IVF vs. Adoption: A Christian Bioethical Perspective

Imagine being a Christian couple sitting in a doctor’s office and hearing that you can’t have children the usual way. That news hits hard. Suddenly, everything you hoped for feels shaky. The doctor discusses two options: In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and adoption. Both sound like hope. For Christians though, it’s not just about medicine or feelings. It’s also about what aligns with our beliefs. It makes you think alot more about who creates life and how much control humans should have over it. Although IVF appears to offer a hopeful solution to infertility, it raises significant ethical concerns through the creation and disposal of surplus embryos, the legal uncertainty surrounding their status, and the way it shifts the view of children from gifts to products, whereas adoption better reflects a Christian understanding of life, dignity, and redemption.

Infertility is seen as no small issue in Scripture. Rather, it is recognized as very painful. Hannah wept bitterly before the Lord in 1 Samuel 1 because she longed for a child. Rachel cried out in Genesis 30:1 (ESV, 2018), "Give me children, or I shall die!" That statement sounds pretty dramatic, but it reflects the strong God-given desire for family that human beings have been given. Psalm 127:3 declares, "Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him." Children are described as gifts, not entitlements. That distinction matters. Wanting a gift is good. Demanding it on your own terms is different. Throughout Scripture, God calls His people to trust Him even when their desires are not fulfilled. Proverbs 3:5-6 commands believers to trust in the Lord with all their heart and not lean on their own understanding. In moments of infertility, that trust can feel especially difficult.

It helps to look back and see how much things have changed. In human history, people struggled with infertility and tried all sorts of things, but until recently, there was no shortcut that bypassed God’s design. Then, in 1978, everything changed with the first test tube baby. Suddenly, having a baby wasn’t just a miracle from God but something doctors could repeat in a lab. That’s a big shift. Now, instead of waiting and hoping, people feel like they have to do something to fix things right away. It’s like we forgot that waiting is part of the story. Science makes it seem like every problem has a fix, but maybe that shouldn't be true.

Let’s take a look at what exactly we are talking about. IVF is a scientific process in which eggs are removed from a woman's body and fertilized with sperm in a laboratory environment. To increase the probability of success, multiple embryos are typically created at once. After fertilization, embryos are monitored for cell division and development. They are graded according to quality and viability. One or two are implanted into the uterus, while others are frozen for future use. Some are donated to research, while many others are eventually destroyed. Since the birth of the first "test tube baby" in 1978, millions of children have been born through IVF worldwide. In the United States alone, over 400,000 IVF cycles occur annually (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024). Medical organizations such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) argue that IVF can be ethically practiced under proper guidelines and informed consent. An example is that it is recommended that only one embryo be implanted to reduce the potential for multiple pregnancies, which could be more risky. The AMA emphasizes that patients should establish in advance written agreements before IVF begins: agreements that clearly specify what should happen to embryos in cases such as death, divorce, or disagreement. These policies are designed to prevent disputes and ensure that embryo disposition decisions are not left unresolved.

When you first look into IVF, it can seem like there are a lot of rules. Doctors talk about consent and making sure parents agree about what happens to extra embryos. They say you can’t just sell them or use them however you want. But even with all these rules, no one really talks about what an embryo actually is. The way doctors handle embryos shows that they think embryos are important, even if they don’t say it out loud. This is why IVF feels so complicated for Christians. It’s not just about rules. It’s about what we believe life is and the value it holds. While these procedures are medically advanced and widely accepted, they already introduce ethical concerns about how embryonic life is treated.

Some might argue that the "Creation Mandate" in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply provides a biblical green light for IVF. They suggest that if God gave us the intellect to overcome the effects of the Fall, such as infertility, we should use it to fulfill His command to fill the earth. From this perspective, IVF is not "playing God" but is instead a form of "subduing the earth" for the sake of obedience. However, this argument often overlooks the means used to achieve the end. The mandate to multiply was given to a couple in a garden, not a technician in a lab. This is an important distinction often ignored. While the desire for children is from the Lord, it is never presented in Scripture as a command that justifies abandoning other lives. We must be careful not to use a good command to justify a questionable method. We must remember that even a noble desire can become an idol if it leads us to compromise our commitment to the sanctity of life.

