The genetic revolution has arrived. Every few years, knowledge in genetic engineering doubles giving rise to the possibility of new cures in genetic diseases. But with these new abilities have come many new questions regarding responsibilities in the application of this knowledge. Exploring the promises and perils of genetic research, this paper will address the scientific, legal, social, ethical and biblical considerations of two highly controversial areas in genetics: artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization.

There are many couples who, for various reasons, long to have children but cannot. One of the means used to overcome this problem is artificial insemination. Essentially, there are two types: artificial insemination using the semen of the husband (AIH), and artificial insemination using the semen of a donor (AID). The process is quite simple as semen is collected, examined and then stored until injection into the woman during her peak phase of ovulation.

In the case of AIH, there are few problems regarding the child's biological, legal and social status. Due to the genetic relatedness of the child to the parents legal concerns are all but removed. The child's legitimacy is established. Complications with respect to inheritance are virtually nonexistent since the child's paternity is secure.

The means by which semen is collected (viz. masturbation) is objected to by the Roman Catholic church on the grounds that it separates the conjugal sex act from the marriage and may lead to an enslaving habit. While it may be true that the couple does not experience the sex act together, the wife may participate in the act of collecting the semen from the husband with the hope of having a child. Even if having a child is not in view, the function of sex is not exclusively to procreate. So long as masturbation does not lead to an enslaving habit, the sexual expression of a couple is not necessarily inhibited and the marriage bond not threatened.

Artificial insemination by a donor (AID) is another option available to couples. Some of the reasons this method is considered by a couple could be: 1) the husband may have a genetic disease that can be transmitted to the child; or 2) the husband is sterile with little hope of improvement.

AID is a much more complex issue for several reasons. Almost always the donor is to remain anonymous. This poses the potential problem of increased consanguineous matings or even incest. The average sperm-bank donor is used anywhere from six to as many as fifty pregnancies. In a less mobile community the population's homozygosity could increase greatly where the same sperm is used from a particular donor.

Related to donor anonymity is the possibility of genetic defects being transmitted. Parents of a child born via AID could bear the burden of a genetically defective child and there would be no way of determining where the defect came from. Of course tests are run on individual donors before and after a donation is made but the risk of not finding a genetic defect is still there.

Legally the child's legitimacy must be determined. In the event of divorce or desertion, the husband could claim no responsibility for the child's support since he/she wasn't his natural child. Likewise the child's right to inheritance isn't secure since some states do not include an AID child as legal heir. Additionally, AID could be grounds for divorce since another man's sperm is within one's wife.

There are at least three problems resulting from AID in society. First, it could increase the number of single parent families. Not having both parents to identify with as the child grows up is difficult in and of itself. But for the child not to even know who their father is as well as having no hope of finding out compounds the difficulty. The number of cases of lesbian couples using AID to have children could also increase. Second, the marriage relationship could be seriously threatened by AID. The husband's inability to produce children could have immense psychological impact not only upon himself but on the entire family. Moreover, the couple may elect to keep AID a secret from the child and the community. This secrecy may reinforce feelings of guilt in the husband and make for a great deal of stress in a marriage relationship. A third problem with AID in society is that it contributes to the rise in surrogate mothers. To explain to the child that their natural mother was paid to bear them so she could get through nursing school, pay off some bills, or whatever is to turn procreation into a capitalistic enterprise - better yet, a sophisticated black market baby bazaar! What happens if a member of the contracting couple dies during the pregnancy? Will the surviving member be able to adopt child? If the surrogate mother decides to abort the child can the contracting couple sue for damages? Who would be responsible for a genetically defective baby? How does the physician fit into this paternal/legal paradigm?

Legal implications involved in AID births must be cleared up by legislation if it is to be allowed by society. The uncontrolled use of AID will certainly plague the society in which it is found. Ethical considerations of AID are staggering. It is one thing to allow AID as a last resort to a couple suffering from infertility and quite another to permit children to be born into homosexual, lesbian and/or transsexual environments. Simply because one-parent homes exist and function with some degree of efficiency does not justify bringing more children into the same environment. Also, how is it that bearing children becomes simply a profit venture? Has capitalism no morality? Regardless of the motive for wanting children, the means used to obtain a child must have some moral parameters within which to function. Satisfying the demand for children, surrogate mothers are providing this "Rent-A-Womb" service as a means of obtaining money without respect for the child's right to know who their biological parents are. Children, even unborn children, are not things to be treated as means to an end.

Of the biblical implications on AID, two are most prominent - the view of sexual relations and the view of parenthood. Some have argued that AID is adultery since a woman gets pregnant by another man's sperm. Those who maintain this understanding fail to acknowledge that adultery in the Bible can be much broader than this narrow definition (cf. Jeremiah 3:8; Matthew 12:39). Adultery in the Bible is unfaithfulness to the marriage covenant. Although adultery can include the sexual realm it certainly isn't limited to it. As for the pregnancy of the woman by another man's sperm, Deuteronomy 25:5-10 is a provision for the Levirate marriage of the kinsman-redeemer. The brother of a woman's deceased husband was to take her as a wife to impregnate her so the family name could continue as well as the widowed woman's future would be provided for (presumably from the children born to her). It should be noted that God does allow the unusual in order to continue His blessing of children.

