Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Part I

---

“Because We Want More Babies” — President Trump Announces IVF Expansion, But the End Does Not Justify the Means

The issue of in vitro fertilization, IVF, test tube babies very much on the front pages because of a statement made yesterday by the president of the United States, as Donald Trump made very clear that he had signed an executive order, which is intended to work throughout the federal government, to remove obstacles, to expand access, and to reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization. So many worldview issues immediately invoked here. It is important to look at one of the statements made by the president. He said that he was signing this order, “Because we want more babies, to put it very nicely.” The president continued, “And for the same reason, we will also allow new parents to deduct major newborn expenses from their taxes so that parents that have a beautiful baby will be able, so we’re pro-family. But the IVF treatments are expensive. It’s very hard for many people to do it and to get it, but I’ve been in favor of IVF right from the beginning.” 

Now, this is a president who has taken so many bold actions through executive orders, and frankly, so many of them have been absolutely necessary and I believe Christians should celebrate them and be thankful for them. This is one that requires us to think very carefully.

On the one hand, thinking very carefully, and thinking very biblically, we agree wholeheartedly with the president when he says, “We want more babies.” The fall-off on the birth rate is one very, very dangerous indicator of the secularization of the culture and the subversion of marriage and the very subversion of the first command given to the man and the woman in the garden, which was “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” We are looking at a birth dearth, as it has been described. We’re looking at a fall-off on the birth rate that will be absolutely catastrophic.

The president understands that, and in his repeated statements, I think he understands it at several levels. He understands it as president of the United States. He understands it as someone who, by the way, has been in business, fall-off on the birth rate is going to have devastating impact on business, on the economy, and on the health of the nation. But I think he’s also speaking here as a grandfather as well as a father, and it’s clear he finds great satisfaction in his grandchildren. This is the way that it should be.

And thus, when the president says, “We want more babies,” I want to say bravo on any effort undertaken by the federal government within its proper bounds to encourage having more babies. And most importantly, that would mean removing obstacles in the tax code and at every level of government to facilitate a young man and a young woman who are married to each other having babies, having as many babies to the glory of God that they may have. So in terms of that primary worldview commitment, let’s just be very clear, having more babies is an absolutely good thing.

The technology the president was pushing here is a different story, and we need to think about it very carefully. Because agreeing with the president that we need more babies, we can understand why just about anything that would lead to more babies might be greeted as a good thing. But here’s where, as we talked about IVF in the past, Christians have to think Christianly and biblically in a way that requires a little more energy than might be the case on other issues.

Specifically, by the way, the president and the White House made reference to the cost of IVF treatments, which they said can range from $12,000 to $25,000 per cycle. They talk about the absence of coverage for IVF in many insurance plans, particularly for employees, but for others as well in different insurance contexts. The president, according to the White House, promised to advance IVF and help American families with the cost in order to liberate more families to make use of IVF.

I want you to note something very carefully here. The White House did not define the family in this policy, and we can understand it can’t define everything in every policy, but we do have to understand that when there’s a reference to IVF and to families, in the main, you’re looking at the fact that for many people for whom IVF is the only option, it’s the only option because they are not in the context of marriage, biblically defined. We’re talking about an awful lot of single people who are making use of this, so that it’s children without marriage, and we’re talking about same-sex couples and an entire industry of IVF and of surrogacy and all the rest.

The worldview issues though just loom, they loom large over this in a way we can’t turn our heads from, we can’t divert our eyes from this. This is something we need to understand. We understand the deep desire on the part of couples to have babies. We understand that. We understand that from the experience that many couples have struggled with infertility or at least with the difficulty of having babies when they expected to have babies. So again, let me just state clearly that when I’m talking about this as righteous, I’m talking about babies within the context of biblically defined marriage.

Part II

---

The Moral Risk and Moral Wrong Behind IVF: The Problem of Abstracting Sex From Reproduction

Now, the problem when it comes to IVF begins with a Christian worldview principle, a Christian moral principle, which comes down to abstraction. Abstraction means that something is taken out of its proper context. So abstraction, the biblical worldview would remind us, brings moral risk. The greater the abstraction, the greater the moral risk. At some point that moral risk tips over into something that is a very significant moral wrong.

So just to put the matter as clearly as I can, in Biblical terms, when you start with a man and a woman who are married to one another and they seek to have a child, and within the marital relationship a child comes as gift, there is nothing abstracted there at all. Nothing’s abstracted from the context because the context is marriage. It was to Adam and Eve the first couple as the paradigm of marriage that God said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” That’s obedience. That’s completion. That’s wholeness. No abstraction. No problem.

