For couples struggling with infertility, in vitro fertilization is often presented as the best and even only next step to having a child. Even more, what may have once been geared toward women who wanted to wait later in life to start a family is now heavily marketed to women in their 20s and early 30s as an added means of controlling their own fertility. The global IVF industry has surpassed $30 billion and is projected to reach nearly $43 billion by 2033.
“Marketing” and “industry” are the right words to describe IVF as it is practiced today. Today in the U.S., a woman under 35 will be told by most medical facilities to consider IVF after only a year of trying naturally to conceive, while women over age 35 are steered toward it after only a few months. On average, couples will spend between $50,000 and $65,000 out of pocket for treatments. If a successful pregnancy is achieved, the process requires sometimes years of physical and mental preparation. Also, because addressing the root cause of infertility is not the goal of IVF and achieving conception is, most couples will have to repeat the process to have more children.
The successful implantation of an embryo is an answer to prayer for hopeful moms and dads. However, the infertility industrial complex itself is, overall, a source of more deaths than lives; more abortions than fertility. As commonly practiced, IVF involves creating multiple embryos that are screened for viability. The rest are destroyed, donated for research or stored and often not used. The number of viable embryos discarded each year is guesswork at best because the industry is an unregulated Wild West. Yes, a human life can be born because of IVF technology. But, though there is no mandatory tracking system, it’s very likely that more embryos are destroyed through IVF than abortion.
Recently, Emma Waters of the Heritage Foundation argued in a World Opinions piece that she’s trying to help the Church “think biblically about infertility.” She highlighted what is known as “restorative reproductive medicine,” an alternative approach to addressing infertility that better reflects God’s all-encompassing care of the human body. While IVF, as Waters noted, “bypasses the bodies of the man and woman” to achieve a pregnancy,
. . . restorative reproductive medicine follows a completely different trajectory. A doctor trained in NaProTechnology, NeoFertility, or FEMM (Fertility Education and Medical Management) begins with a thorough evaluation of both partners, including diagnostic cycle charting, hormone panels, ultrasounds, semen analyses, and, where needed, exploratory surgeries. From there, the doctor treats those conditions directly, removing the barriers to natural conception, whether it’s medication to restore ovulation, progesterone to sustain pregnancy, the correction of a thyroid disorder, or surgery for endometriosis or varicocele. By treating root causes, restorative care can improve egg and sperm quality, reduce the risk of miscarriage, and leave husband and wife healthier regardless of whether a child ever comes.
In other words, restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) seeks to understand and address the underlying causes of infertility rather than working around them. The results have been promising. While IVF reports a live-birth success rate of around 30% to 33% for women under 35 per single embryo transfer, decreasing as the age of the hopeful mother increases, RRM shows an average 68% of live-births for couples who have gone through 12 cycles of “trying naturally” after targeted treatment of the underlying condition.
This restorative care is also generally a fraction of the cost of IVF, and while religious physicians and facilities are typically the only proponents of RRM right now, lawmakers are taking notice of its success. Last May, the Trump Administration proposed a rule that would help employers cover more fertility options outside of IVF. For women who want to understand their bodies more deeply and pursue treatment aimed at restoring healthy reproductive function, this is good news.
Christian ethics do not go by “any means necessary,” so neither should Christians when giving or receiving medical treatments. If human beings are created by a loving God, and made embodied and purposed according to His will, then caring for our bodies and restoring them when possible aligns with a Christian vision of creation and restoration.
IVF does not restore what’s been broken in the human body but rather isolates conception from the body and its reproductive design. Restorative reproductive medicine is offering a way forward for men and women who wish to be moms and dads.
Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/Antonio Marquez lanza
John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN), and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.
The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.
BreakPoint is a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can’t find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.
