The "adultery" issue is not the only thing the WTS brings up as a barrier to in vitro even if the husband's sperm and wife's egss are used.
*** w12 12/15 pp. 14-16 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
Before coming to a knowledge of the truth, my wife and I submitted to in vitro fertilization because of our desire to have a baby. Not all our fertilized eggs (embryos) were used; some were frozen and stored. Must they be retained, or may they be disposed of?
▪ This is but one of many weighty moral/ethical issues that couples face if they choose to submit to in vitro fertilization (IVF). Each couple is responsible before Jehovah to decide what to do. It might help, though, to get an overview of this assisted reproductive technology.
In 1978 a woman in England became the first to bear what many called a test-tube baby. She had not been able to conceive because her Fallopian tubes were blocked, not allowing sperm to meet with her egg(s). Medical personnel surgically harvested a mature egg from her, placed it in a glass dish, and fertilized it with her husband’s sperm. The resulting embryo was allowed to develop in nutrients and then inserted into her womb, where it implanted. In time, she had a baby girl. The procedure, and variations of it, came to be called in vitro (in glass) fertilization, or IVF.
While details may vary from country to country, generally IVF involves the following: The wife is given potent fertility drugs for weeks to stimulate her ovaries to produce numerous eggs. The husband may be asked to provide fresh sperm by masturbation. The eggs and washed sperm are combined in the laboratory. Multiple eggs may get fertilized and begin to divide, becoming human embryos. After a day or so, these nascent embryos are carefully examined in an effort to distinguish between any that are defective and those that seem to be healthy and most likely to implant and develop. About the third day, it is common to transfer into the wife’s womb not one but two or three of the best embryos so as to increase the chance of a pregnancy. If one or more implant, she is pregnant, and it is expected that she will in time give birth.
But what of embryos that were not transferred, including ones that appeared less healthy or even defective? If left alone, those excess embryos would soon cease to be viable. Before that occurs, the extra embryos may be frozen in liquid nitrogen. Why? If the first IVF attempt failed, some of those reserve embryos could be used in a subsequent IVF cycle at a lower cost. However, this raises ethical issues. As with the couple who presented the question above, many struggle to decide what to do with their frozen embryos. They may not want more children. The parents’ ages or finances may not favor another attempt. They may fear the risks associated with a multiple pregnancy. Or the death or remarriage of one or both mates may complicate things. Yes, concerns abound, and as a result, some couples keep paying storage fees for years.
In 2008, a chief embryologist noted in The New York Times that many patients were genuinely torn about what to do with the extra embryos. The article said: “At least 400,000 embryos are frozen at clinics around the country, with more being added every day . . . Embryos can remain viable for a decade or more if they are frozen properly but not all of them survive when they are thawed.” (Italics ours.) That latter fact gives some Christians reason to pause and consider. Why?
Christian couples who face issues raised by IVF may well reflect on the implications of a different medical situation. A Christian might have to decide what to do about a loved one who is in a terminal situation and who is being sustained by artificial life support, such as a ventilator to keep breathing. True Christians oppose medical neglect; in line with Exodus 20:13 and Psalm 36:9, they hold life in high regard. Awake! of May 8, 1974, stated: “Because they respect God’s view of the sanctity of life, out of regard for their own consciences and in obedience to governmental laws, those desiring to conform their lives to Bible principles would never resort to positive euthanasia,” which is a deliberate act to end a patient’s life. In some situations, though, life-support technology is the only thing sustaining a loved one. Family members must decide whether to continue or to discontinue that artificial life support.
True, that is not the same as the situation faced by a couple who employed IVF and now have stored embryos. But one option that may be offered to them is that of removing the embryos from the nitrogen freezer, allowing them to thaw. Without the artificial environment of the freezer, the embryos would soon deteriorate to the point of no longer being viable. The couple have to decide whether they will permit that.—Gal. 6:7.
Because a couple submitted to IVF to achieve pregnancy and hopefully have a baby, they might choose to bear the cost of keeping their reserve embryos frozen or they might choose to use them in a future IVF attempt to have a child. However, another couple might decide that they can stop the maintenance of the frozen embryos, viewing them as being kept viable only by artificial means. Christians facing this decision are responsible before God to use their Bible-trained conscience. Their desire should be to have an untroubled conscience, while not ignoring the conscience of others.—1 Tim. 1:19.
One expert in reproductive endocrinology found that most couples “were confused yet deeply affected by the responsibility of deciding what to do with their [frozen] embryos.” He concluded: “For many couples, it seems there is no good decision.”
Clearly, true Christians even considering IVF should evaluate all the serious implications of this technology. The Bible counsels: “A shrewd person sees danger and hides himself, but the naive keep right on going and suffer for it.”—Prov. 22:3, NET Bible.
*** w81 6/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
In recent years I have read of “test-tube” babies being born. What is the Biblical view of the procedure used in this?
First, let us briefly consider what reportedly has occurred, as illustrated by the first instance, which took place in England.
The woman was unable to conceive normally because of a problem with her Fallopian tubes, through which the egg cell must pass to reach the uterus. So by minor surgery scientists extracted one of her ripe eggs and placed it in a laboratory dish with sustaining nutrients. Her husband’s semen was added and fertilization occurred. After some days the group of growing cells (blastocyst) was carefully introduced into her uterus where it grew normally, and a baby was delivered.
In this case the sperm and the egg came from husband and wife. This is noteworthy from the Biblical standpoint. Why? Because of a law God gave to the ancient Israelites: “You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it.” (Lev. 18:20, 29) That law was given when modern artificial insemination and “test-tube-” baby procedures were not available; yet it does indicate God’s thinking.
From the Bible we must conclude that if conception is accomplished with the sperm and an egg not from husband and wife, it would amount to adultery or fornication. The Scriptures leave no doubt as to God’s view of such: “God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Heb. 13:4; Matt. 19:9) But what if a married couple who had not otherwise succeeded in having children were offered the possibility of submitting to the procedure described above? Here are some aspects to be considered:
Would all the mechanical steps involved—with conception occurring in a laboratory dish—make the matter seem so unnatural or bizarre as to be ethically objectionable to them?
The egg in the dish (before and after fertilization) is sustained by nutrients. In at least some of the cases that have already occurred blood serum was used as the nutrient. Thus God’s law on blood comes into the picture.—Acts 15:28, 29; Lev. 17:13, 14.
News accounts say that in some cases after conception scientists have destroyed the fertilized egg because they believed that it would not develop properly or would have genetic defects. If so, would this not be the equivalent of abortion? And to what extent would the “parents” have a voice in or responsibility for such a termination of a newly begun life?
Furthermore, some scientists are concerned about genetic abnormalities appearing, either during development in the womb or later.
These are aspects that a Christian would appropriately want to consider, though recognizing that in the final analysis a personal decision would have to be made.
[Footnotes]
See The Watchtower of August 1, 1977, pages 478-480.