On begetting babies rather than making babies

We affirm the dignity and value of every human life, regardless of conception status.

We hold that children are begotten, not made. A unique life begins when egg and sperm fertilize, and each embryo is a distinct human. Each human is a subject of rights, not the least of which is the right to life at the embryonic stage.

We affirm the reality of human biological design that sex and procreation are not divided; the design of the male and female body attest to the reality that they must come together for procreation. The fact that procreation does not always result from the act does not negate this reality.

On navigating infertility

We know that couples struggling with infertility face great heartbreak, pain, and difficult decisions as they navigate loss from infertility. We recognize the lack of healthcare that women and couples have received as most fertility clinicians bypass the health issues patients are facing, focusing only on the product of a healthy baby. Even if a baby is born, the underlying medical condition of the mother or father remains.

Many couples who struggle with infertility have either one or multiple underlying health conditions which should be addressed through medical care. When these underlying conditions are addressed, the couple can increase their likelihood of achieving pregnancy. While an underlying medical condition is not always the cause of infertility, for many couples, this is the cause. We encourage couples to get a good diagnosis of their personal factors for infertility and seek medical care for those factors. (See MFC Statement on Restorative Reproductive Medicine.)

We support public policy efforts to advance family preservation whenever possible, to protect children, and to promote restoration of health of the body, which can also repair fertility. We support technologies that seek to restore reproductive health rather than technological efforts which intentionally bypass the health of the body. We advise couples considering technological efforts which intentionally bypass the body to exercise caution.

On third-party conception

We do not support third party methods of conception such as gametes for purchase (commonly called “donor” egg or sperm) which bring a third party into the conception and birthing of a child. To sell one’s gametes, a person sells half of his or her offspring’s genetic formation, with not insignificant risks to personal health. By using gametes of a third party in producing a child, the adult(s) seeking a child create to separate the child from a parent.

On standard practices of the industry

We oppose the standard practices of the assisted reproductive technology industry, practices which take more lives than they produce. Since 1990, preimplantation genetic testing of embryos has become a standard practice. This process involves extracting nuclei from either eggs or embryos for the purpose of testing for mutations. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s Fertility and Sterility Journal explains that providers “generally apply clinical guidelines to determine when PGT-M (preimplantation genetic testing) should be offered.” PGT-M is especially promoted if either of the parents has a history of chromosomal abnormality.

In an updated 2023 report, the ASRM acknowledges that preimplantation genetic testing can be problematic. The express purpose of genetic testing of either embryos or gametes is to determine the healthiest embryos with optimal genes, or to determine whether a person’s gametic material carries chromosomal abnormalities.

More recent developments by companies like Orchid conduct preimplantation genetic screening of the whole genome to analyze the embryo’s full genetic makeup. Orchid and similar companies provide whole genome analysis, not just to prevent giving birth to a child with chromosomal abnormalities, but to choose an embryo which fits the characteristics desired by the parent(s). This is industrialized production of children.

Process of IVF

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the process by which egg and sperm are fertilized outside the womb in a fertility laboratory. Although multiple procedures fall under the assisted reproduction technology (ART) industry, IVF and the ART cycles to achieve an embryo for implantation are some of the most common technologies.

For a couple trying to use their own egg and sperm to produce a child, an ART cycle consists of hormonal treatment of the woman to induce maturation and release of multiple eggs. A natural cycle usually results in one released egg per cycle, if the woman is healthy. The eggs are manually extracted from the follicles and fertilization is attempted by either placing the egg in a petri dish with sperm or by injection of sperm into the egg, called ICSI (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.) Given the high cost and involvement of the process, labs usually create multiple embryos, if possible.

Any embryos created are then monitored for healthy development. After a few days, generally one embryo is chosen for implantation into the woman’s uterus, and the woman is given hormonal treatment for her uterus to receive the embryo. Additional embryos are stored in cryopreservation facilities (freezers,) “donated” for research (with subsequent destruction after 14 days,) or flushed away.

We affirm the inherent dignity and value of every human life, regardless of conception status. Although many children in recent decades have been born from IVF, most embryonic lives created through assisted reproductive technology (ART) do not survive, by intention of the fertility industry. The 2021 Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) data from the Centers for Disease Control reported that 413,776 ART cycles resulted in 97,128 live-born infants in that year. Some of those cycles were conducted for freezing eggs only. Given the multiple embryos created in an ART cycle, there could have been as many as 4 million embryos created in 2021. With that estimate, 1 in 50 embryonic lives were born of the lives created by the industry.

‍
Current Public Policy Proposals in Discussion Regarding Assisted Reproductive Technology

·   MFC Supports: Requiring the Minnesota Department of Health to provide education on Restorative Reproductive Medicine in its family planning materials, maternal and child health programs, and women’s health initiatives.

·   MFC Opposes: Mandatory coverage of IVF by insurance providers, both state (Medical assistance and MinnesotaCare) and private. SF1961/HF1758 (2025)

·   MFC Opposes: Creating a legal framework for Commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is common in Minnesota, but the industry lacks a legal framework to ensure protection of contracts. HF3567 (2024)

·   MFC Opposes: Uniform Parentage Act which redefines parenthood based on intent rather than biological relationship. HF3567 (2024