Commentary: Three questions about IVF, frozen embryos and the law

Are frozen embryos in a fertility lab human lives?

When, in the process of development, is biological life recognized by the state as a person deserving of protection from harm by law?

Those questions have thrust Alabama again into the international spotlight. It’s the story you’ve seen and heard about frozen embryos destroyed in a Mobile fertility clinic and the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling this was a wrongful death. The Court ruled, by Alabama law, those frozen embryos are human—“extra-uterine children.”

Many cheered the ruling, while others charged it jeopardizes the opportunity of infertile couples to have biological offspring.

This story has caused me to ponder. Obviously, I’m neither a physician nor a biologist nor an attorney. But as pastor of First Baptist Church in Huntsville, Ala., I feel a responsibility at least to raise questions about a story so important to both my state and my faith.

Why is IVF suddenly at the center of the abortion debate? When does life begin? Should a judge cite the Bible and the wrath of God when issuing a legal opinion?

Question 1

Why is IVF suddenly at the center of the abortion debate?

In vitro comes from Latin and literally means “in glass.” In vitro in this conversation refers to fertilization of the egg outside the female body and in an artificial environment, as in a fertility lab.

The Mayo Clinic describes IVF in the following words: “During in vitro fertilization, mature eggs are collected from ovaries and fertilized by sperm in a lab. Then a procedure is done to place one or more of the fertilized eggs, called embryos, in a uterus, which is where babies develop.”

Women, in an attempt to become pregnant, sometimes take drugs that stimulate the production of several eggs which are, in the IVF process, fertilized. Fertilized eggs are frozen and stored until such a time as the would-be-mother is ready for their implantation.

Unused embryos either are stored (frozen) indefinitely, discarded or donated for research or adoption. There are an estimated 600,000-plus such frozen embryos being stored in U.S. clinics today.

Here is the crux of the matter: Are these frozen, fertilized eggs human lives? The Alabama Supreme Court answered, “Yes, by Alabama law.” Specifically, the Court said, “(Alabama’s) Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.”

Since then, legislation has been introduced in Montgomery that “would seek to prevent a fertilized egg from being recognized as a human life or an unborn child under state laws until it is implanted in a woman’s uterus.”

Significant debates are sure to follow.

Question 2

When does human life begin?

Conception occurs the moment a female egg is fertilized by a male sperm. Plainly put: “Conception (or fertilization) is when sperm and an egg join together.”

I believe the moment of conception is when human life begins. That seems clear to me, both biologically and theologically.

“So, Travis, why do you call No. 2 a question? Didn’t you just tell us you believe the moment the sperm and egg (ovum) unite, a human life begins? That sounds more like a statement than a question.”

I phrase it in the form of a question to acknowledge not all agree with me that true human life, complete with a soul, begins at conception. Many make a distinction between biological life (which begins at conception) and human life (some prefer “personhood”). They would contend human life—personhood—begins at some later stage of pre-natal development.

Many suggest human life begins with a detectable heartbeat or with brain-wave activity. Some assert the unborn becomes human when the baby is “viable,” or can live outside the womb. Others would say it is when the baby first moves inside the womb. Many contend a fetus develops a sense of consciousness at around 35 weeks, and that is the moment personhood begins.

The lack of consensus among those who want to pinpoint a moment at which the fetus takes on “personhood” is noteworthy. It seems to me the burden of proof is on those who believe human life begins at some time after conception. And who has the authority to make that judgment?

I believe the matter is so grave that any potential erring should be in favor of the assumption human life or personhood begins at conception. To me, it is rather audacious to gamble that in the mind of our Creator life begins at some subjective point in the development of the child.

An intriguing question I have come across is, “When did Jesus’ human life begin?” Was it not the point at which he was conceived by the Holy Spirit? If his human life began at the moment of the miraculous conception, then it seems to me all life begins at conception.

And yet my position is not without its complications, particularly in the case of IVF. I understand those who would say, “It is not human life outside the womb.” A number of pro-life people believe an embryo in a fertility lab is merely the potential for human life.

George Annas proposed the following hypothetical situation:

If a fire broke out in a fertility lab and there was only time to save a visiting two-month-old baby in a bassinet or a test tube rack containing seven embryos, most people would save the baby without hesitation. Yet carrying out the test tube rack instead could have saved seven people, if indeed each embryo were a person (Waters and Cole-Turner, eds. God and the Embryo, p. 82).

Annas’ hypothetical forces me to own up to the complexity of this matter.

I’m not the only one who is torn. Lots of folks are torn between their anti-abortion stance and their support of couples having IVF as an option.

It’s complicated.

Question 3

Should a judge authoritatively cite the Bible, Christian theologians and the wrath of God when issuing a legal opinion?

I appreciate Chief Justice Tom Parker’s devotion to the Christian faith, as well as his legal expertise. I read his concurring opinion regarding the case of the embryos, and I was surprised he would use so much ink in a legal document drawing authority from what I would call spiritual matters.

For several pages Parker cites verses from the Bible, quotes Christian theologians Van Mastricht, Aquinas, Augustine and Calvin, and, oddly to me, appeals to the Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.

Parker raised some eyebrows with his own declaration: “(H)uman life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself” (Supreme Court of Alabama, SC-2022-0515, p.37)

Parker is not the simple-minded Bible thumper so many commentators have made him out to be. He grounds his comments solidly in the preamble to the Alabama Constitution, which states we all are endowed with life by our Creator.

And yet, it appears to me Parker confused the matter by bringing in so many of his personal religious beliefs. He also made lots of folks wonder how—and whether—his voluminous religious statements fit with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits both the repression and the advancement of religion.

Early Baptists such as Isaac Backus and John Leland are given a lot of credit for the First Amendment, and that makes me proud to be a Baptist.

I said earlier I believe life begins at conception. And yet, I wonder if Chief Justice Parker’s injection of so many religious citations into his legal opinion was appropriate. You probably can tell I doubt it was.

In the words of George W. Truett, “Christ’s religion needs no prop of any kind from any worldly source, and to the degree that it is thus supported is a millstone hanged about its neck.”

Travis Collins is senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Huntsville, Ala. The views expressed are those of the author.