But if you abstract anything beyond that point, you’re bringing in moral risk and moral danger. So that’s to say that when you’re talking about marriage, let’s just say that we’re talking about the marital act, and so anything abstracted from the marital act brings a certain kind of moral risk.

Now, this could include, for example, artificial insemination, AI, as it has been called. But the abstraction’s at a fairly low level of risk there because you’re talking about the husband’s cells and the woman’s cell and you’re talking about the husband’s cells being placed within his wife. And so you look at that and you say, “That’s a bit of abstraction.” It’s abstracted from the marital act. There may be reasons including obstacles to fertilization that might be overcome in that way, but you are talking about a very clear limitation of the total picture to the man and the woman in marriage to their own reproductive cells and to the process of fertilization taking place within the mother, within the wife.

Now, something a lot of Christians don’t think about is that there is a level of abstraction which leads to significant moral risk with the use of many aids, for example in ovulation, because you might end up with a multiple pregnancy. You might end up not just with the pregnancy in terms of one baby but of multiple babies. That’s a risk, but we understand it’s a low moral risk if the couple is going to welcome every single one of those babies. But in the contemporary context of medicine, and now you even have the reproductive medicine as a discipline largely unto itself, you have best practices defined in such a way that medical advice may say you need to reduce, selective reduction, the number of the unborn babies in the womb in such a way that you would actually terminate some, and remove some, the argument is, in order that one or perhaps two babies might flourish. One is the number preferred in terms of general practice.

So Christians understand, well, there is nothing necessarily wrong with the abstraction of taking the hormonal drug, but if that means that there will be death in the womb by medical intervention thereafter, that’s turned from medical risk into moral wrong.

Now with IVF, you’re talking about a very significant elevation of moral risk in biblical terms because it’s a significant increase in abstraction, because now both cells are outside the human bodies. The fertilization takes place outside the woman’s body. The abstraction gets far worse. And in many cases, in some situations it may be most cases, you’re not even talking about cells that are limited to the man and the woman in marriage at all. In some cases you’re not even talking about marriage, and in other cases you’re talking about a commercial market in reproductive cells that very quickly becomes a catalog in which persons are choosing, “Who would I want to be the father of my child? Who would I want to be the mother of my child?” In the most draconian, scary fashion you can now go to some of these websites and you can look at reproductive cells for sale, and they are graded by quality and they are marked by specific genetic markers, hair color, eye color, and in some cases something like even anticipated athletic ability, as judged by the athletic ability of the donor.

Now, immediately you recognize we are in not just the danger of eugenics, we’re in eugenics, which means the good birth, which means you’re choosing who should live and who should die. You’re going to say, “This is the quality I would expect of a baby.” And in the modern process of reproductive technology, assisted reproductive medicine, let’s face it, an awful lot of this is premised upon the expectation of a certain quality of the baby that might be acceptable.

I don’t mean to minimize at all, and many of us know firsthand, the longing for a baby within the context of marriage. And the president did very clearly identify the fact we want more babies. And in his own words, he very clearly identified the fact that there are many people who have a longing for a baby. Now, here’s where we need to understand that as Christians, the danger of this particular reproductive technology is that marriage is often not in the picture at all. There’s an international market when it comes to, say, women who want babies, but that’s outside the context of marriage. You have same-sex male couples who want babies. Clearly that’s not going to happen unless you have not only the test tube baby, so to speak, the in vitro fertilization, you have to have a surrogate mother. You talk about abstraction. Now we’re at two and three levels of abstraction. And lesbian couples doing the very same thing. Sometimes, by the way, going through professional medicine and sometimes just, say, contracting for services.

Okay, now I want to point to coverage of President Trump’s executive order and of the policy sent down by the White House. It’s not a radical policy at this point. It doesn’t at this point radically expand IVF, but it does say that he’s ordering a comprehensive government effort to try to do that very thing.

And there’s some interesting coverage not only here in the United States but around the world. The Guardian, which is a liberal newspaper, or I should say a left-wing newspaper, especially by tradition, in London, they ran an article entitled “Trump Signs Executive Order Expanding Access to IVF, Says White House.” Okay, now get this. The Guardian cited President Trump as saying, “It is the policy of my administration to ensure reliable access to IVF treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable.” So the president’s words there very clear.

But it’s the next statement in the Guardian article to which I want to point. The Guardian reports, “During the 2024 presidential election, the president recast his position on IVF as a strong supporter of the treatment, declaring himself the ‘father of IVF,'” that’s in quotation marks, “while at the same time admitting he only recently discovered what the procedure involved.”

