In the Talmud, the tractate Niddah compares wasting semen to murder. “One who emits semen for naught is considered as though he sheds blood” (b. Nidd. 2:13a). Making the case for even greater levels of evil, John Chrysostom suggests that to interfere with the creation of human life in what we understand today as the embryonic stages is “something worse than murder” (Chrysostom 1841, 413). The majority of early Judeo-Christian thought is not sympathetic to the practice of (or processes commonly associated with) in vitro fertilization. It is safe to assume that Rabbis Yitzhak and Ami would understand discarded embryos as something far worse than wasted semen, along with Christian figures like John Calvin and John Wesley (Provan 1989, 15).

Of course, there are also some moral questions that arise regarding the practice of burning heretics at the stake. How does a Christian on the side of defending the image of God see his way clear to executing a fully developed human while calling the spillage of semen monstrous? It helps if he is living in the 14th century, but I think it also has to do with fear. “Belgian health psychologist Omer Van den Bergh and colleagues has proposed a new theory of neuroticism, viewing it as a product of a ‘better safe than sorry’ (BSTS) brain processing strategy” (Shpancer 2020). If I were to describe a default condition of legalism, it would have a lot to do with this. If God’s economy worked like this, the prodigal son’s older brother would be the undisputed ideal (Luke 15). However, of all the characters in that story, the older brother is the ONLY one who’s place at the party remains in question due to his own ideas about morality. When the father lavishes mercy upon the prodigal after his abhorrent behavior, the older brother refuses to take part in the celebration. Why? Because he’s been playing it safe this whole time, and now things are turning out differently than he expected. The unseen condition of his heart was not congruent with his outward, visible behavior — until the end of the parable. Fear is what kept him in line — not love.

Nevertheless, the strongest convictions about honoring God’s gift of life have been recorded since the first century (and earlier), and there is no reason to expect that those convictions will ever dissipate from Christian thought. Even if they proved to be wrong-headed or poorly motivated (and I do not know if they are either — in any case), asking someone to relinquish what they sincerely believe to be an act of obedience to God is not an option for me. I will always have Christian brothers and sisters who see the issue of IVF from a “Chrysostom perspective,” and I must respect their convictions. However, I do not have to adopt their convictions simply because they are the “safest” interpretations on the table.

The debate over whether one is a murderer (or worse than a murderer) also has the potential to be unbeneficial and inflammatory. Most of us can easily tolerate accepting the responsibility of “small, understandable” sins. But “big” sins really get our attention. Dorothy Sayers offers this insight into our subjective approach to morality: “Perhaps the bitterest commentary on the way in which Christian doctrine has been taught in the last few centuries is the fact that to the majority of people the word ‘immorality’ has come to mean one thing and one thing only. …A man may be greedy and selfish; spiteful, cruel, jealous, and unjust; violent and brutal; grasping, unscrupulous, and a liar; stubborn and arrogant; stupid, morose, and dead to every noble instinct- and still we are ready to say of him that he is not an immoral man” (Sayers 1943, 3). Sayers is talking about sexual sin, but if she were writing today she might just as easily be speaking about murdering babies. It is not to diminish the “big” sins that I bring up this thought. Rather, it is to recalibrate sensibilities to the idea of the equality of human brokenness. I want to discourage the tendency to use outrage as a tool for the kingdom of God. If one little, unreconciled white lie sends a divine image bearer to hell, how outraged do I really need to be about any one isolated sin? Do the “little, understandable” sins not send people to hell, too? Still, the moral questions about IVF remain and deserve to be addressed, even if “the blood of a million fetuses” isn’t the most objective way in which to engage in beneficial discussion.

“IVF and ET involves the destruction of human beings, which is something contrary to the doctrine on the illicitness of abortion previously mentioned” (Ratzinger 1987, Sect.5). The Vatican’s release regarding respect for human life highlights the most problematic element of

IVF: the destruction of human life (if indeed embryos are to be viewed as fully human). The questions surrounding the beginning of human life often have to do with heartbeats or brain function, but an overwhelming majority of biologists agree on another measure: fertilization. “Of those who assessed at least one of the five statements, 96% of participants affirmed at least one (5337 out of 5577) and 4% did not (240 out of 5577)” (Jacobs 2019, 249-250). But must IVF alway involve the destruction of embryos? Wayne Grudem agrees that embryos constitute human life, but he diverges from the Vatican’s position. “…this objection doesn’t rule out all IVF procedures, because the fertilization of multiple eggs is not necessary” (Grudem 2019).

