The paper this morning is entitled Global Evangelicalism and the Humanity of Embryonic Children. The time has come for global evangelicals to take a strong and authoritative stance on reproductive technologies. Even now, scientists are normalizing the use of genetic testing prior to implementation in order to hand-select children with certain desirable traits and colors. Monkeys are being cloned in China, while Australians are creating artificial wombs for humans. The current national discourse over abortion has taken an unexpected twist with the rising public demand for IVF. in vitro fertilization. IVF, as many of you know, is the process of joining a woman's egg ovum and a husband's sperm in a test tube rather than inside a woman's body. The phrase in vitro is Latin for in glass. When the egg in the test tube is fertilized by the sperm, the result is a human embryo. which is then implanted in the woman's womb so that it can develop like a normal baby. Unused embryos are either frozen or discarded. Now enemies on the abortion issue have suddenly found themselves to be allies due to IVF because of its discarding of human embryos. Due to what I would say is an idolatrous infatuation with creating their own progeny, some evangelical Christians have joined abortionists in believing that life does not begin at conception. This switch in belief enables them to have children via IVF while aborting unused embryos. And even in rare cases where only one embryo is used at a time, the success rate is so low that roughly 83% of the time the end result of IVF is the death of the embryo anyway. The evangelical believes that human beings are human persons and vice versa. Pro-life movement supporters have for decades held the belief that human life begins at conception and we must not budge. The understanding was that once the egg was fertilized, it was then a human being irrespective of where it was located. The embryo could be an ectopic pregnancy, implanted in the womb, or even in a test tube. None of it mattered. It was human life. Both time and geolocation were not determiners of humanity of the embryo. Humanity began at fertilization. Now, as you know, this position has been fiercely opposed by those in the abortion movement. Richard Paulson, the leading gynecologist from USC's Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, infamously wrote, we must not stand by while anti-abortion groups continue to claim falsely that the dictum life begins at conception is supported by science. As scientists and providers of reproductive healthcare, We witnessed firsthand the reality of fertilization and early embryonic development. We who dedicate our lives to helping patients achieve pregnancies and build their families know that we do not create life in the laboratory. We do not witness a human death when an embryo fails to survive what he calls cyropreservation. We observe the continuous nature of human life with fertilization representing only one step. And know from a biological point of view, no new life begins when fertilization is achieved. Let us be clear, life begins at conception, is a religious, not a scientific concept." End quote. But is Paulson correct that this is merely and purely a religious concept? Are we simply stepping into the realm of metaphysics? Well, in 2021, Stephen Jacobs discovered otherwise. In writing for Issues in Law and Medicine, Jacobs published an article entitled, The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins. You can look it up yourself and read it. In it, Jacobs reports, Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization. And he puts, quote, the fertilization view. As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether fertilization view is, quote, philosophical or religious belief, 45% of Americans, or, quote, a biological and scientific fact, 46% of Americans. And only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of human life. In the two studies, they explored the experts' view on the matter. Fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals. Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human's life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts' views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins, and overall, 96%, 5,337 out of 5,577, affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science communication suggests that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective and a recent study's finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human's life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions, science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human's life begins." That's massive. So even while the American public questions to when science believes life begins, Jacobs reports that unbeknownst to Americans, 96% of biologists from academic institutions around the world already affirm that human life begins at fertilization. In speaking with the New York Times, Amanda Clark, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, who has examined the question for years as a stem cell biologist, made the following declaration in the New York Times. From the biologist's point of view, I'd need to say life of a mammalian organism begins at fertilization. Unequivocally, scientists and biologists believe that human life begins at conception. And as one scientist put it, thus even in the absence of legal rights, there is no denying that the embryo constitutes the beginning of human life, a member of the human family. Therefore, whatever the attitude, every country has to examine which practices are compatible with the respect of that dignity and the security of human genetic material." Now, we as believers are concerned more than just mere genetic material. We care about the soul. And for that, we turn to what happened in February of this year. In February of this year, a landmark decision by the Alabama Supreme Court cemented this view into law. The court ruled seven to two in favor of protecting embryonic human life under the state's wrongful death of a minor act. The case originally rose in 2020 when a patient in Mobile, Alabama walked into an adjacent fertility clinic and accidentally destroyed a container of frozen embryonic children. Instead of being merely property of the parents, the Supreme Court of Alabama declared that the embryos were human children. Justice Jay Mitchell, in the primary opinion, wrote the following, quote, unborn children are children under the act without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics, end quote. What was the crown jewel was Chief Justice Tom Parker's evangelical beliefs which were evidently his guiding star as you hear what he wrote. Listen to this. Number one, God made every human in his image. Number two, each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate. 3. Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Section 3606 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life, that even before birth all human beings bear the image of God and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory." End quote. The court's decision ensured that the assault on what it means to be human, from sexuality to artificial creations of human life, compels evangelicals to stand consistent in their support for the integrity of heterosexual marriage, sex, and the preservation of human life from the moment of conception. Indeed, every life and existence of future generations depend on it. Moral ambiguity will only lead to disastrous types of declarations, as we are beginning to see in certain mainline Protestant denominations. And for that, I will give you certain examples. The Episcopal Church in its 2022 binder of resolutions. The denomination identifies both pregnancy and childbirth as, quote, dangerous undertakings that risk permanent disability and death for those who bear children, end quote. Therefore, the church states that uninhibited access to abortion and birth control are necessary for, quote, preserving the health, independence, and autonomy of those who can bear children, end quote. Let's look at another church, United Methodist Church. In its 2024 revised social principles, states the following. We support the use of a variety of reproductive strategies for those desiring to have children, including fertility treatments, in vitro fertilization, embryo or sperm donation, surrogacy, and others. We believe the decision whether to use reproductive alternatives is best left to those considering the use of those options in consultation with their health care providers. In all instances, the use of reproductive alternatives should be in keeping with the highest ethical standards prioritizing the health and well-being of both women children. Now in evangelical circles there are names that are well more spoken I think outspoken on this issue than others and many of you have heard Al Mohler's statement on this. It's worth repeating he's known for it so I'm going to give it to you but I will I will I will add a certain critique to it. He's mostly right. Moeller states, Christian couples must not embrace the new reproductive technologies without clear biblical and theological reflection. Moeller continues, at a bare minimum, Christian couples must commit to the implantation of all embryos and the selective reduction of none. In other words, what he's saying is don't freeze and discard any. But this does not alter the fundamentally artificial character of the technology or the moral status of the embryos. He's correct. And thus IVF presents grave moral issues to the Christian conscience. For these reasons, it cannot be encouraged. We oppose the denial of human dignity to the unborn and often forgotten frozen embryos. He's right. We must oppose the use of these technologies by those who would subvert the family, the marital covenant, and the creator's gift of sexual union and procreation. What I would argue is that the bare minimum must be procreation resulting from marital sexual union. In IVF, doctors create human life outside the boundaries of sexual intercourse. Even if no embryos are ever discarded, the procedure would not be sanctioned by scripture due to the absence of the one-flesh union. i.e. sex. Scripture teaches us that one purpose of the sex act within marriage is for the creation of godly children. Malachi 2.15. Without this proscription, any union of any egg and any sperm would not even constitute adultery, for adultery correctly is defined as, quote, voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse, end quote. In IVF and other artificial birth technologies, there is no sexual intercourse involved. This is a big deal. And while Moeller focuses on the importance of frozen embryos, which correctly is categorized as humanity, I would go further and spotlight this glaring problem with the entire process, the lack of sexual intercourse. This problem is why gay couples, unmarried women, surrogate mothers, and infertile couples are just a few of individuals producing human beings via artificial technologies and outside of the will of God. If IVF is not a sin, then what sin is a gay couple committing when they birth a child via IVF? There is no sex act involved. The question must be answered with brutal theological honesty in an ever-skeptical age, an anti-life age that is visceral with any weaknesses in our argument. This is a battlefield. So when does life begin? In closing, as a theologian, I stand before you in this perspective simply as a theologian and no other capacity. I do hold that the question of human life's beginning is ultimately a theological question. The Bible does teach us to believe that the unborn child is a human person from the moment of conception. In the Old Testament, if an unborn child died even because of an accidental hit during a fight between two men, the one who caused the unborn child's death was subject to capital punishment in Exodus 21. Life went for life. Furthermore, prior to their birth, Scripture viewed both Jacob and Esau as two unique children who would become two nations within Rebekah's womb. before they were even born. And lastly, and I believe most convincingly from a theological perspective, reflecting on the beginning of his own existence, King David mentions his own accountability for sin, starting at the moment of conception when he says in Psalm 51, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We all agree here, David is not speaking of his mother's sin, but his own. And why is this so convincing? Because by divine revelation, David is teaching us that accountability for sin begins when? At conception. Therefore we conclude, listen to me, we conclude that human personhood begins at conception, for only humans are held accountable for sin. Does that make sense? Clumps of cell without a soul are not charged with iniquity. And so I close with a rally call, if I will. And it's a clarion call for those of us who support the sanctity of life. Support it since its inception. Support it since its conception. Support it within the means by which God has given us and sanctioned for life to be brought into this world. Support it because the image of God is worth defending for the sake of God's glory. God bless you.