Now, there’s a certain irony in that, and the Guardian journalistically is just turning the knife a little bit on that. My purpose is not the same, but my purpose is to say it’s incredibly interesting to be told here that the president, “only recently discovered what the procedure involved,” Well, I can only hope that there might be some around the President who can explain to him further what the procedure involves in terms of abstraction and of moral risk. I think the President is responding to what he sees as the legitimate need for more babies. Period. No question about that need. I think he is responding to the cry for relief from the expense and regulatory complications of IVF. On the expense side, well, let’s just say this is a very expensive process.

By the way, the Christian worldview reminds us that the more abstract you get, the more moral abstraction, the higher the cost is going to be, not just morally, but even financially. Let’s just say that when a mom and a dad have a baby through the normal marital relationship, that’s a low-cost beginning. It gets more expensive as time moves on. But if that’s not how the baby begins, by definition, it’s going to get more expensive. And as medical technology goes on, the problem is that you’re looking at a market in these things, and as I say, we already have the danger, indeed the moral horror of a market in human gametes. But you’re also looking at the fact that when something like this comes, it follows the economic principle that when something becomes more routine, it becomes more common, and thus the net cost goes down per unit, but the social or the economic investment goes up exponentially. And don’t miss the fact that there are many institutions, and many professionals who stand to make a lot of money if indeed there’s widespread government funding for IVF.

There are many who are responding to the White House announcement with their own vested interests. My interest is in helping Christians to think through these things biblically, and we do so, as I say, with great sympathy to those who are struggling within marriage to have babies. But we do understand that the moment you abstract all of these things, you have created an international market in surrogacy, an international market in human gametes, you have a situation in which now millions of human embryos, every single one of those embryos, a human being made in the image of God, destroyed in a process that no one really wants to acknowledge but is right there, no question.

Last year when the Southern Baptist Convention met in June, Dr. Andrew Walker, my colleague, and I submitted a resolution to the resolutions committee in order to help Southern Baptists to make a clear statement on this issue. Southern Baptists, I’m glad to say, did make a very clear statement on these issues. Almost immediately after that statement was affirmed by the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, this issue skyrocketed onto the front pages.

And there I have to say, some very disappointing things took place. Republican senate majority leader Senator John Thune of South Dakota made the statement, “Republicans support IVF, full stop.” That’s because in the context of the 2024 election campaign, when IVF came up, there were many people who said if the Trump administration is elected, IVF will come to an end. And candidate Donald Trump, then former president, now president, made a very clear statement in support of IVF. He made a pledge to expand IVF. And the statement made yesterday at the White House is the president’s fulfillment of that pledge.

I just want to say, as I must say, as an evangelical Christian deeply committed to the biblical worldview, and as someone who seeks consistently to contend for the sanctity and dignity of human life, as one who understands the glory of the gift of a baby, but understands that moral risk is very real and moral wrong is very close, I just have to say that I lament this announcement by the White House. I don’t lament its goal in terms of having more babies. That’s to be celebrated, and there’s courage in establishing that goal and doing so from the White House. But the means as well as the ends are important in the Christian worldview. And in this case, it is the means at stake that represents the problem.

But before I leave this issue, I have to say one thing of absolute importance, lest there be any misunderstanding. The Christian biblical worldview makes very clear that every single human being is a good gift. That every single human being is made in God’s image. That every single human life, every single human birth is to be celebrated in terms of the baby, not necessarily celebrated in terms of the context into which the baby is born or the process whereby the conception took place. The fact is, and this is of utmost importance, the baby is not responsible for either context. The baby is to be received, cherished, honored, and absolutely welcomed as God’s gift. And Christian couples who are struggling with infertility are to be respected for having the absolutely right desire. The stewardship of all of these things is what falls to us, and it falls to Christians to be able to talk about these things responsibly and to the best of our ability biblically. And as this headline development just coming yesterday reminds us, we’re going to have to be talking about these things for some time to come.

Part III

---

Elon Musk, His Children, and IVF: A Media Claim About Musk’s 13th Child Raises Major Moral Questions

But in an odd way to make the point, it is interesting that at the very same time this story came out, news broke in the media–and I don’t mean to get into tabloid journalism here, so let’s just deal with the facts–news came in the media that a major social media influencer has indicated that she has had a child in the last few months by Elon Musk.