This, of course, centers around a very narrow discussion of the beginnings of human life. Christians value all of life, and not only because God values life, but because God is life. In Genesis 1:29 we see that God gives food to his new creation in order to sustain life from the very beginning. In Luke 22:30 we see that eating and drinking at God’s table in his kingdom is the fulfillment of creation and the image of life eternal. The Greek word for eating in Luke is esthiō (G2068), and its definition is nearly identical to the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:29, ‘āḵlâ (H402). Both involve consuming and devouring in the context of maintaining life. So we worship God not only by valuing the beginning of life, but by remaining in him as we walk by the Spirit, maintaining our physical and spiritual lives with food and his word, and hoping in the immortal new life that awaits us after this physical life departs.

Even the fall of man centers around the idea of the taking of food that has not been provided by God. “It is the image of the world loved for itself, and eating it is the image of life understood as an end in itself” (Schmemman 2018, 23). But communion with God himself, sustaining ourselves not on bread alone, but on his every word, consuming that which consumes all, is perhaps a more comprehensive picture of Life than anything science can offer.

We may be reasonably certain of when biological life begins. Yet it remains quite a leap to assume that the divine image of God, which surely involves some completely unseen elements (i.e. soul and spirit), is necessarily in place at the moment of fertilization. It may be that this doesn’t matter from a moral perspective. But it might. If the entire measure of the human creature as a two or three-part being is not present at the embryonic stage, then perhaps the destruction of embryos is not worse than murder, as Chrysostom suggests.

The story of Onan in Genesis 38 has been scrutinized to no end. Was it the spilling of semen that angered God, as the Mishnah suggests? Was the main point that every sperm is sacred (a la Monty Python)? I don’t believe so. I prefer to imagine the possibility of a motivation so aligned with the heart of God that someone in Onan’s position could have loved his sister-in-law enough to respect her beyond his own physical gratification. He could have provided her with children to continue the family line and care for her in the future. What Onan did was to illustrate perfectly the opposite of selflessness and divine love. I fear we miss the implications of how dehumanizing this was for Tamar, and how the divine anger that Onan incurred was perhaps about him serving only himself while also stealing Tamar’s future from her. It may be challenging to imagine that the average human male could avoid the motive of physical pleasure during sex, and I’m not sure that God requires it. But Onan did more than simply fail to have Tamar’s best interests at heart (or mishandle his seed). He did everything he could to ensure her destruction without actually murdering her. I shudder to imagine what his secret motivations may have been.

However, even though I don’t think the story of Onan is actually about spillage, if I were to participate in IVF, I would still want to ensure that there were no unused embryos. Grudem indicates that this is indeed an option, so it seems wise to choose that route if it is available. However, beyond encouraging others to consider the available information, I would not attempt to convert people to my stance on the issue beyond sharing my own considerations (if they are interested). Neither would I condemn a person who threw away unused embryos. Could it be murder? Sure. I don’t feel like that’s my call to make, though. And while there are those who would say Michael Servetus was not murdered (because heresy was an offense punishable by death in Geneva at the time), that isn’t very satisfying to me. But I do understand that Calvin was doing what he thought he must. So… I won’t condemn him, either.

References

Chrysostom, St. John. 1841. The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, on the Epistle of St.

Paul the Apostle to the Romans / Translated … [by J.B. Morris. England: Parker, 1841. Grudem, Wayne. “How IVF Can Be Morally Right.” 2019.

Jacobs, Stephan A. Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate, Knowledge@UChicago, 2019

Provan, Charles., The Bible and Birth Control (Monongahela, PA: Zimmer Printing, 1989).

Ratzinger, Joseph and Bovone, Alberto (1987) “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, Vatican City 1987,” The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 54: No. 2, Article 7.

Sayers, Dorothy. The Other Six Deadly Sins, Methuen and Co. Ltd., London, 1943.

Schmemman, Aleksandr. 2018. For the Life of the World : Sacraments and Orthodoxy. Yonkers, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Shpancer, Noam. “Is It Really Better To Be Safe Than Sorry?: Fears that are never faced cannot be overcome.” 2020. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/202012/is-it-really-better-be-safe-sorry ?eml

Talmud. The William Davidson Talmud. https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud