanctity of life and “package deal” of marriage, sex, and procreation. Third, true godly discernment involves weighing a person’s intentions, as well as their actual actions and those outcomes alongside God’s Word to see if the thing is good. So, when applied to IVF, this means that of course the desire for a child is good, but the actions and outcomes taken in pursuit of that desire may not be.
As the topic on Infertility and Restorative Reproductive Medicine explores, infertility is a complex issue with many ways to address the issue at the root cause without necessarily relying on IVF. Moreover, if a couple decides to pursue IVF, it is important to counsel them against any measures that indefinitely freeze, destroy, endanger or experiment on human life. Indeed, approaches that honor the mother and the child would align most closely with natural, mini stim, or targeted IVF while practicing single embryo creation, no genetic testing, and no destruction of human life.
From God’s Word alone, it is clear that any use of IVF that destroys or experiments human life is morally impermissible. Moreover, it raises questions about how IVF may inadvertently violate the “package deal” of marriage, sex, and procreation. For example, what about in cases where single Christian women have used IVF or IUI to have a child though they are not married? What about cases of same-sex couples using IVF outside of God’s good design for marriage? What about when couples electively use IVF, even though they are not struggling with infertility, because they want to pick the human embryo with their desired sex or health, while destroying the “undesirable ones”? These are clear examples when couples or individuals use IVF to reject God’s good design for the family.
It may feel intimidating or beyond the scope of a pastor to address these questions, and yet it couldn’t be more important. Here are a few of the common misconceptions or questions around IVF that will help equip church leaders as they counsel couples on IVF and infertility.
“IVF creates babies, therefore it must be pro-life.”
For many people in the church today, they may hold the view that because IVF can result in the birth of a child then it must be pro-life. Indeed, what is more pro-life than celebrating the birth and life of a child, regardless of where he or she came from? While that is undoubtedly true insofar as all children are a gift from God and worthy of life. Yet that logic fails to appreciate the complexity of IVF. Life does not begin at the moment of implantation, a positive pregnancy test, or a certain trimester. No, human life begins at the moment of conception when sperm fertilizes an egg and results in a living, growing, distinct, and unique human embryo.
If examined in an IVF laboratory, doctors can observe the sex of the embryo, whether it’s living or dead, and even gain insights into his or her future health. Thus, such embryos are not potential human lives or just the building blocks of a person, that human embryo is a person—albeit at his or her earliest stage of life.
For that reason, we cannot judge the morality of IVF simply by how many babies are born, but by how many human embryos are formed and destroyed in the process. And, as this section has explored, routine IVF involves many options that are not pro-life: from freezing human embryos indefinitely to destroying human embryos that are unhealthy, unwanted, or non-viable for some reason. While there are exceptions, and couples may practice single embryo or non-destructive IVF, the industry as a whole does not value the intrinsic worth and life of each child from the moment of conception.
It is, in some ways, like going to Planned Parenthood to receive an ultrasound to confirm a pregnancy. Simply using their services does not mean that you want to have an abortion, but it does raise a larger question of why you would want to contribute to a business model that has little respect for life.
There may be life-sparing ways to practice IVF, but the industry and practice as a whole bypasses the man and woman’s body. It may result in the creation of a human embryo, but IVF fails to treat the underlying causes of infertility, reduce miscarriage rates, improve egg and sperm quality, or improve the health of the mother or child. Indeed, in many cases, IVF results in greater risk to mom and baby, not to mention the ongoing abuses of the fertility industry.
Moreover, while one could only practice life-sparing approaches to IVF–where no human embryos are genetically tested, destroyed, used for research, or indefinitely frozen–Christians must still wrestle with the reality that this approach relies on a method outside of the marital union. Yes, Christians are pro-life, but we must also evaluate the means by which we bring life into the world. IVF is a means of bringing life into the world, but it is not through a marital act of love; rather, it is via sterile conception in a petri dish and dangerous egg extraction.
