Begotten or Made? - A Review
As news circulates that a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge recently use chattel property laws to make a decision about the fate of frozen embryos, we have another opportunity to consider the morality of various forms of artificial reproductive technology.
Though Oliver O’Donovan’s book, Begotten or Made?, was initially published in 1984, many Christians are unaware of any writing on these topics. As an ethicist, I have been asked more than once about the morality of in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the tacit assumption by the questioner that of course it was morally licit, please explain why. O’Donovan argues convincingly that it is most cases not moral. If anything, O’Donovan is too open to the possibility of a morally legitimate IVF, but his argument is rigorous and eloquent.
Begotten or Made? was originally a set of lectures. At the time they were commissioned, IVF was still a novel technology. O’Donovan deals less with the technique of artificial reproduction than he does with the theology behind it. His reasoning is sound, even as the technology has changed somewhat. By penetrating through the concreteness of the technique of IVF into the ideas that enable it, O’Donovan wrote a treatise that has stood the test of time.
O’Donovan begins by considering the purpose of medicine, which ought to be healing. He notes, “Christians should at this juncture confess their faith in the natural order as the good creation of God.” (15) This is important because it differentiates the process of healing from the process of making something. Much of the technology around artificial reproduction was designed to circumvent nature rather than to restore it.
In the second lecture, O’Donovan deals with what we now call transgenderism. He notes that this is another technology that is primarily oriented toward thwarting nature rather than healing. As such, it cannot be a form of medicine in any meaningful sense. This discussion was meant to show where divorcing reproduction from intercourse between a male and female. O’Donovan’s early thinking has turned to be prophetic. O’Donovan’s treatment of this issue remains one of the clearest, most succinct discussions of a raging topic. The book is worth reading simply for this chapter.
The third lecture explains why involving a donor in the procreative process is inherently immoral. O’Donovan deals with the moral deficiencies of replacing one of the parents within the family with (potentially) a stranger. Notably, he also deals carefully with potential objections raised by the Old Testament levirate marriage, which he argues is distinct. One aspect of this chapter that needs further development (due to its increasing popularity, rather than O’Donovan’s lack) is the renting of wombs through surrogacy.
Lecture four wrestles with the personhood of the embryo. Contemporary medical ethics requires the subject’s consent for experimentation, but an embryo obviously cannot give consent. And yet, so much of the reproductive technology—from freezing embryos to genetic modification—is experimental and has at least some risk of damage or death. At worst the personhood of an embryo is ambiguous, which should cause us to be much more cautious in putting it at risk.
The final lecture wraps up the arguments, making the case as lucid as possible using a fairy tale. One of the most significant aspects of moral reasoning about artificial reproductive technologies that rises from this concluding chapter is that even many of those that participate in such techniques likely do not consider the moral implications of it. The clinical nature of IVF, for example, eliminates the mutual relationship and cooperation normally required for natural conception. It is, on the whole, something different than natural procreation.
The book is slender. This new edition, with a foreword by Matthew Lee Anderson, and a new afterword by the author, is only a little over one hundred pages. It is carefully argued and likely a bit dense for those not familiar with this sort of moral reasoning. The book, however, is well worth the time it takes to read it. Davenant Institute has done a remarkable service in producing a second edition of an increasingly important book.
The hope of Christians for creation is not that we will be able to make things entirely correct through our efforts. Rather, we work with the knowledge that we have been given a ministry of reconciliation, which includes all of creation (cf., Col 1:20; 2 Cor 5:16–18). We work toward reconciliation in hope, but recognize that hope will not be fulfilled until Christ comes again. Creation exists in futility in the present age because of God’s curse on creation. (Gen 3:17–19) Our task is to till the ground in hope, making our living, (Gen 3:20) looking forward to the moment when God supernaturally sets everything right.