There has been a big shift from procreation to production, and it is perhaps most visible in the rising trend of Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT). When embryos are screened for "desirable" traits or the absence of disability, the child is no longer received as a gift but as a hand-picked selection. This starts to reflect a mindset where a person’s value depends on things like health or ability. If a Christian worldview asserts that the "unformed body" is known and loved by God, then any grading system that labels one embryo as "viable" and another as "discardable" based on its DNA is a direct challenge to the Imago Dei.

Francis Beckwith (2001) argues that bioethical discussions surrounding abortion, embryo research, and reproductive technologies ultimately depend on the concept of personhood. If an embryo is a person, then it deserves protection. If it is merely tissue, then it may be used or discarded. Beckwith argues that if an entity is biologically human (a living, whole organism with human DNA), then it cannot be morally reduced to non-person status simply because of developmental stage. He challenges the idea that personhood depends on traits like consciousness or viability, arguing that this leads to inconsistent moral definitions of human life. He uses logical arguments to show that embryos should count as people from the start. For example, if personhood is based on traits like awareness or independence, then a newborn baby would not qualify as a person either, since it lacks those abilities. However, most people would agree that a newborn has full moral value. Beckwith uses this kind of reasoning to show that defining personhood by development leads to inconsistent conclusions. If we recognize that a newborn is fully human despite its level of development, then it follows that an embryo, which is also a living human organism at an earlier stage, should be valued in the same way. This matters because it provides a philosophical foundation that supports Christian reasoning. It shows there are logical reasons to value embryos even outside of religion. This helps build a stronger case against embryo destruction.

Traditionally, Christianity has affirmed that life begins at conception. Genesis 1:27 teaches that all of humanity is created in the image of God. The image of God is not something gradually earned through development or independence; it is intrinsic to being human. Psalm 139:13-16 describes God forming a person in the womb and seeing their unformed body. Jeremiah 1:5 records God saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." Even in Luke 1:41, John the Baptist leaps in Elizabeth's womb at the presence of Christ. These passages communicate that life is personal and known by God before birth. Scientifically, fertilization marks the beginning of a new, genetically unique organism (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2020). There is no later biological milestone that transforms non-life into life. From a Christian perspective, then, embryos created through IVF are not potential humans. They are humans.

One of the most serious concerns surrounding IVF is the creation of surplus embryos. Because multiple embryos are produced in each cycle, not all are implanted. In the United States, estimates suggest that well over one million embryos remain frozen in storage facilities. Joe Carter (2017) critiques the practice of creating embryos for research purposes and then destroying them, arguing that this treats human life as a means to an end. He emphasizes that the moral problem is not only destruction but also the intentional creation of life with the expectation that it may be discarded. Many embryos are created but are never used, and many are destroyed or left frozen indefinitely. This is morally wrong if life begins at conception. If embryos are fellow image bearers, freezing them indefinitely or discarding them becomes ethically problematic. Proverbs 24:11 commands believers to rescue those being led away to death; indifference toward frozen embryos outright ignores that command.

It is also important to take seriously the arguments from Christians who support IVF. Not all believers reject it, and many see it as a helpful and even good use of medical technology. For couples who are struggling with infertility, IVF can feel like an answer to prayer. It offers a real chance to have a biological child, which is something many people deeply desire. This desire is not wrong. In fact, as seen in Scripture, the longing for children is very natural and often very strong. Some Christians argue that medicine itself is a gift from God. Just like we use doctors to treat illness or surgery to fix injuries, IVF can be seen as a way of addressing a broken part of the body. From this perspective, using IVF is not rejecting God’s plan but working within it by using the knowledge and abilities that He has allowed us to develop. While these arguments highlight the good intentions behind IVF, they do not fully solve the deeper problems around embryo lives and human control over creation.

Another argument is that intention matters. Couples who pursue IVF are usually not trying to do something immoral. They are trying to build a family. They are not thinking about embryos as disposable or as products but as future children. Their motivation is often rooted in love, not selfishness. This is important because it reminds us that ethical discussions are not just about actions but also about the heart behind them.

Some also argue that IVF can be practiced more ethically. For example, couples can choose to create fewer embryos or commit to using all of them. Others might avoid genetic testing or selective reduction in order not to be biased. These approaches try to take away the moral issues while still allowing couples to pursue biological children. Supporters of IVF often point to these possibilities as evidence that the practice itself is not the problem but rather how it is used, which may well be true.

Some Christians argue that IVF can be practiced ethically with strict safeguards. Focus on the Family suggests that limiting the number of embryos created and committing to implanting all of them may reduce ethical concerns. They acknowledge that IVF offers hope but still raises big questions. Supporters also argue that medicine is a gift from God, noting that Luke was a physician. These arguments deserve serious engagement. However, even when carefully practiced, IVF still separates conception from the marital act and places the beginning of life under technological management. At the same time, ensuring that no embryo is ever discarded is extremely difficult in practice.

All these arguments matter and show that this is not a simple issue. Christians don’t all agree. It’s important, though, to really think about both sides. Even if people mean well and try to do everything right, there are still big questions that don’t go away. The main thing is, does IVF always bring problems we can’t fix? Despite the compelling arguments in favor of IVF, serious moral and ethical concerns remain. The process moves conception out of the intimacy of marriage and into a clinical setting, which changes something important about how life begins.

It’s also really hard to make sure no embryos are lost or discarded. IVF usually involves creating more embryos than are immediately needed. Success is not guaranteed the first time. So extra embryos are created “just in case”. Even with the best intentions, a couple’s circumstances and decisions can change over time. Embryos can remain frozen for years. Decisions get delayed. Eventually, hard choices have to be made. IVF gives people a lot of control over reproduction. That control can be helpful. It can also change how life is viewed. Children start to feel planned. Managed. Produced. Not received. That is different from how the Bible describes children.

In Scripture, children are gifts from God. Not products of human design. This becomes clear in the story of Abraham and Sarah. God promises Abraham descendants in Genesis 12:2. “I will make you into a great nation.” The promise is repeated in Genesis 15:5. “Look up at the sky and count the stars—so shall your offspring be.” But time passes. Nothing happens. Sarah cannot have children. So they act. In Genesis 16:1–2, Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham. They try to fulfill God’s promise through human strategy. Through control. Through action instead of waiting. It works, but it also fractures the family. Ishmael is born. Conflict follows. Tension grows. Later, God clarifies the promise again. Genesis 17:19 says Sarah will bear a son. Isaac is the child of promise. Not Ishmael. The message is consistent. Human control is limited. God’s timing is not. This connects directly to IVF. It also connects to embryo creation. When life is managed through technology, control increases, but so do ethical complications. More planning. More intervention. More decisions about life itself. The question becomes simple but heavy. Are children something humans produce and control? Or something received? Abraham and Sarah clearly outline that children are gifts we receive on God’s time. Human actions do not replace divine timing.

Taking conception out of sex between a husband and wife, as God designed, brings up more questions. In Genesis 2:24, marriage is described as a “one flesh” union, showing that intimacy and procreation are meant to be closely connected. Christians have often said that making a baby and being close as a couple go together. IVF splits these apart. It makes having a baby feel more like a medical procedure and less like the intimate connection formed during sex inside of marriage.

Because of all this, even when people try to do IVF wisely, it doesn’t fix everything. The problem isn’t just what people do but what IVF means. People are taking over something that used to belong to God. That should make us pause and seriously think about the impact our actions have.

