Christian Response to Reproductive Technologies: A Case Study of Artificial Insemination

: The scientific method of artificial insemination is one of the reproductive technology that came into widespread use some decades ago. With this method, some couples with fertility problems can now have children through artificial insemination; a process where concentrated male semen is introduced into the female reproductive system artificially in the clinic for childbearing. The increasing cases of childlessness, infertility or barrenness among married couples and request from the homosexuals (gay and lesbians) have given rise to high demand for artificial insemination. Today, there are commercial sperm banks that store frozen sperms for sell to those who need them. This artificial method of childbearing has generated serious controversy among theologians, bioethical and Christian scholars. Artificial insemination has indeed given hope to many couples globally whose marriages were threatened due to the problem of barrenness, childlessness or reproductive malfunctioning. The major Christian and ethical concern is that the process is artificial and manipulative rather than being natural. This paper aims to examine the biblical perspective of this phenomenal scientific breakthrough and show whether or not artificial insemination is compatible with the Christian doctrine of marriage and childbearing. The research method adopted is descriptive, using secondary materials from journals, textbooks and websites to elucidate the points. The study reveals that there is no consensuses agreement on the issue of reproductive technology among Christian scholars and the biblical interpretation of some related passages are not explicit on issues of reproductive technology. The study, therefore, recommends a more natural way of treating the issues of infertility, barrenness and childlessness by investigating into the causes of infertility and proffer a curative solution rather than resort into masturbation and commercialization of human sperm and egg.

Abstract: The scientific method of artificial insemination is one of the reproductive technology that came into widespread use some decades ago. With this method, some couples with fertility problems can now have children through artificial insemination; a process where concentrated male semen is introduced into the female reproductive system artificially in the clinic for childbearing. The increasing cases of childlessness, infertility or barrenness among married couples and request from the homosexuals (gay and lesbians) have given rise to high demand for artificial insemination. Today, there are commercial sperm banks that store frozen sperms for sell to those who need them. This artificial method of childbearing has generated serious controversy among theologians, bioethical and Christian scholars. Artificial insemination has indeed given hope to many couples globally whose marriages were threatened due to the problem of barrenness, childlessness or reproductive malfunctioning. The major Christian and ethical concern is that the process is artificial and manipulative rather than being natural. This paper aims to examine the biblical perspective of this phenomenal scientific breakthrough and show whether or not artificial insemination is compatible with the Christian doctrine of marriage and childbearing. The research method adopted is descriptive, using secondary materials from journals, textbooks and websites to elucidate the points. The study reveals that there is no consensuses agreement on the issue of reproductive technology among Christian scholars and the biblical interpretation of some related passages are not explicit on issues of reproductive technology. The study, therefore, recommends a more natural way of treating the issues of infertility, barrenness and childlessness by investigating into the causes of infertility and proffer a curative solution rather than resort into masturbation and commercialization of human sperm and egg.

Introduction
The desire for artificial insemination on the increase. Some medical considerations have alluded to this; a woman's inability to conceive through normal sexual intercourse as a result of an abnormal position of the uterus, a small cervical opening or from a man's impotence, malformed penis, low sperm count and obesity [1]. It could also be as a result of miscarriages; infertility on the part of a man (husband) caused by his inability to produce adequate or fertile sperm; barrenness on the part of the woman caused by her inability to ovulate or produce fertile eggs; or other medical conditions such as untreated infections, incompatibility of blood cells by the couple, or congenital deformity of the genital organs, through accidents, diseases, lack of density or motility of the husband's sperm; psychological causes leading to impotence, premature ejaculation or failure to ejaculate despite normal relations. All these factors contributed to hinder the normal reproductive process and gave rise to the concept of human artificial insemination [1]. The use of artificial insemination on animals has led to improved and increased animal productivity but extending this to humans has generated a lot of controversy because of the ethical, moral, legal, political and theological issues involved.

Historical Background of Artificial Insemination
The history of artificial insemination varies depending on the scholar's perspective. Davis opines that artificial insemination 'dates back to the latter part of the eighteenth century in the case of humans and possibly as far back as the fourteenth century for animals' [1]. According to him, it was the Arabian horse breeders in the fourteenth century that successfully inseminated a mare with the semen of a stallion. He further asserts that the first successful human artificial insemination was performed by an English surgeon, John Hunter in 1790. In America, Marion Sims also performed human artificial insemination in 1866 but was forcefully abandon the experiment because of the public outcry it produced [1]. However, in 1978, the first test-tube baby Louise Joy Brown was conceived by in-vitro fertilization and was born at Oldham and District General Hospital in Manchester, England in the United Kingdom through the instrumentality of Artificial Insemination. In Nigeria, the first test-tube baby Miss Hannatu Kupchi is now 17 years and was born at Nisa Premier Hospital in Abuja on February 11, 1998. This medical breakthrough, though laudable in solving human fertility problems, it has equally given birth to increased medical, ethical, political, religious and legal debates as to the morality or otherwise of the practice of Artificial Insemination. While different views exist even among religious scholars, this paper aims to examine the biblical perspective of this phenomenal scientific breakthrough and show whether or not artificial insemination is compatible with the Christian doctrine or is biblically acceptable.

The Concept of Artificial Insemination
Different scholars define artificial insemination (AI) differently depending on their background but the underlining factor as the name implies is that the process is artificial and not natural. Artificial insemination is "impregnation not using natural intercourse, but using mechanical, artificial aids e.g. syringe, used for the transfer of the sperm [2]. More simply, Oluwe, defines artificial insemination (AI) as the process in which "male gametes, the spermatozoa, are collected and introduced artificially into the female genital tract for fertilization" [3].
Ekeke defines it as a process by which sperm is placed into the reproductive tract of a female to impregnate the female by means other than sexual intercourse". Ekeke [4] further explains that AI was used primarily as an assisted reproductive technology to treat infertility but is now being increasingly used to enable women without a male partner (that is, single women or lesbians) to become pregnant and have children through the sperm provided by a sperm donor.
This has also enabled surrogacy which has equally raised many critical issues such as the idea of depersonalizing reproduction by creating "a separation of genetic, gestational and social parenthood" [5]. This has further created the problem of benefit in that a woman can bear a child for the benefit of another as opposed to having a child for its own sake.
Opuku alludes that the concept of In-vitro Fertilization IVF was first conceived by Robert G. Edward in the 1950s [6]. He was motivated by the research he conducted on how hormones can control the functioning of the ovaries in mice, such as oocyte maturation and ovulation. After a series of medical research, he came up with valid research that human oocytes could undergo in-vitro maturation and fertilization in-vitro [6].

Types of Artificial Insemination 4.1. In-Vitro Fertilization
The word in-vitro is derived from its Latin meaning "in glass". Otherwise known as "in-glass fertilization", in this process the egg and sperm are brought together in a glass laboratory container or test tube and groomed manually or artificially. IVF is, therefore, the fusion of male and female gametes outside the body in a laboratory to form a zygote. The fertilized embryo is then put back inside the woman body. In-vitro fertilization is a process whereby a woman's egg, removed by the laparoscope, is fertilized with sperm in the laboratory. Typically, the ovaries are stimulated by a fertility drug and then a few ova are removed and fertilized. The most promising zygote is then placed into the uterus, and hopefully, it develops into pregnancy and birth.
According to Peschke, maturation of several eggs is brought about in the woman's ovaries using drugs. The eggs are surgically removed, fertilized with the male sperm in a glass container and after a few days transferred into the woman's uterus in the hope that pregnancy will occur. The success rate, however, is rather low, so that more often than not several attempts have to be made. The treatment is a lengthy, taxing odyssey for all involved, the physician, the husband and most of all the wife.
It has been generally held that the woman is the gestational and genetic or biological mother of the child produced from artificial insemination while the sperm donor whether known or unknown is the genetic or biological father of the child. Hence, the question raised by Ronald Monson [16] about a child born out of AI desiring to know his or biological father. Our focus in this paper, however, is to discuss the various types of artificial insemination showing their benefits and problems and why they should either continue to flourish or be abated especially among Christians.

Artificial Insemination by Husband (AIH) (Homologous)
This method involves the use or placement of the husband's healthy sperm in his wife's uterus to fertilize the ovum and produce a child without sexual intercourse. It is otherwise referred to as homologous insemination. This is the least controversial method because the gametes involved belong to the couple themselves. It can be seen as the overcoming of a mere physical obstacle to the conception of the couple's child. Homologous insemination is considered medically responsible on principle. One will have to admit that, where the sperm comes from the husband; the child is conceived as the fruit of legitimate marriage and is, therefore, a legitimate child. The procreative meaning of the sexual act is by no means frosted in this kind of artificial insemination but on the contrary, supported. The direct purpose of the insemination is the conception of a child. And since husband and wife desire a child together because of their love for each other, the sexual act also retains its meaning as an expression of love. In this sense, the spouses will doubtless evaluate it. Hence the double end of sexuality is secured in homologous insemination. The directly intended ejaculation outside of the woman's vagina or even outside of a marital act does not possess the characteristic defects of true masturbation as the solitary sin is judged objectionable are not verified in homologous insemination Peschke (2009:297)

Artificial Insemination by Donor (AID) (Heterologous)
Artificial insemination by donor is when sperm is obtained from a donor generally unknown other than the husband, one speaks of heterologous insemination. This involves the use of the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor especially where the husband cannot produce healthy sperm cells or the woman has no partner or is a lesbian. This is also known as heterogonous insemination. This has been more controversial because it involves the sperm of another male, typically an anonymous sperm donor, so that any child conceived will be genetically linked only to its mother. This would be resorted to when the husband lacks viable sperm or when he carries the trait for a genetic disorder that might be passed on to the offspring. Atkinson asserts that this "compromised technique uses any available semen from the husband in conjunction with that of the donor for whatever psychological benefits there may be in the couple's believing that the child might, after all, be 'his'".

Surrogacy
Another method of reproductive technology that has generated controversy is that of surrogacy. Surrogacy is the bearing of a child by a woman for another couple. In partial surrogacy, a woman agrees to be inseminated artificially by the husband of a childless couple to provide for the couple a child who will be genetically related to the husband, if not the wife. This is performed if the wife is infertile (Atkinson 1995:829). In a simple term, surrogacy is where a husband's sperm is used to impregnate another fertile woman (not the wife) -a third party who carries the pregnancy and bear the child for the couple. In the case of full surrogacy, the procedure is transferring an egg fertilized in the laboratory (IVF) to a woman who then carries it to term and delivers the baby to the couple. In this method, the mother is typically engaged by an agency, which for fee arranges a contract between the couple and the mother This method has largely been abused by women who now employ or contract other women to become pregnant by their husband's sperm simply because they do not want to lose their shape, physique or physical appearance or other symptoms associated with pregnancy (Atkinson 1995: 829).
Other Types of Artificial Insemination, namely: 1. Intra-vaginal insemination. This method involves the placement of the sperm in the woman's vagina by artificial means. 2. Intra-cervical insemination. This is a process where sperms are deposited or placed inside the cervix of the woman to impregnate her. 3. Intra-uterine insemination whereby the sperm is deposited directly in the female uterus. 4. Intra-fallopian insemination whereby the sperms are deposited or placed inside the pelvis near the mouth of the fallopian tube (Geisha et al, 179). Ekeke has pointed out that this is the most commonly used methods of insemination (58).

Arguments in Favour of Artificial Insemination
Some Christian scholars and theologians in support of artificial insemination argue that artificial insemination has helped in solving the problem of childlessness (infertility) in the society which has directly reduce the practice of polygamy, especially in African societies, by helping women who were incapable of conception to conceive. Furthermore, despite the option of adoption by childless couples, artificial insemination offers a better option of having and raising one's biological child despite the odds. This gives a more fulfilling feeling of satisfaction than adopting another's the child. Thus, it has helped to preserve progeny especially in the African culture where one's family name and bloodline must be carried on to the next generation. According to Nzeh, with in-vitro fertilization, a couple can have biological children of their own. Especially when there is no difference between a baby born through the in-vitro fertilization process and a baby born through a natural process (Nzeh 2016:44). Murray argues that inherited diseases can be reduced through artificial insemination. According to him, fetuses used during in-vitro fertilization process are free from genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, down's syndrome, sickle cell anaemia and Tay Sachs disease with the help of genetic screening technology called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) or preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) when such genetic problem run in a parent or family history [15]. Furthermore, artificial insemination has helped to reduce HIV patients by intrauterine insemination of an HIV negative woman with washed and prepared sperm of her HIV positive husband. It has also helped in the preservation of sperm by freezing it for future use before Radiotherapy or chemotherapy takes place for cancer patients. It has helped men who had a problem of producing sperm during sexual intercourse with their female partner (wife) to have children and also women with minimal to mild endometriosis (that is where cells that are usually found only in the lining of the uterus (womb) begin to spread or grow into other parts of the woman's reproductive system, which in most cases is responsible for infertility among women) to now have children through artificial [14].
From the socio-cultural and religious perspective, artificial insemination has helped couples who were viewed by the society as barren, cursed, infertile, childless, witches and wizards or even sinful as a result of their childless state to become free from the pedicles, accusations and stigmatization by inlaws, church members and the society at large.
However, despite the scientific breakthrough and the relieve artificial insemination has brought to families globally, the method has equally raised some ethical, legal, social and theological questions that need to be addressed. For instance, is it biblically right to reproduce a child through technological means? Outside the "natural" means of sexual intercourse? Should a Christian couple accept artificial insemination a means of solving the problem of childlessness? Does the use of a stranger's sperms, egg or uterus go against the sovereign will of God in marital child-begetting? Should children be told that they were conceived using donor sperm or in vitro? These questions now bring us to the negative aspect of artificial insemination.

Arguments in Against Artificial Insemination
One strong argument against artificial insemination is that it involves a third-party and the Church does not approve a third party involvement in the procreation process such as egg or sperm donation or surrogacy. The fertilization of the egg in a glass container views children as mere products that can be produced and discarded at will rather than see Children as gifts from God. From the biblical perspective, God created man in his image…male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27) and endowed in them different sexual organs for procreation. This differentiation is what constitutes human nature and essence and destroying this in the name of experimentation means destroying the very image of God in humans. With this in view, some Christian's scholars argue that the idea of artificial insemination runs counter to God's will for humanity.
Again, some scholars arguing on moral grounds opine that artificial insemination encourages single parenting, surrogacy, gay marriages, lesbianism as well as making children bearing a lucrative business for some businessmen who store frozen sperm and egg for sell at high and exuberant cost.