Now, as you look at this, the big story here is that it just reminds us that the context of birth, it is morally significant. Once again, the baby is as a baby to be celebrated, cared for, cherished. But the context, the moral context, is important. I don’t know the specifics of this relationship, I just know that when you’re looking at this, it does raise the issue that Elon Musk, who is doing some very important work on behalf of the Trump administration, Elon Musk is in himself a mass of worldview issues. He’s big into the human longevity movement, and he is evidently big into IVF, and at least several of his babies, which may number as many as 12 or 13, at least several of those babies were conceived by IVF.

There’s nothing evidently in Elon Musk’s worldview that would raise that as a troubling issue. And you’re also looking at someone who, at least at times, has leaned into the idea that human beings can engineer a new human future. And by that, I’m not just talking about actions with consequences, I’m talking about actual re-engineering of humanity itself.

An article that came out at Forbes, so just understand, this is a business magazine dealing with this. This is not a Christian journalistic outlet dealing with this in the Christian worldview. This is just about business. Alex Zhavoronkov, a PhD in the field, wrote an article entitled, “Elon Musk’s Babies Were Conceived via IVF and Surrogacy – Is It The Future of Reproduction?” Listen to this article. It’s not just about Elon Musk, but listen to how the issue is described here. “Elon Musk is not the only one opting for IVF instead of the traditional approach. Several people in my network recently told me that they chose IVF and surrogacy. Some decided to do this to improve the chances of having a healthy baby.”

I’ll just insert here again, this is eugenics. This is seeking a “quality baby.” Put that in quotation marks. The article continues. “One of my friends decided to reproduce via a surrogate to have undisputed legal rights and ensure that his plans to invest substantial resources into the upbringing and education of their offspring do not go down in flames due to the unexpected divorce.” Now, how’s that for an indication of what abstraction leads to? Now you have an individual intentionally abstracting the baby from marriage, even from a wife, and instead, having a baby by IVF and surrogacy in order to have complete control over that baby, into whom he plans to invest significant resources and he doesn’t want those resources diluted by a spouse.

The article continues, “And some chose surrogacy for health reasons.” Okay, so the question asked by Forbes is, “Can this method of reproduction become mainstream? Are we going to see this trend accelerate as the artificial uterus technology matures and natural reproduction declines?” So here you have a major, indeed, one of the most influential business periodicals in the world, asking the question, if the future of human reproduction is take it out of marriage, take it out of even mother and father, just put it into the industry of assisted reproduction, and ask, is this going to become the norm? Well, if we are mere machines and a baby is a mere commercial product, then why wouldn’t this become the norm? Which is just a reminder that we’re up against a whole lot more than confusion on this issue. There are some people who really aren’t confused. They’re just determined to get what they want.

Part IV

---

The Moral Revolution Goes After Shakespeare – New Playwrights Attempt to Overhaul Romeo and Juliet for a ‘Non-Binary’ World

But finally, for today, as we’re thinking about our contemporary confusions and where the culture is headed, the Washington Post recently released an article just in the last couple of days by Celia Wren telling us of a playwright who’s basically rewriting Shakespeare to update The Bard in terms of contemporary DEI and ideological expectations. And when you think about Shakespeare, all you have to know is that, for example, perhaps the most famous of his plays, of course, is Romeo and Juliet. And let me just make very clear that Romeo and Juliet doesn’t make any sense without what you might call heterosexualism, which is to say, we understand that Romeo is a boy and Juliet is a girl. And if you don’t have that clear, you just won’t understand the play. And that just points to the fact that throughout Western civilization, it wasn’t necessary to define these terms anymore. You say Romeo and Juliet, everyone knows exactly what you’re talking about.

Well, now everything turns on the social agendas of our day and the sexual confusions and ideologies of our day, and that means that Shakespeare is going to have to be updated, and who better to do that than someone who is going to decode Shakespeare and basically make Shakespeare fit in the 21st century? We’re told that there are actually two women playwrights who are working in this field, and even they’re in Washington, including even the Folger Theater. “The works by Mantell, who is non-binary, and Gunderson arrive amidst a burst of plays that refashion, rebuke or riff on the male-written canon.” Now, one of the central things revealed here is the accusation of these feminists, including one of them at least non-binary, playwrights is that Western civilization has been patriarchal, overly male. 

Speaking of one of the plays, “The play is really about that coming together of people who did not expect to be on the same team because the patriarchy kept them apart.” That was said by one of the playwrights, and then the Post says, “She believes the work is also a timely exploration of the cost of male vengeance and violence.” That’s in the context of being told earlier in the article that there are some who are also, “reconceiving macho American classics.” 

Well, I guess that’s just the way Hollywood is going. Lord knows what they’ll do with the remake of Bonanza.