“What is the difference between destroying a human embryo in IVF and having a miscarriage?”
It is a question that many people have asked, especially if they’re uncomfortable with a discussion of IVF including protections for human embryos. The attempt to equate the intentional destruction of human life in IVF with the tragic misscarriage of a child fails to grasp the important role of one’s agency and one’s intention when it comes to IVF as compared to a miscarriage.
When a miscarriage occurs, it is the tragic loss of a child outside of anyone’s control—something no parent chooses, plans, or intends. As Oliver O’Donovan points out, “There is a world of difference between accepting the risk of a disabled child (where that risk is imposed upon us by nature) and ourselves imposing that risk in pursuit of our own purposes.” Miscarriage reflects the reality of living in a broken world where suffering and loss sometimes come unbidden. It is a painful experience precisely because parents long for the child’s life but must grieve what has been taken from them. Their posture toward life is one of receiving, even in loss.
By contrast, the intentional destruction of a human embryo in IVF is just that, an intentional decision made on the part of parents to end the life of an embryonic child. This, like abortion, is a decision that goes far beyond the grounds of what honors God and what honors His image on every person from the moment of conception. The destruction of embryos in IVF flows not from circumstances beyond our control but from decisions intentionally made to produce the “right” kind of child. Genetic testing, embryo freezing, and embryo destruction treat children as products rather than gifts—commodities to be designed, selected, or discarded. The moral concern, then, centers on human choice: whether we will submit our desires to the givenness of life or manipulate life to fit our desires, even at the cost of the smallest and most vulnerable among us?
Indeed, God is the author of life. As Job declares in 1:21, “And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” As Christians, we believe that only the Lord is able to give life and to take life away. We live in a fallen world, and as a result death is all around us, and tragically this means that some women have miscarriages. But when a miscarriage occurs, it is under the sovereignty of God since he is the author of life. When we choose IVF, we are choosing to give and take away life—we put ourselves in the role that is only meant for God.
“Non-Viable” Human Embryos
One of the most deceptive aspects of the discourse around human embryos in IVF is the category of “viable” vs. “non-viable.” If a fertility clinic designates a human embryo as “non-viable” they will often recommend that a family go ahead and destroy the child. The impression that it gives the family that the human embryo is not living or not going to live, but sadly this is far from the case. The status of “non-viable” can mean three things.
First, it may refer to a given reproductive endocrinologist’s own determination about how likely the human embryo is to implant or thrive in the womb. The human embryo is fully complete and living, and yet may have a lower success rate. This determination may reflect a clinics’ desire to increase their success rates, or decrease the pain a family experiences, but in either case the child is destroyed to protect adults. The child pays the price for the adult’s comfort or outcomes.
Second, an endocrinologist may categorize a human embryo as non-viable if genetic tests show a propensity for chromosomal or genetic problems. Here again, the embryonic child is very much still alive and yet they are valued less given the potential that they have health complications.
Finally, a non-viable embryo may refer to an embryo that has stopped naturally reproducing and growing, a sign that it will perish. While this is a painful reality, it means that the human embryo will perish naturally and not due to the decision of doctors or parents. In this case, doctors can simply ‘watch and wait’ to see if the human lives or perishes. No intentional destruction of human life required.
“What if we’ve already done IVF? Now what?”
Pastors are often approached after the fact. A couple comes forward and says, “We did IVF. We weren’t sure what to do. We didn’t want to tell anyone. Now we have questions.” Sometimes they are holding the child they prayed for. Sometimes they are still waiting. Often they are burdened with guilt, or confusion, or just the weight of unanswered questions.
In these moments, the church must be both truthful and tender. IVF is not an unforgivable sin, nor is it a simple matter. It is a complex mix of grief, hope, medicine, and moral choice. The guiding counsel is this: begin where you are, repent and ask God for forgiveness for any wrongs that you may have committed in the process, and do the next right thing.