But this does not give AID an unqualified sanction. In the Levirate marriage the sexual union, procreation and an intended life-long commitment were all part of the same act (this author maintains that the marriage covenant ought to be life-long but that doesn't mean that it is). There is still a one-to-one relationship in the Levirate marriage whereas this does not exist in a case of AID (While it is morally permissible for a polygamous relationship to exist, cf. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage, pp. 228-243. The point here is that the sexual union, procreation and commitment are not separated from the marriage covenant). The biblical view of parenting is that a child born to a couple was to be genetically related to both parents. While there are exceptions to this (e.g., adoption), they don't justify the use of AID to single-party individuals, homosexual, lesbian or transsexual couples. For procreation to be any less than the result of love and commitment between a heterosexual couple is an aberration from the divine ideal.

Closely related to artificial insemination is in vitro fertilization (IVF). In vitro means "within glassware." Hence in vitro fertilization means fertilization outside the body. Using a laparoscope, the physician extracts an egg cell from the woman placing it in a glass dish together with the sperm from the woman's husband or donor. If fertilization occurs then approximately two or three days later the zygote becomes an eight-celled embryo and is flushed into the woman's uterus for the remainder of the gestation period.

IVF it is difficult to regulate legally and ethically. The question to be asked is: "Does IVF present a greater risk to the fetus than normal fertilization?" (This is given the fetus (fertilized egg) has equal value to all humans). Although some animal IVF has been accomplished as well as human IVF, the evidence has been sparse (120 human babies born by 1983, though these statistics need updating).

It is not yet clear whether or not the artificial removal, fertilization, growth and implantation of the zygote is fail-safe in regards to genetic abnormalities. Often times genetic abnormalities are suspected when spontaneous abortion occurs. Also, there may be mental retardation or later-revealed abnormalities as a result of IVF. At the present, the IVF babies are the means by which scientists determine the risks involved rather than recipients of careful proven research.

The social and legal problems of IVF are immense. It is now possible for a surrogate mother to carry a child formed by a couple's sperm and egg. This does nothing by complicate an already difficult situation as to the child's relatedness. Similarly, if the wife of a couple is sterile, an egg from a donor woman can be combined with the husband's sperm and inserted into the wife of the couple to produce the child. In this case the wife is not genetically related to the child. Most state laws do not have legislation distinguishing between procreation and child-bearing as separate functions. The question of parenthood becomes a disastrous dilemma.

Medical liability must be taken into account with IVF. What takes place in the womb has been outside the jurisdiction of the state, but now it is possible to hold doctors liable during the performance of IVF. A supposed causal connection between IVF procedures and an injury sustained by the child/mother could result in a bloodbath of litigation.

IVF is just one of the tools used to improve the genetic fitness of mankind (eugenics). Masquerading under the guise of purging a population's gene pool of genetic defects, IVF can be used to explore the possibilities of mixing healthier sperm and egg to create the ideal person.

As a pragmatic and expedient nation, America frequently ignores ethical implications of issues. If the outcome is noble (usually measured by the greatest good for the greatest number) then the moral content of the means used in obtaining a particular end is neglected. Arguing on the basis of "if we can do something, then we should" is unsound reasoning. It should be noted too, that what is legal is not necessarily moral. For example, one may legally sit stone drunk in their living room, verbally abusing their family but that behavior is not particularly moral. A great deal can be gleaned from examining and experimenting with IVF from within legal parameters, but not at the expense of a human life!

There are, at minimum, three biblical considerations with the use of IVF. First, the basis for the sanctity of life is twofold: 1) all are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); and 2) the redemptive death of the Son of God implicitly proclaims our worth-even in his sinful condition (Romans 5:8). Given the moral status of the fetus being fully, completely and actually (contra potentially) human, great care must be taken to protect it from undue risk. If human life begins at fertilization (and this author maintains that it does) and the potential for IVF to be unsuccessful is so great (approx. 90% loss of fertilized ova) then it should not be practiced. Second, procreation is reduced to reproduction. The marriage bed is suddenly turned into a chemistry set! Enjoying the pleasures of sex, communicating love, commitment to one's partner and the desire to have children should all be tied to the same act (given the couple has mutually agreed to be parents. Significantly, while it is true that the Hebrew text "Be fruitful and multiply" is rendered an imperative in Genesis 1:28b, it does not necessarily follow that it is a command. A blessing can have imperatival force as well, e.g., Genesis 1:28a "And God blessed them.").

IVF separates these components of the sex act and potentially threatens the marriage bond. It is true that God can and does use modern technology to reverse the effects of the Fall (cf. Genesis 3; I Timothy 5:23), and the use of IVF could cause the couple to trust the technology itself rather than God Who determines birth (cf. Genesis 4:1; 17:16; Ruth 4:13; I Samuel 1:19-20, 27; Luke 1:25, et al.). Third, what is our responsibility with technology? There is a mandate for all humans to subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 8:6-8).

Along with this mandate comes a responsibility or stewardship entrusted to all of us not to abuse creation for our own ends. Ironically, there is a revived interest in the preservation of clean air, land and water yet we lack the same interest in the preservation of human life. The track record has not been outstanding in the use of natural resources–shouldn't it be at least as good in the handling of human life? Even though IVF provides a means of helping infertile couples, this procedure lacks certainty for the safety of the fetus. Therefore, this author cannot, in good biblical conscience, see IVF as a viable moral option at this stage in technology.

In conclusion, this paper has shown that science/technology has gotten ahead of the morality of society. The world of science is tasked to explicate the empirical realm. Scientists must not be silent as to the ethical implications regarding their discoveries in the genetic realm, but, should turn these data over to competent ethicists/theologians/politicians so as to mediate morality. In turn, legislative resolutions regarding genetic research are necessary to protect and secure society. Perhaps an Ethics Comittee consisting of philosophers and theologians would serve to advise the government on this important issue!!