Fertility & Religion 2025: How faith traditions view sperm donation, egg donation, IVF/IUI and surrogacy

Author photo
Zappelphilipp Marx•
Religious symbols from different traditions; focus on family, lineage and ethics

This overview explains how major faith traditions today approach sperm donation – with attention to origins, lineage, openness versus anonymity, family roles and identity rights. We also situate egg donation, IVF/IUI and surrogacy. The focus is values and ethics, not medical advice. Useful starting points include an interfaith review on ART & religion (NCBI/PMC), the Catholic core documents Donum vitae/Dignitas personae (Vatican), Islamic summaries (NCBI Bookshelf) and halachic discussions (NCBI/PMC). For transparency and donor information, the UK’s HFEA is a state example (HFEA).

Christianity

Catholic Church

Core stances: Unity of marriage and procreation; protection of human life from the start. Sperm donation and other third-party involvement are rejected because they separate marital lineage and affect the child’s right to know their origins. IVF/ICSI are considered problematic as conception is detached from the marital act; diagnosis and natural cycle support are viewed positively.

Practical implications: No third-party gametes; no surrogacy. Where treatments are contemplated, strategies to avoid surplus embryos are emphasised. Detailed reasoning appears in Donum vitae and Dignitas personae (Vatican) and recent overviews (NCBI/PMC).

Orthodox Churches

Core stances: Sacramentality of marriage, ascetic ethos, protection of life. Sperm donation is generally rejected; IVF/IUI with one’s own gametes may be considered in some places if strict safeguards (e.g., no surplus embryos) are met.

Points of debate: Handling of cryopreservation, status of embryos, pastoral case-by-case discernment by bishops/synods. Third parties (donation, surrogacy) are usually excluded.

Protestant Churches (mainline & free churches)

Core stances: Responsibility ethics, conscience, protection of vulnerable parties. Many mainline churches accept sperm donation and IVF/IUI under conditions: transparency with the child, minimising embryo loss, fair frameworks.

Range: Evangelical/free-church contexts are often more restrictive (rejecting third-party gametes), whereas other congregations allow donation with open documentation of origins. Clear roles, parental responsibility and embedding in community practice are important.

Other movements (LDS, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witnesses)

LDS: often open to treatments using own gametes; sperm donation treated as a matter of conscience with pastoral counselling. Pentecostal: wide variety; frequent emphasis on embryo dignity and rejection of anonymised third-party involvement. Jehovah’s Witnesses: strong opposition to embryo destruction; sperm donation is viewed critically in many communities.

Islam

Key concept:Nasab – secure lineage. The married couple is the exclusive context for procreation; third parties should not disrupt this assignment. Hence a clear line against anonymity and third-party donation.

Sunni legal opinions (majority view)

Sperm donation: prohibited; the same usually applies to egg/embryo donation and surrogacy. IVF/IUI are permitted when sperm, egg and womb belong solely to the married couple. For many jurists, frozen embryo transfer is allowed only while the marriage exists. Introductory summaries: NCBI Bookshelf.

Emphases: Preventing incest through clear genealogy, forbidding anonymity, rejecting posthumous use, strict rules for PGD/PGT. Empirical work also shows cultural barriers (e.g., stigma, access to information) across communities.

Shi’a contexts

Sperm donation: discussed in parts of the Shi’a tradition under narrow conditions (e.g., contractual safeguards, clear assignment of parenthood, status of the child, no concealment of origins). An overview of Shi’a lineage logic in donation: NCBI/PMC. Broader bioethical frames with attention to governance and national law: NCBI/PMC.

Judaism

Guiding parameters: Lineage (status questions), avoidance of prohibited relationships, clear documentation and transparency with the child. Sperm donation is evaluated differently by school and rabbinate.

Orthodox contexts

Often cautious to rejecting sperm donation. Where considered, strict conditions apply: uninterrupted identity assurance in the lab, exclusion of prohibited kinship, guidance by a rabbinic authority. Central are questions about halachic father/mother roles in donation and surrogacy.

Conservative & Reform contexts

Generally greater openness to sperm donation with clear origin documentation, later child-appropriate disclosure and stable family structures. Children’s identity rights and avoiding anonymous arrangements are gaining weight. Overview: NCBI/PMC. Country practice (e.g., Israel) shows the interlinking of religion and state regulation (NCBI/PMC).