Pastoral Questions to Ask
When counseling a couple who has used IVF, pastors should gently and patiently draw out the story:
- What motivated your decision? Was it infertility, or another reason?
- How many cycles were done?
- Are there any embryos currently frozen?
- Were any embryos discarded, donated to research, frozen, or otherwise destroyed?
- Were any embryos placed in adoption with another couple?
- Do you have a child or children born from this process?
- How do you feel about these choices now?
- Have you told your child(ren)?
- Are you open to learning more about other options to treat your infertility?
The couple needs space to tell the truth of their experience, often for the first time.
Pastoral Guidance
If Embryos Are Frozen
If there are embryos still in storage, the couple has a moral responsibility to those children. Each embryo is a distinct human being made in God’s image. Freezing them indefinitely is not morally neutral; it is a state of suspended life. Pastors bear the responsibility to encourage couples to prayerfully make plans to give each embryo the opportunity for implantation, either in their own womb if possible or through embryo adoption by another family. Some Christian clinics and ministries can assist with this. The counsel here is simple: Do the next right thing to honor life.
If Embryos Were Donated to Research or Destroyed
For some, the hardest admission will be that embryos were discarded or given to research and thus destroyed. Here, pastors must walk the couple to the cross. This is the place where all sin is confessed and forgiven. Life is precious, and yet grace abounds. As with any sin, the right response is repentance: acknowledging what was done, grieving the loss, turning from sin, and turning to Christ for mercy. Churches may wish to develop prayers or services of confession and lament for couples in this situation, similar to those offered for miscarriage or abortion. The point is not to crush their spirits, but to restore them to fullness of life. There is no wound Christ cannot heal.
In some cases, pastors may find that their parishioners do not feel convicted about the intentional destruction of their human embryos–their children. Indeed, they may think nothing of it or think that they were justified in their decision. As Christians, we believe that life begins at conception and not merely at an embryo’s implantation, a certain point in pregnancy, or at birth. So, to destroy a human embryo created in IVF is to kill that human who is made in the image of God. If the parishioners are truly unrepentant, pastors should work with church leadership to pray for repentance, pursue further counseling with the couple, and if it continues, to seek church discipline for their unrepentant actions.
How and When to Tell a Child
If a child is born through IVF, there will come a day when questions arise. Children have a right to the truth of their story, but truth must be given with love and in age-appropriate ways. Parents should not treat this as a shameful secret, but as part of the family’s journey of longing, prayer, and trust in God. The emphasis should always be: “You are a beloved gift from God. He made you. He saw you. We longed for you, and He gave you to us.” Likewise, parents should not shield the presence of frozen embryonic siblings or those who were lost from their born-children.
Walking Forward in Grace
Above all, pastors must keep the couple’s eyes on Christ. IVF may have involved choices they now regret, or situations they did not fully understand at the time. But the path forward is the same for all of us: repent where needed, rejoice in what God has given, and steward faithfully what remains. If there are embryos frozen, make a pro-life plan. If embryos were lost, mourn and receive forgiveness. If a child is born, give thanks and raise them in the fear and love of the Lord.
Conclusion
Finally, the church must walk with couples in prayer. Infertility is a cross to bear, not a punishment from God. As with Hannah, Sarah, and Elizabeth, God hears the cries of those who long for children (1 Sam. 1:11–20; Luke 1:5–13). Whether He answers with biological children, with the gift of adoption, or with spiritual parenthood, He is faithful. Our calling is to trust Him, to act with wisdom pursuing God-honoring treatments, and to uphold the dignity of every human life from the moment of conception.
In the end, IVF confronts us with a question not only of what we can do, but of what we should do. The church must hold fast to the sanctity of life, the unity of marriage, and the sovereignty of God over conception and birth. In so doing, we testify that every child—whether born naturally, adopted, or carried from a frozen state into the warmth of a mother’s womb—is a beloved gift from the Lord, the giver of life.