The legal system struggles to categorize frozen embryos. Dugdale and Ming argue that medical decision making in a reproductive setting shifts authority over life and death from God to doctors and patients. This shift becomes especially visible in selective reduction, where one or more embryos may be intentionally terminated to improve the survival chances of others. Even when medically justified, the ethical tension remains. This uncertainty is evident in U.S. case law. In Davis v. Davis (1992), the Tennessee Supreme Court was forced to decide what should happen to frozen embryos after a divorce. One partner wanted to donate them. The other wanted them destroyed. The court refused to define embryos as either persons or property. Instead, it placed them in a vague “interim category”. Ultimately, the decision prioritized prior agreements and parental control over any fixed moral status of the embryos. The question became less about what the embryos are and more about who gets to decide their fate. In reality, embryos are still often treated in a similar way as joint property. Courts tend to rely on contract law instead of moral status. Control becomes central. Not the embryo itself. This makes the problem of a human being look more like an ownership dispute than a question of human life. The thing is, embryos do not fit neatly into property law. They are not objects in any ordinary sense. Still, the legal system treats them as divisible interests when disputes arise. This reveals an inconsistency at the center of reproductive law. The system avoids defining what an embryo is and instead focuses on who has the authority to decide what happens to it.

Christian ethics take a different stance. Life begins at conception. An embryo is a person made in the image of God. U.S. law does not accept that view. Instead, it remains divided and cautious. The result is a gray area where embryos are seen as valuable but not fully people. This matters because it shapes how we think about life at its earliest stage. If embryos are treated like property, then their value depends on who owns them or what someone wants to do with them. From a Christian perspective, this is a serious problem because it goes against the idea that human worth is given by God and not decided by people. It creates a system where life can be frozen, stored, or even destroyed based on personal preference rather than moral truth.

At the same time, the legal system reflects the culture it comes from. As technology has advanced, the law has had to respond quickly to situations that did not exist before. IVF created a new category of life that does not fit easily into existing definitions. Because of this, the law often is reactionary instead of thought-out. It tries to solve problems after they appear instead of establishing clear moral rules from the start. This leaves many unanswered questions.

For Christians, this legality matters. Just because something is allowed by law doesn’t mean it’s morally right. The fact that courts can’t seem to understand what an embryo is shows that something is wrong. It plays to the idea that we should recognize embryos are not just ordinary property; but also aren’t willing to fully treat them as human life. This makes it clear that pondering IVF brings questions that law alone can’t fully answer.

Selective reduction introduces another layer of moral ambiguity. When multiple embryos implant and create a high-risk pregnancy, doctors often recommend terminating one or more to protect the other embryos. While this may seem medically responsible, it involves intentionally ending a life. This goes back to the larger issue about who has authority over life and death. Dugdale et al. (2019) and Ming et al. (2021) argue that Christian ethics consistently affirm that life ultimately belongs to God. Deuteronomy 32:39 records God declaring, "I put to death, and I bring to life". When humans take control of deciding which innocent life continues, they’re stepping into a role reserved for God.

While IVF attempts to solve infertility through technological intervention, adoption offers a fundamentally different approach. Rather than creating new life, it responds to the needs of children who already exist and are in need of care. From a Christian perspective, this difference matters. Scripture consistently emphasizes caring for the vulnerable and welcoming those without family. Because of this, adoption can be seen not only as a practical alternative to IVF but as a reflection of Christian values. One unique form of this is embryo adoption, often referred to as “snowflake adoption.”

