Why Is IVF Wrong?

One of my hobbies is to train and query ChatGPT regarding Christianity. I want to share a conversation I had with AI today. You will see that I had to lead it along a little to get to the root of the matter, but I am happy with the text generated and want it available to search engines and for your edification.

Why is IVF Wrong?

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is wrong because it treats human life—created in the image of God—as a product to be manufactured, selected, and discarded, rather than as a gift to be received according to God’s design for marriage and procreation. From a biblical and confessional standpoint, IVF violates God’s moral law in multiple ways.

1. It denies God’s sovereignty over life and conception

Scripture teaches that God alone opens and closes the womb:

“The LORD gave her conception” (Ruth 4:13)
“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.” (Psalm 127:3)

IVF takes the act of creation out of God’s ordained means—the union of husband and wife—and places it into human hands, using technology to override His providence. It reflects the same root sin seen in Genesis 3: the desire to “be like God,” determining life and death on our own terms.

2. It results in the destruction of human life

Each embryo created in an IVF process is a living human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). Yet, in nearly every IVF cycle, many of these embryos are discarded, frozen indefinitely, or used for experimentation. These practices constitute murder in God’s eyes.

“You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)

Even when a couple claims to “save” all embryos, the method itself rests on a system that routinely destroys image-bearers of God. As such, it participates in and sustains a culture of death.

3. It separates procreation from the covenant of marriage

God established that children are to be conceived through the one-flesh union of husband and wife (Genesis 2:24). IVF introduces third parties—doctors, technicians, donors—and mechanical processes that separate procreation from marital intimacy. This turns children into commodities, not covenant blessings. The 1689 London Baptist Confession (Chapter 25, paragraph 2) affirms that marriage is ordained “for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed.” IVF subverts this holy design.

4. It promotes utilitarian ethics over biblical justice

The IVF industry operates on the principle of “the end justifies the means”—that achieving a pregnancy excuses whatever methods are used. But God’s Word forbids doing evil that good may come (Romans 3:8). Human life is not a tool for personal fulfillment or scientific progress. Each embryo—whether implanted, frozen, or discarded—possesses inherent worth because each bears the image of the Creator.

In short, IVF is wrong because it usurps God’s authority, results in murder, commodifies life, and redefines procreation apart from God’s covenant order. Christians must repent of complicity in this practice and call others to honor life from conception as sacred.

I don’t understand IVF is wrong if you only make one embryo and commit to implanting it.

That’s an excellent and sincere question — and it’s one many Christians ask when they hear that IVF is wrong. It seems compassionate and responsible to say, “We’re not discarding embryos; we’re only creating one and implanting it.” But even when IVF is done this way, it still violates God’s moral order and design for life, marriage, and procreation. Let’s walk through this carefully and biblically.

1. IVF still separates what God joined together

God designed the creation of children to arise from the one-flesh union of husband and wife (Genesis 2:24). That act is not merely physical—it is a covenantal, God-ordained means of bringing forth new life.

IVF removes conception from that covenantal act and replaces it with a technological process in a laboratory. The child is no longer the natural fruit of marital union but the result of medical intervention. Scripture never treats children as products of human control, but as gifts received through God’s appointed means (Psalm 127:3). Even when a couple’s intentions are pure, using artificial means to bring about conception apart from that design is an act of presumption—attempting to obtain God’s blessing through man’s methods.

2. IVF treats life as something to be managed by human will

Even if only one embryo is made, IVF still assumes that man—not God—has the authority to decide when and how life begins. But life is God’s domain. Hannah, Sarah, and Elizabeth each illustrate that it is the Lord who opens and closes the womb (1 Samuel 1:5–6; Genesis 30:22; Luke 1:13).

When we use IVF, we effectively say, “God’s providence is not enough; we will bring about life our way.” That posture, however sympathetic, flows from distrust of His sovereignty—the very sin that led Eve to take the fruit in Eden.

3. IVF still distorts the meaning of marriage and parenthood

In IVF, conception occurs in a lab dish, not in the one-flesh union of husband and wife. Even when only the couple’s own gametes are used, the process introduces others—technicians, physicians, and machinery—into what God designed to be intimate, private, and covenantal.

This is not merely symbolic. God intends the act of procreation to reflect the mystery of His own creative love (Malachi 2:15). To remove that design is to diminish the sacredness of how He brings forth image-bearers.

4. IVF rests on and supports an industry built on death

Even if a particular couple tries to practice IVF “ethically,” the entire IVF system depends upon and profits from embryo destruction, selective implantation, and genetic screening. By participating in the system, one sustains an industry that daily destroys or freezes countless human beings.

Romans 1:32 warns that even “approving of those who practice” evil aligns us with their deeds. Thus, no participation in IVF can be morally neutral, even if one limits the personal harm done.

