Approximately 3 million babies worldwide have been born by aid of assisted reproductive technology. By far, socially and politically, this has come to be one of the touchiest subjects to confront our society.

When in discussion, opponents and proponents of this scientific breakthrough are inclined to utilize official documents of foundational authority, such as the U.S. Constitution or the Christian Bible as their compass regarding the issue. The problem remains that IVF is nowhere to be found in documents such as these. It is a uniquely modern phenomenon that has to be examined through modern moral standards, a problem within itself.

A pragmatic approach to this topic begins with scientific research and data. Carmen Sapienza, a geneticist at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, discovered that babies conceived by way of assisted reproductive technology were at higher risk of low birth weight, which can lead to chronic disorders such as obesity and type 2 diabetes.

While this result did not affect the majority of children studied, it nonetheless presents a situation where scientists have defaulted to statistics. The majority of healthy babies overshadow those who were affected genetically by the process.

To be clear, there are always risks involved even when a child is conceived naturally, but the fact remains that those conceived through IVF are at a higher risk. If this practice flourishes on a grand scale, there would statistically be more people with health defects because of their birth condition. Statistics and chance do not justify this as a moral achievement.

A Christian response to the morality of IVF can be interpreted, not explicitly understood, in the Bible. In Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus proclaims to his disciples the dangers of adultery. In verse 28, he says that any man who has looked at a woman with lust in his mind has committed a sin, regardless if they do not act upon it. This directly corresponds to sperm donors who are involved in IVF births. It is not the entire system that is immoral, but this one facet. And it is enough to argue that because a branch of IVF is spiritually immoral, the whole system suffers de facto.

Sperm donation can lead to heterologous insemination, where the donor is not the woman’s husband. Men are morally at fault in some fashion the moment they decide to become part of the process in this way. It is difficult to speak for those who simply cannot have children, who want children, and have to resort to IVF. I am not condemning the practice but rather providing a framework of fair discussion.

The children born by way of IVF are in no way different from any other child, and rightfully so. As a matter of fact, they are in danger of facing a potential social and psychological indifference to their peers once older. It is because of this that we as a whole should remind ourselves the beauty of individualism, that we are fundamentally no better than anyone else at face value.

While it is difficult to underscore IVF’s impact in the scientific community or its worth to those who cannot produce children naturally, it is worth examining the practice from a moral perspective, and how IVF has forever altered the once-revered limits on mankind’s ingenuity.