Snowflake adoption is a form of embryo adoption in which frozen embryos created through IVF by one couple are transferred into another woman’s uterus and carried to birth. It is called “snowflake adoption” because each embryo is treated as unique and deserving of life. The process usually involves selecting embryos that remain frozen after IVF cycles and transferring legal custody of them through an adoption agency or fertility clinic. The embryos are then implanted through IVF procedures until pregnancy occurs. The goal is to rescue existing embryos and give them a chance at life instead of being frozen forever or being discarded. In that sense, it aligns closely with Christian beliefs about the value of life and the protection of vulnerable human beings. Adoption also has deep theological meaning. Ephesians 1:5 describes believers being “adopted as sons through Jesus Christ.” Romans 8:15 refers to “the Spirit of adoption.” James 1:27 defines pure religion as caring for orphans, and Psalm 68:5 describes God as “a father to the fatherless.” In this framework, adoption is not secondary. It is central. It reflects covenant love, where belonging is based on choice and care rather than biology.

However, snowflake adoption is not the same as traditional adoption. The adoptive mother still carries the pregnancy, which creates a unique biological and emotional connection that can blur the line between adoptive and biological parenthood. This makes the category more complex, since the experience of pregnancy naturally forms attachment before birth. At the same time, snowflake adoption exists because of IVF and the creation of surplus embryos. These embryos were originally created in excess of what would likely be implanted, meaning this form of adoption operates within a system that has already introduced ethical concerns.

Even so, snowflake adoption can be understood as a meaningful and life-affirming response to that problem. Rather than letting embryos remain frozen indefinitely or be discarded, it offers them the opportunity to develop and be born. While the process is quite complex, requiring IVF transfer procedures, medical screening, legal agreements, and high financial cost, it shows Christlike character in attempting to preserve human life. From a Christian perspective, this aligns with the belief that every human being, even at the embryonic stage, has God-given value. Snowflake adoption may not resolve all the ethical issues surrounding IVF, but it is an attempt to respond to the brokenness in a way that affirms life rather than disregarding it.

Adoption does not create new moral complications regarding embryo destruction. Instead, it responds to the hurt that exists in our fallen world. It affirms the worth of the many children who are already in need. While adoption may involve sacrifice and dedication, research shows that favorable outcomes depend on family support and environment (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013). Open adoption can support identity formation and emotional health.

While adoption is often shown as the better moral option, it is important to recognize that it is not easy either. Adoption comes with real challenges that should not be ignored. One of the biggest challenges is emotional. Many adopted children experience some level of trauma, even if they are adopted at a young age. Being separated from biological parents can create questions about identity and belonging that last for years. This is sometimes referred to as the “primal wound,” a concept introduced by Nancy Verrier that suggests separation from a birth mother may create a deep emotional impact (Verrier, 1993). Not every adopted child experiences this in the same way, but it is something that adoptive families need to be prepared for. Adoption is not a simple or perfect solution. It requires patience, understanding, and a willingness to walk through difficult situations.

Adoption, while meaningful, is not easy and comes with real challenges that many couples are not fully prepared for. Adoption can be very expensive, especially private or international adoption. The process can take years and involves a lot of paperwork, legal steps, and uncertainty. This can be discouraging for many couples. It is often much more complicated than people expect. In addition, adoption requires a different mindset. It is not about creating a child that looks like you or shares your genetics. It is about welcoming a child who already exists and may come from a very different background. This requires humility and a willingness to put the child’s needs first.

Even with these challenges, adoption still reflects a kind of love that is deeply meaningful. It is not based on biology but on choice and commitment. It mirrors the way Christians understand their relationship with God. Believers are not part of God’s family because of genetics but because they have been chosen and adopted. This makes adoption not just a practical option but a theological one as well.

Looking beyond the United States, the ethical questions surrounding IVF and adoption become even more complex. In some cases, couples travel to other countries to receive IVF treatments that may not be allowed or are more restricted in their own country. This is sometimes called medical tourism (Inhorn & Patrizio, 2015). While it can make treatments more accessible, it also raises questions about whether people are avoiding ethical guidelines by going elsewhere. Different countries have different laws and standards regarding embryos. In some places, there may be fewer restrictions on how embryos are created, stored, or used. This can lead to situations where ethical concerns are overlooked in favor of convenience or cost. It also begs the question about global responsibility and whether actions taken in one country should be judged differently in another.