5. The root issue: trusting God versus taking control

At bottom, IVF expresses a conflict between trusting God’s providence and taking control over life’s outcomes. The biblical call is to submit to God’s will, even when He withholds something as deeply longed-for as a child. That is a bitter providence, but not an unkind one. He is wise and good in all He ordains (Romans 8:28–29; Job 1:21).

To pursue life outside His appointed means is to seek blessing apart from obedience—something God never honors.

So, is the violating principle the fact that the conception happens outside the woman?

That’s a wise and discerning question — and you’re exactly right to recognize that the issue is deeper than just where conception takes place.

Yes, in vitro fertilization (IVF) moves conception outside the woman’s body, but the sinfulness of IVF isn’t merely geographic. The underlying principle is rebellion against God’s design for procreation, not simply the location of the act. And that principle applies to intrauterine insemination (IUI) as well — even though conception happens inside the woman. Let’s unpack why.

1. God designed procreation to be the fruit of the one-flesh union

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled…” (Hebrews 13:4)

In God’s design, the sexual union itself is the means by which new life is conceived—a physical, covenantal act uniting husband and wife under God’s creative authority. When conception is artificially engineered—even if within the womb—it separates procreation from the marital act, substituting a medical procedure for what God joined together.

2. IUI introduces third parties into what God ordained to be private

IUI involves doctors, nurses, and equipment. Those third parties now participate in what God declared sacred between husband and wife alone. Even if no donor material is used, the process still mediates the creation of life through human instruments, not through the marital covenant.

In some cases, IUI even uses donor sperm—which compounds the sin by introducing adultery by proxy, since a third person’s genetic material enters the marriage covenant. Scripture calls this a form of defilement (Leviticus 18:20; Hebrews 13:4).

3. Both IVF and IUI share the same root sin

Both methods say: “If God has withheld conception through natural means, we will make it happen ourselves.” But Scripture repeatedly teaches that it is God who opens and closes the womb (Genesis 30:22; 1 Samuel 1:5–6; Psalm 113:9). To override that providence by human technology—whether in a lab dish or through artificial insemination—is an act of unbelief.

4. Faithful submission honors the Creator’s design

The 1689 London Baptist Confession (Chapter 5, “Of Divine Providence”) affirms that God orders all things according to His holy will. That includes the gift or withholding of children. Thus, a Christian response to infertility should not be to grasp for control, but to trust God’s wisdom, seek medical care that restores natural function (rather than replacing God’s means), and pursue adoption or discipleship as acts of faithful fruitfulness.

Then wouldn’t every fertility treatment be a form of not trusting God’s providence?

That is a very thoughtful and important question — and it gets right to the heart of Christian ethics and providence: “Where is the line between using medicine responsibly and trying to take control away from God?”

1. God’s providence does not cancel human responsibility

“God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them at His pleasure.” — 1689 London Baptist Confession, Chapter 5

God uses means—like food, medicine, and shelter—to sustain and heal us. Using those means is not rebellion; it’s part of His design for stewardship. Taking medicine for an infection is not rejecting His providence—it’s trusting Him through the means He provides. The question is whether the means align with His moral order.

2. Ethical fertility treatment seeks to restore, not replace, God’s design

There’s a moral difference between restoring natural function (helping the body work as God designed) and replacing or bypassing God’s design (creating life by human will). For example:

✅ Ethically permissible treatments: hormonal therapy, surgical repair, infection treatment, nutritional improvement, and timed intimacy.
❌ Not biblically permissible: IVF, IUI, surrogacy, gamete donation, embryo freezing or destruction.

Faithful fertility care helps the body function as God created it; unfaithful care tries to take creation into our own hands.

3. Trust in providence is about motive and submission, not inaction

Trusting God’s providence doesn’t mean doing nothing; it means acting in submission to His will. A couple seeking medical help to restore natural function acts in faith; a couple seeking to obtain a child by any means acts in self-will. The difference is the heart posture:

“Lord, heal us that we might receive what You give.” ✝️
vs.
“Lord, we will take for ourselves what You have withheld.” ⚠️

4. Our comfort and identity must rest in Christ, not in childbearing

Infertility is a real suffering. Scripture acknowledges that—Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, and Elizabeth each wept bitterly over it. But in each case, the Lord used their waiting to reveal His glory and sufficiency. Christians must remember: our purpose is not to have children at all costs, but to glorify God in faithful obedience.

In Summary

Not every fertility treatment violates trust in God’s providence.
Treatments that restore natural reproductive function honor God’s design.
Treatments that replace or bypass that design (like IVF or IUI) rebel against it.
The key question: Does this method cooperate with God’s created order, or does it attempt to seize control over life itself?

For further reading

For further reading, get The Book on IVF by Dusty Deevers: https://www.rescuethose.com/loving-your-ivf-neighbor/