Posted on 08/28/2024 9:11:19 PM PDT by Morgana
In vitro fertilization (IVF) has been hailed by some as a “miracle of modern medicine,” a lifeline for couples struggling with infertility. Yet, beneath the surface of this seemingly benevolent technology lies a darker reality—one that betrays a biblical worldview and a true pro-life ethic.
The ethical and moral standard set forth in Scripture is indisputably clear. Life begins at conception, and every human life, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). As such, every embryo is a human life deserving of protection and dignity.
IVF, however, operates on a principle that flagrantly disregards this objective biblical truth. The process typically involves the creation of multiple embryos to increase the likelihood of a successful pregnancy. Yet, not all of these embryos are implanted in the womb. Most are discarded, frozen indefinitely, or used for scientific research, effectively ending their lives.
This inconvenient reality places IVF on the same moral plane as abortion—it is the deliberate termination of human life, a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).
It’s ironic that while the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has struggled to agree on supporting strict anti-abortion measures—especially regarding holding mothers accountable for ending the lives of their unborn children—they have nonetheless acknowledged the serious ethical issues with IVF. In June 2024, the SBC decisively acted on this recognition by passing a resolution that formally opposes the practice of IVF.
This resolution reaffirms the biblical understanding that life begins at conception and condemns any practice that results in the destruction of embryos. It was a necessary and righteous stand, one that aligns with the commitment to the sanctity of life that the pro-life movement must uphold. Yet, not everyone within the evangelical community has heeded this call to moral consistency.
Jeremiah J. Johnston, New Testament Scholar and apologist and Southern Baptist pastor at Prestonwood Baptist Church, has taken a position not only in opposition to Southern Baptists but also in contradiction to the clear moral teachings of Scripture. In a recent article published by Fox News, Johnston attempts to defend IVF, recounting his own personal journey with infertility and how IVF allowed him and his wife to “become parents.”
In this article, he frames IVF as a “modern medical miracle” and even goes so far as to suggest that the pro-life movement should embrace IVF as a means of helping couples fulfill their “God-given desire” to have children.
Let’s not be swayed by Johnston’s emotional appeal. His support for IVF is, in reality, a clear betrayal of the pro-life cause. While he claims to stand for the sanctity of life, he conveniently ignores that IVF leads to the creation and destruction of multiple embryos—each one a unique human life created in God’s image. How can someone who claims to value life endorse a process that treats it as expendable?
Johnston’s attempt at the defense of the indefensible is riddled with contradictions and logical fallacies. First, he asserts that an embryo “is not synonymous with a child” until it successfully attaches to the womb, as if the location of the embryo somehow determines its humanity.
This is a deeply flawed and unbiblical view and at complete odds with the prevailing conservative pro-life movement. Life begins at conception, regardless of whether the embryo is in the womb or in a laboratory. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of the pro-life ethic.
Johnston’s attempt to brush aside the destruction of embryos in IVF by suggesting that not all embryos become children is nothing but a clever dodge. The truth is simple: every embryo is a distinct human life, and deliberately ending any of those lives is an act of murder. It’s a moral wrong that no Christian—especially a pastor—should ever attempt to justify or excuse.
Johnston also makes the outrageous claim that opposing IVF is “counter-productive” to the pro-life movement. He argues that pro-life supporters should back IVF to help couples conceive, as if achieving pregnancy at any cost is justifiable.
This line of thinking is both dangerous and morally bankrupt. The pro-life movement is built on the uncompromising belief that every human life is sacred and deserving of protection—no matter the situation. To compromise on this principle for the sake of convenience or personal desire is to abandon the very essence of what it means to be pro-life.
Johnston’s views are not only in direct opposition to the SBC’s resolution but also represent a broader trend of moral compromise within certain segments of the evangelical community. According to a recent Pew Research study, a significant majority of evangelicals—63% of white evangelical Protestants—view access to IVF positively, including many who claim to oppose abortion. A bar chart showing that more adults say IVF access is a good thing than a bad thing, including those who oppose abortion access.
This disturbing statistic reveals a deep-rooted hypocrisy within the pro-life movement. How can these evangelicals, who are quick to condemn abortion, turn a blind eye to the destruction of embryos in IVF? Are they ignorant of the realities of IVF, or are they simply indifferent to the lives of the unborn when it is inconvenient to their personal desires?
Johnston’s story is a glaring example of this hypocrisy in action. He positions himself as a pro-life advocate, yet he espouses views that are fundamentally at odds with the sanctity of life. His support for IVF is not only a personal moral failing but also a public scandal—one that has the potential to mislead countless Christians into accepting a practice that is antithetical to the biblical standard of life.
In the end, any defense of IVF and the destruction of life—embroyes, implanted or note—is a betrayal of the pro-life cause and a contradiction of the biblical principles he claims to uphold. As a pastor, Johnston has a responsibility to shepherd his flock in accordance with Scripture, not in opposition to it.
So another one that twists things and changes their opinions because of something that happens close to them. Then they have a demonic epiphany. SMH.
The real point is whether the destruction of human life from IVF is any different than the murder of a born person. Since science now unequivocally tells us that at conception it is a human being, that should be the starting point for any consideration of this question, not the aftermath.
As I said in another thread on this topic, when we speak of human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle-aged, and old age, these are all simply descriptions of the various stages of human development. Some occur on one side of the birth canal, others on the other side. Some may be imperfect or unwanted by their parents or by society. But all are living human beings. All have an equal human dignity. None should unjustly be deprived of life.
So where do we draw the line at the taking of an innocent human life? What difference does location or stage of human development make? If we lower ourselves to countenance taking the life one category of people for our own convenience and personal satisfaction, who is next?
Before it can become a legal issue, the moral issue has to be addressed. Before there were written laws against pre-meditated murder, there was a general consensus that it was wrong and this was the basis of the law against murder.
Even though it seems clear to me and others that based on the scientific evidence it is rational to conclude that human life begins at conception, it is an unfortunate fact there is doubt or disbelief about this in a large segment of the population. Is it a human life, or isn't it? If it isn't, you can do whatever you want with it. If it is, it should be treated like all other human life. If one simply does not know, it should be given the benefit of the doubt of being human until proved otherwise. It would be akin to seeing a human shaped bag in the middle of the road. If there's a chance there's a human being in there, do you stop or go around it, or just run over it because you don't know? If you are going to err, it's always wise to err on the side of life.
I’ve never really thought about it, but yes, those “unused”, or better, unimplanted, embryos are human beings. There are plenty of children and babies who can be adopted, without having to resort to IVF. I understand a couple’s desire to have their own baby from their own sperm and egg, but IVF should not be.
A La Carte Christianity.
Maybe this person should speak to Molly Gibson.
Just another "useful idiot"
Methinks Johnston sounds an awful lot like the OT Pharisees. He will see the error of his ways, eventually, either the easy way or the hard way.
I pray he opts for the easy way.
Even though it seems clear to me and others that based on the scientific evidence it is rational to conclude that human life begins at conception, it is an unfortunate fact there is doubt or disbelief about this in a large segment of the population. Is it a human life, or isn't it? If it isn't, you can do whatever you want with it. If it is, it should be treated like all other human life. If one simply does not know, it should be given the benefit of the doubt of being human until proved otherwise.
Indeed. If something is detected inside of you, and has human DNA and will shortly become very manifest to be a human person, then you should not treat it as a cancer, but at the least you should value and protect it as much as the egg of a migratory bird, which is illegal to destroy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.