LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 356

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

356

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

involves the intrusion of a third party into this one-flesh union and is
contrary to the will of God. For the same reason surrogate wombs must
not be used.

Because the unborn are persons in God’s sight from the time of concep-
tion Job 10:9-11; Ps. 41:5; 139:13-17; Jer. 1:5, Luke 1:41—+4), all fertilized
eggs must be returned to the womb of the woman. Any experimenta-
tion with, destruction of, or storage of unneeded or defective fertlized
eggs fails to accord respect and reverence for new life brought into
being by God at the moment of conception and is contrary to his will
The same considerations preclude any agreement to permit the inter-
Tupnon of an IVF pregnancy for any reason other than to prevent the
death of the mother.>

In the previous cases we have noted Oliver O’ Donovan's objections
that when reproductive technologies divorce procreation from sexual inti-
macy in marriage, we risk turning children into projects and products. A
related concer is that in vitro fertilization is such a complete technological
intrusion into the mystery of the creation of new human beings that use of
this technology may inevitably lead to practices no Christian could affirm.

Other Christians, however, remind us of the long and rich history of
human use of God's gifts in the overcoming of disease and disability. Thev
caution that we not precipitously oppose medical advances simply
because possibilities of abuse are present in addition to possibilities of
blessing.

Your group may wish to discuss these and other considerations as you
think about how the church should advise a couple like Beth and Zachary.

CLOSURE

The Commission is troubled about the potential for abuse opened up
by this technology. We understand why some Christians urge us simply to
reject the entire practice. But we are reluctant to locate the problems that
arise simply in the medical technique itself and to suggest that Christians
could never faithfully use it

Our discussion of the previous cases outlined the scriptural basis for
taking into account the divinely established one-flesh union of marriage.
We agree with the synodical representatives who argued that faithful use
of in vitre technology will involve sperm and eggs only from within the
marriage. This conclusion is consistent with the advice we offered in the
cases involving surrogacy and artificial insemination by donor.

* In Vitro Fertilization. A Report of the Division of Theological Studies of the Lutheran
Counctl of the US.A.,, 1988, 31-32

at every stage can be enhanced also by reflection on the biblical themes
conceming marriage and procreation.

First, in the biblical perspective the dignity and worth of the members
of a family are not based on their inherent genetic properties or developed
talents. Instead, God gives us to one another and commends us to mutual
care for each other. One's spouse is loved as that person to whom one has
been joined by God. One's children are received as gifts from the same God.
One's parents are honored because God has placed them in that role. A con-
scious decision not to nurture an embryo procreated from within a mar-
riage is tantamount to a decision not to nurture a gift given by God. Such a
decision would seem to encourage the notion that familial relationships are
conditioned primarily on human choice rather than on God’s gifts.

Second, God does and permits many things that we are not permitted
to do. God permits marriages to end through untimely illness or accident.
Sometimes illness or accident take a young child from loving parents. In the
mystery of the beginnings of life God does in fact permut natural causes to
end pregnancies. None of these events vet establishes that spouses are to
separate what God has joined, or that parents or children are permitted to
end their human relationship, or that we may consciously choose to exclude
from the womb an embryo or fetus whose life seers problematic to us.

Third, we are sympathetic to the argument that the church should wel-
come medica! technology that expands our ability to cure and to care. But
we do not see how this commits us to technologies that cut embryonic lives
short in the name of caring, regardless as to whether the care is for couples
thought to be infertile or for embryos affected by genetic disease. In our
“culture of death” Christians must be alert to and must reject arguments
purporting to show that actively ending a human life is the best wav to
express our care for one another.

Fourth, we believe that the biblical witness puts the highest premium
on the institution of marriage and on the closely related mystery of pro-
creation within this one-flesh union. When embryos explicitly created from
within a marriage are denied the possibility of nurture in the womb that
God created to receive them, then the unique and sacred expression in the
embryo of the one-flesh union of marriage is subject to distortion and
diminution.