International adoption also has its own challenges. While it can provide homes for children in need, it is sometimes connected to systems that are not always fair or well-regulated. In some cases, weak legal oversight and high demand for adoptable children have led to unethical practices, such as children being placed for adoption without full parental consent or being separated from families who were not truly unable to care for them. In some situations, poverty, not abandonment, has been the main reason children enter the adoption system. This causes questions to be asked about whether families are being separated unnecessarily. These questions show that even a process meant to help vulnerable children can be affected by broader social and economic issues.

However, these challenges do not outweigh the basic moral distinction between adoption and IVF. Adoption does not involve the creation or destruction of new life but instead responds to the needs of children who already exist and are in need of care. While the system may be imperfect and require careful oversight, its goal remains rooted in giving stability and belonging to children in need. From a Christian perspective, this aligns more closely with the call to care for the orphan and uphold the dignity of every human life. Rather than creating new ethical dilemmas, adoption addresses existing brokenness, making it a morally consistent and redemptive response to infertility.

A Christian perspective should take into account these global issues. It is not enough to merely think about personal desires or local laws. Ethical decisions should take into account the impact on people around the world. Whether it is IVF or adoption, the goal should be to act in a way that reflects care, responsibility, and respect for human life in every situation.

When comparing IVF and adoption, the difference lies not only in biological outcome but in moral orientation. IVF emphasizes control and creation through technology. Adoption emphasizes stewardship and care for existing life. That difference is vital to the Christian worldview. When all of this is carefully considered, the question becomes very personal. What should a Christian couple actually do when faced with infertility? There is no easy answer, but there are important principles to keep in mind. First, the desire for children is good, but it should not become something that controls every decision. Trust in God remains central, even when the situation is painful. Couples should carefully think through not just what they want, but how they are trying to achieve it. The process matters, not just the outcome. This means asking difficult questions about IVF and being honest about the ethical concerns involved. It also means being open to options like adoption, even if they are harder.

There should also be a willingness to accept that not every desire will be fulfilled as we expect. This is one of the hardest parts, but it is also where faith becomes real. For some couples, the path forward may involve adoption. For others, it may involve waiting or even accepting a life without children. None of these paths is easy, but they all require trust.

In the end, the goal is not just to have a child but to honor God in the process. That is what should guide our every decision, even when the answers are not clear. The couple in the doctor's office must ultimately ask what it means to honor God in their longing for children. IVF offers a possibility but carries unresolved ethical tensions. Adoption, though often demanding in many regards, aligns more clearly with biblical teaching about the sanctity of life and care for the vulnerable. From a Christian bioethical perspective, adoption better upholds the God-given dignity of every human being and more faithfully reflects the redemptive heart of the gospel.

References 

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Helping foster and adoptive families cope with trauma. Pediatrics, 131(4), e1394–e1410. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0606

American Medical Association. (n.d.). Storage & use of human embryos (Opinion 4.2.5). AMA Code of Medical Ethics. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/joedb/files/2018-07 /coet1- 1803.pdf

Beckwith, F. J. (2001). Abortion, bioethics, and personhood: A philosophical reflection. The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. https://www.cbhd.org/cbhd-resources/abortion -bioethics- and-personhood -a-philosophical-reflection

Brodzinsky, D. M. (2011). Children’s adjustment to adoption: Developmental and clinical issues. American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037 %2 Fa00 22415

Cornell, M. E. L., & Baron, T. (2024). The law and ethics of a property rights approach to frozen Dugdale, L. S., Lerner, B. H., &

Callahan, D. (2019). Pros and cons of physician aid in dying. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 92(4), 747–750. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ articles / PMC6913818/