Christian Response to Artificial Insemination
Christian considerations on ethical issues such as this are viewed from the authority of the Scripture as their sola scriptura. It is on this ground that Kunhiyop (2008:46), opines that Christian ethics and indeed, ''all ethical norms come from God and as such, it should be treated with care since such norms are not based on human values and ideas but derived their content and sanction and dynamics and goal from God''. From the Christian perspectives, the problem of childlessness in the world today is not new. It is traceable as far back as the Old Testament.
The remedy available for childless couples in time past was adoption or polygamy. However, adoption did not satisfy the desire of parents to have their children. The result of medical science now offers a variety of options to childless couples. This situation doubtless has raised numerous issues ranging from the morality of its practices to the political, socio-economic and religious consequences.
As with other issues involving human procreation, an ethical analysis of the nature of artificial insemination transcends medical and legal considerations and anchors on the morality of artificial insemination on the divine purpose for human sexuality and the institution of marriage. Davis advises that in dealing with the issue of artificial insemination, serious considerations must be taken with regards to the divine purpose for human sexuality and the institution of marriage, otherwise, the generation of human life will be placed on the same level with that of animal husbandry because the technical possibilities are similar [1].
From the Christian perspective, the questions arising from this are: Is it ethically or morally right for a Christian to reproduce in a way that is not natural? Does the use of a stranger's sperm, egg or uterus violate the integrity of marital child-begetting? Should children be told that they were conceived using donor sperm or in vitro? It is on this note; that this study will examine the Christian response to artificial insemination ethically and morally from the sovereign will of God. The most explicit teaching of the scripture is that God is sovereign over his entire creation. In other words, he has absolute authority and rules over his creation. Meaning that since he is sovereign, he is allknowing, all-powerful and free. There is no rival or competitor, no spirit or thing, that can undetermined his sovereign and loving provision for his creation. His kingdom rules over all (Ps. 103:19).
Atkinson [12] alludes that: For Christians, the issues of God's sovereignty and plan for his people's lives are real issues. Recourse to technological means, even when ethically acceptable, may not be in God's plan for couples. Sarai's turning to 'representational begetting' as a solution to barrenness was a socially acceptable practice but was not God's will for her or Abram, and this had far-reaching consequences (Gen. 16:1-12, 17: 19-21).
Still, in the light of God's sovereignty, the Bible encourages God's people to look beyond their circumstances to God's wider purposes. The wider purpose of God may differ from the individual's desire or purpose. God's predetermined purpose is eternal and short-circuiting God's predetermined purpose may have an eternal consequence as was in the case of Sarai and Abraham. In Galatians 4:4 God sent His son "at the fullness of time", Zechariah and Elizabeth, were both 'upright in the sight of God" (Lk 1:6) but for years they suffered barrenness and social disgrace but at the fullness of time, God fulfilled His purpose by blessing them with John the Baptist.
Echoing the same opinion, Opuku and Addai-Mensah view this "technique as an intrusion in the divine process of procreation, an intrusion into the bond of marriage and parenthood, the sanctity of life to the status of the embryo" [6]. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, approves two types of reproductive assistance which are intrauterine insemination (IUI) and Gamete Intra-Fallopian Tube Transfer (GIFT) [7]. The acceptance of these two methods is based on the fact that "masturbation is not the means of collecting the sperm" [8]. It is more natural than manipulative.
The Church, therefore, frowns at any reproductive technique that manipulates the natural reproductive organ. Nelson opines that "the fertilization of the egg in a glass dish views children as mere products that can be produced and gotten rid of rather than a gift from God. As life begins at conception, destroying embryos in the name of experimentation tantamount to murdering innocent human beings while freezing embryos is morally detestable". Grave [9] frowns at the process of sperm collection and indicates that the sperm used in the process is usually obtained through masturbation which the church condemns to be immoral.
For Christians, masturbation, condomistic intercourse, coitus interruptus or any other methods not connected with marital intercourse is against God. The following passages in the Bible condemn the practice of homosexuals whether gay or lesbianism as sinful (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Rom. 1:26), implying that since gay or lesbian relationship cannot on their own reproduce a child but only depend on sperm or egg obtained from an unknown donor it will involve the manipulative process which the church condemns. It is on this note that the heterologous process of artificial insemination is more controversial especially among Christians.
Moral theologians, speaking against heterologous insemination regarding lesbian couples or unmarried women, seeking to have a child through an anonymous sperm donor, they argue that the child from the start will be deprived of a father and a normal family life, which they see as an injustice, as well as an aberration of the biblical principle of parenthood and declare the process unacceptable and also as infringing on the natural right of an infant. They opine that the right of a child to be brought up in healthy and normal family life must be protected and put in focus when lesbian couples request for artificial insemination [2].
In the case of homologous insemination, this is least controversial because the gametes involved belong to the couple themselves. Where the husband's sperm is used to fertilize the wife's ovum and a child is produced without sexual intercourse. It can be seen as overcoming a mere physical obstacle to the conception of the couple's child.