In our discussion of surrogacy we noted that some surrogacy propos-
als involve in vitro fertilization using gametes from married, but childless,
partners. We acknowledged that in such proposals the embryo would be
conceived within the context of the one-flesh union of the marriage. But we
also noted that the implantation of the embryo and the gestation of the
child in another woman's womb continue to locate some of the most inti-
mate features of the marital and the parental relationship outside the one-
flesh union of husband and wife. We recognize that generous and even
sacrificial motives can be at work when, for example, a woman proposes to
carry a child for her sister who is unable to do so. Troublesome questions
remain, however, regarding the implications of such a way of proceeding
for the one-flesh union of a married couple.”

We find that another deeply troubling aspect of in vitro fertilization is
the way in which it intentionally puts embryos at risk for never being nur-
tured in the womb. We noted above how, for a variety of reasons, some
versions of this technology include a conscious intention not to nurture all
of the fertilized eggs.

If we affirm that “the living but unborn are persons in the sight of God
from the time of conception,”* the problem of “spare” embry‘os is seen to
be of the utmost seriousness. We acknowledge and carefully note that
some people, including some thoughtful Christians, offer arguments in
favor of not implanting all fertilized eggs. These arguments are based, in
part, on the observation that the natural processes of pregnancy eliminate
many fetuses. Moreover, attention is called to the phenomenon of twin-
ning and the indeterminate personhood of the embryo in its earliest stages.
These arguments deserve careful attention because they raise questions
about the status of the unborn from the time of conception.

We will not here restate or amplify the arguments concerning the sta-
tus of the unborn that are presented in the Commission’s 1984 report on
Abortion in Perspective.” We do, however, think that respect for the unborn

“A number of our concerns are echoed by Leon Kass, who claims that such considera
tions should be visible also to persons “not informed by any particular ... religious teach-
ing.” He writes: “Properly understood, the largely universal taboo against incest, and also
the prohibitions against adultery, defend the integnty of marnage, kinship, and especially
the lines of origin and descent. These time-honored restraints implicitly teach that clarity
about who your parents are, clarity in the lines of generation, clarity about who is whose,
are the indispensable foundations of a sound family life, itself the sound foundation of civi-
lized community. Clarity about your origins is crucial for self-identity, itself unportant for
self-respect. It would be, in my view, deplorable public policy to erode further such funda-
mental beliefs, values, institutions, and practices. This means, concretely, no encouragement
of embryo adoption or especially of surrogate pregnancy” (Leon Kass, Toward a More Natur-
al Science: Biology and Human Affairs, 102, 113)

* 1986 Resolution 3-21 “To Reaffirm the Position of the Synod on Abortion.” 1986 Con-
aention Proceedings. 148.

™ Abortion in Perspectixe, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions, 1984

38

In Summary

Christians who are convinced that the “unborn child developing
within the mother’s body is clearly a human being entitled to our care and
protection” will recognize the limitations required by this principle in
the practice of in vitro fertilization. Christians who take seriously the awe-
inspiring institution of marriage as God’s Word describes it will also rec-
ognize that in vitro fertilization brings many temptations to act without
trusting God and to pursue goals the world holds before us without suf-
ficient attention to God's Word.

CONCLUSION

The Commission offers this document to the church as a resource for
examining and connecting Christian faith with practical choices in procre-
ative ethics. We hope that as you or your group worked your wavy through
these pages you were helped in several ways.

We have tried to raise some of the most important questions related to
procreative choices and to provide resources for addressing these ques-
tions. We realize that we have not begun to take up all the questions that
need to be asked. For this reason, our goal has been not simply to provide
answers, but also to help members of the body of Christ practice biblically
disciplined moral reasoning and to do so under the guidance of God’s
Word.

We have tried to offer help for considering the significance of the dis-
agreements inevitably involved in our wrestling with difficult choices. We
have been pointed continually to God’s grace and forgiveness. But as peo~
ple living by grace, we have also pondered God's guidance and sought
truitful ways to apply that guidance to the complexities of life in a world
made difficult by sin.

The future portends rapid change and development in both technolo-
gy and society concerning marriage, family, and procreation. We pray that
the Lord of the church will keep his people faithful to his will as we greet
and reflect on each new choice presented to us.

“ Abortion in Perspective, 33