Caregiving Archives - Wellspring Personal Care https://www.homecarechicago.com/category/caregiving/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Assisted reproductive technology (ART) surveillance data. https://www.cdc.gov/art/php/surveillance/index.html

Diedrich, K. (2016). Human Reproduction vol.13 no.7 pp.1778–1780, 1998 DEBATE Are we on the verge of a new era in ART? R.E.Felberbaum1, M.Ludwig and. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/7/1778.full.pdf

Diedrich, K. (2016). Human Reproduction vol.13 no.7 pp.1778–1780, 1998 DEBATE Are we on the verge of a new era in ART? R.E.Felberbaum1, M.Ludwig and. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/7/1778.full.pdf

Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. (2024). Ethical and theological considerations on IVF. Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. https://erlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ ERL4204_ IVFConsid_ 091324.pdf
Ethics in Embryo Research Task Force & ASRM Ethics Committee. (2020). Ethics in embryo research: A position statement. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. https://www.asrm .org/practice-guidance/ethics-opinions/ethics-in-embryo-research -a-position-statement-by-the-asrm-ethics-in-embryo-research-task-force-and-the-asrm-ethics-committee-2020/

Focus on the Family. (n.d.). IVF: Moral and ethical considerations. Focus on the Family.
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/ivf-moral-and-ethical-considerations/

Harvard Stem Cell Institute. (n.d.). Examining the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. Harvard University. https://www.hsci.harvard.edu/examining-ethics-embryonic-stem-cell -research

Inhorn, M. C., & Patrizio, P. (2015). Infertility around the globe: New thinking on gender, reproductive technologies, and global movements in the 21st century. Fertility and Sterility, 104(4), 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1138

International Business Ethics: The Challenges in Establishing a Global Code of Ethics https://www.canadianlabourrelations.com/international-business-ethics.html

IVF Cost in North Carolina - Pay It Forward Fertility https://payitforwardfertility.org/ivf-cost/ivf-cost-in-north-carolina/

Juengst, E., & Fossel, M. (2000). The ethics of embryonic stem cells — now and forever, cells without end. JAMA, 284(24), 3180–3184. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.24.3180

Khan, A. A., & Rose, S. (2022). Reproductive technology: A critical analysis of theological responses. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 57(2), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12097
Klusendorf, S. (2014). The case for life: Equipping Christians to engage the culture (2nd ed.). Crossway.

Kurland, R. (2018). Cheltenham Spars Over School Board Member's Prayer Event. Jewish Exponent, 238(146), 1.

Laufmann, S. M., & Glicksman, H. J. (2024). Your designed body: Rediscovering what you lost through science, evolution, and naturalism. Discovery Institute Press.

McCoy, C. (2023). IVF and infertility: Good ends do not justify all means. The Christian Post. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/ivf-and-infertility-good-ends-do-not-justify-all-means.html

Ming, D., Metekohy, B., & Sahertian, N. L. (2021). Euthanasia in Christian ethical-theological context: Pros and cons. Journal Theology, 32(2), 159–176. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21580/ teo.2021.32.1.8380

Schumacher, L. A. (2009). Divine illumination in Augustinian and Franciscan thought. https://core.ac.uk/download/429727650.pdf

Shepherds Theological Seminary. (2022). Biblical principles to guide the use of reproductive technologies. Shepherds Theological Seminary. https://shepherds.edu/biblical-principles- to-guide-the-use-of-reproductive-technologies/

Smith, M., González-Pasarín, L., Salas, M. D., & Bernedo, I. M. (2020). Review of benefits and risks for children in open adoption arrangements. Child & Family Social Work, 25(4), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12753

VanDrunen, D. (2009). Bioethics and the Christian life: A guide to making difficult decisions. Crossway.

Verrier, N. N. (1993). The primal wound: Understanding the adopted child. Gateway Press.

Warning, W. (2001). Terminological Patterns and the Term Atsom  Strong, Powerful in the Pentateuch. https://core.ac.uk/download/232863101.pdf