In this case, according to Peschke [2]: The insemination is with the consent of the husband. This guarantees a basic acceptance to the child. In this way, it is argued, a childless couple can fine the happiness of the blessings of children. Also, the husband shares in the blessings, since for a man the experience of psychological fatherhood is more important than the knowledge of being the biological father (2009: 295). Some Christian homosexuals have argued in defence that heterologous artificial insemination should be accepted as a practice since biblical characters like Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:4) and David and Jonathan (1Sam. 18:20) were lovers and may have agreed to own a child if such methods were available in their time. They present these Bible characters as Christian models for lesbian and gay relationships, in justifying their desire for heterologous artificial insemination. In Genesis God gave man the command to be fruitful and multiply which clearly shows God's desire for human multiplicity and since fruitfulness is God's plan for mankind, it is within His ambit to do so according to His sovereign will. The argument here is that since it is God's prerogative to give children and not man, not science, sperm donation and artificial insemination by scientist represents a contention with God as the giver of children. While couples, even Christian couples often feel they have a "right" to have children and so can do whatever it takes to have them, Christians are employed to wait patiently on the giver of all good gifts and consider their state a mere trial aimed at glorifying God in the end according to Romans 8:28. Thus children should be seen as precious gifts from God and not guaranteed "objects" to be bought or acquired through artificial insemination.
Secondly, the word of God limits sexual relations within the context of marriage lone (Exo. 20: 14) condemning any sexual relationship outside marriage. Within marriage, there are no restrictions on sexual activity except it is selfish or abusive (I Cor. 6:19, 7:3-5, Heb 13: 4). The three main purposes of a marriage of procreation, relational and healing are advised to be held in honour. Masturbation and adultery are regarded as sinful before God. From the biblical perspective, since masturbation, which is self-stimulation of the sexual or genital organ manually or by other artificial means to attain sexual gratification is against God, obtaining the semen from either the husband or the donor tantamount to sin which the Bible abhor.
While there are no clear Biblical references to masturbation in the Bible, Christian scholars and leaders have strongly condemned it on the following grounds.
1. Fantasizing and lustful thinking is almost always involved in masturbation which Jesus Christ condemns in the Bible (Matt 5:27-28). 2. It is a perversion of the sexual act (I Cor. 7:3-4) and defrauds a wife. 3. Paul in I Cor. 7:9 advises Christians who do not have the self-control to marry rather than burn in lust. 4. Paul also in I Cor. 6:12 declares that "All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything", hence we should not be mastered by masturbation 5. Masturbation is considered a sin and as such artificial insemination attracts guilt for its commission which must be confessed and forgiven in other for the Christian to receive peace and grow in the Lord. (I Jn. 1:9, Rom14:23).
Jay Adams [13] concludes that "the donor is required to masturbate to produce the semen necessary for the act. Masturbation is a sin!" (3). However, like Geisler, other Christians maintain that where the act is done out of love to provide a child for a childless couple, it is acceptable.
Another issue raised on sexual relationships as it relates to artificial insemination is adultery which the Bible in Matt.5:27-28 outright condemns. Artificial insemination by donor (AID) has been termed adultery by many Christians since it involves the third party. Uduigwomen argues that such a pregnancy should be considered as being out of wedlock and therefore illegitimate [17]. Advocates of AID, on the other hand, have argued that there is no adultery involved in it since there is mutual consent between the husband and his wife. Commenting on the statement made by Jesus in Matt.5:27-28 that "… anyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart". Anderson [10] declares in negation that "there is no such attitude discernable in AID". This group of Christians argue that a man who is masturbating to either donate sperm or to produce sperm to impregnate his wife may not necessary have engaged in any lust full thoughts. The Catholic Church strongly condemns AID especially because of its third-party involvement stressing that sexual relationship should be aimed at fulfilling the natural or proper ends of marriage which is for procreation and unitive function.
Thirdly it has been observed that there is a high rate of infant death and deformity among children conceived through artificial insemination. This suggests to Christians that God is not in support of artificial insemination as a means of solving childlessness or infertility. Some have agreed that AID can be likened to the levirate marriage as was practised in the Old Testament whereby a brother took his late brother's widow as the wife to produce children to bear and preserve the name and lineage of his late brother where he died childless. This is however not the case in artificial insemination especially artificial insemination donor where the donor is anonymous and does not know who his sperm was used on nor the child produced by that process except an occasion demanded it.
Ethically Christians have tried to consider whether or not it is 'right' to use artificial insemination to have children. According to Geisler [11] Auto-sexuality is wrong only if it leads to sin such as lust or enslaving habit. If the act were performed for selfish reasons, then it could be considered, on that note right to do so. Thus some Christians support artificial insemination since the purpose is to give hope and joy to a childless couple. Many marriages are broken as a result of childlessness especially in most African societies where an "heir" is of uttermost important in marriages.

Conclusion
This study acknowledges that science has greatly reduced the problem of infertility with the aid of artificial insemination but believes that scientist, biotechnologist and medical practitioners should rather investigate more into the causes of infertility and proffer a curative solution to it rather than resorting to artificial insemination with its surrounding moral and controversial debates. As noted earlier, children are gifts and blessings from God, ordained within the institution of marriage, for the sexual relationship between husband and wife which should take place within the marriage bond and not in a laboratory.
This work observes that the rejection of artificial insemination by donor (AID) which involves a third party by Christians is because marriage is meant to be a sacred institution which exists only between the husband and his wife and that AID is a scientific way of committing adultery which is also called "mechanical adultery" which is ethically and biblically wrong in the light of the following passages Mk. 10:11-19, Lk. 16:18-20, Gal. 5:19, 2Pet/ 2:14. These reasons, AID is not accepted though some people may argue why blood donation or transfusion is accepted and that of sperm rejected, the reason is that blood donation and transfusion is acceptable because it does not result in the reproduction or creation of another human but for survival or is meant solely to save a life in need. In artificial insemination, sperm donated reproduces a baby that may not possibly know his father and this brings about a serious moral issue as to the paternity of the child. Cases abound where the paternity of innocent children have been contested in the court, some resulting into divorce which God hates. Though there is no consensus among Christian scholars and ethicist, and the Bible is not explicit on it, the moral, socio-economic and cultural issues as well as the diverse complications it has on marriage institution, it is advisable for Christians to keep to God's original plan for marriages and wait on His will for them.

Recommendations
There are few recommendation: 1. This work encourages Christians to always pray and wait on God rather than resort to artificial insemination since this may not be the will of God for them. The story of Abraham and Sarah is a typical example of married couples trying to solve their problem by human wisdom and ended with regrettable consequences for them. 2. Scientist, biotechnologist, medical practitioners should develop a more natural way of obtaining sperm from a donor to void masturbation which is against the Christian doctrine and a perversion of a natural sexual act. 3. The government should place a serious restriction on the commercialization of frozen sperm and eggs by scientist, biotechnologist and medical practitioners. Donation of sperm and eggs should only be restricted to married men and women who are not practising homosexuality. 4. Homosexuals should be allowed to live with the reality that same-sex marriage cannot get them a child or get them pregnant and that artificial insemination is not for them. 5. Single parents should not be given the opportunity of benefiting from artificial insemination as this is opposed to God's plan for humanity. According to Genesis 1:28, God commands Christians to ''be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth''. Also in Genesis 2:24, God said: ''for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh''. Voluntary single parenting violates this injunction.