Hinduism

Orientations: Family, dharma, avoiding harm. Sperm donation may be accepted where dignity, responsibility, fairness and transparency are secured. At the same time there are concerns about commodification and exploitation – notably in debates on surrogacy.

Practice: Decisions are shaped by family, ritual (blessings, purity) and social environment. Transparency with the child is increasingly encouraged to prevent identity issues. A scholarly ethical framing (cross-cultural) appears in an IVF review with ethical foci (NCBI/PMC).

Buddhism

Orientations: Reducing suffering, compassion, mindfulness. Sperm donation is broadly compatible when it reduces suffering, avoids exploitation and ensures fair conditions. Commonly disapproved are non-medical sex selection and the deliberate discarding of embryos.

Practice: National law and local sanghas shape application. Much discussed: transparency with the child, fair compensation without exploitation, respect for all involved. Interfaith overviews situate the Buddhist spectrum alongside other traditions (NCBI/PMC).

Sikhism

Orientations: Dignity, equality, justice, service to others. Options without third parties are less contentious. Where sperm donation is considered, communities emphasise transparent origin documentation, fair contracts and robust protections against exploitation. Uniform central directives are rare; local communities shape practice.

Bahá’í

Orientation: Harmony of religion and science; special role of spouses in procreation. Sperm donation is often viewed cautiously; specific guidance may vary by National Spiritual Assembly. Comparative overviews place this caution within interfaith discourse (NCBI/PMC).

Confucianism

Family harmony, ancestral lines and social responsibility are central. Sperm donation is more acceptable where lineage remains clearly documented, anonymity is avoided and the social fabric stays stable. Clear roles, duties and long-term responsibility towards the child matter.

Taoism

Measure, naturalness and balance guide evaluation. Technology is acceptable when it respects life’s balance, avoids exploitation and does not reduce people to instruments. Transparent, measured solutions are preferred; drastic interventions are seen as problematic.

Shintō

Purity, community harmony and respect for tradition frame assessment. Few codified dogmas exist; acceptance of sperm donation often depends on local shrines, rituals and preservation of family harmony. Clearly documented lineage and social embedding are viewed positively.

Zoroastrianism

Purity, protection of the community and wellbeing are core values. Sperm donation may be accepted when purity rules are observed, genealogy is unambiguously secured and the child’s welfare safeguarded. With no global directives, communities and diaspora settings shape practice; comparative reviews offer orientation (NCBI/PMC).

Conclusion

In short, across traditions it comes down to clear lineage, careful handling of emerging life, and fair, transparent frameworks; the better origins are documented, roles clarified, and safeguards followed, the more defensible paths there are — what is permitted and appropriate ultimately depends on the interplay of personal faith, national law, and good professional guidance.

Disclaimer: Content on RattleStork is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical, legal, or other professional advice; no specific outcome is guaranteed. Use of this information is at your own risk. See our full Disclaimer.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

There is no single view. Some traditions reject sperm donation in principle, while others allow it under conditions such as clear lineage, transparency towards the child, and fair arrangements without exploitation.

Many religious voices view anonymity critically because it complicates clear lineage and the prevention of incest. Open donation with documented origins and later, age-appropriate disclosure to the child is increasingly preferred, though details vary by tradition.

Yes, several traditions tie procreation to marriage. Other contexts place greater weight on responsibility, stability, and the child’s welfare and can be more open to unmarried or single people, but this is highly tradition-dependent.

Positions vary widely. Some religious communities reject this, while others are more open if responsibility, stability, and transparency are ensured. The local community often plays a decisive role.

It depends on the relevant religious legal order. In some contexts the social or legal parent within marriage is emphasised; in others, genetic lineage carries more weight, especially to prevent prohibited degrees of kinship.

Many religious voices favour openness because it strengthens identity rights and family clarity. Opinions differ on the timing and extent of disclosure, often guided by the child’s maturity and best interests.

Several traditions address the risk of unknown kinship. Therefore, limits, registers, or strict documentation are recommended to ensure clear genealogy and incest prevention, even where no state register exists.

Intrafamilial solutions can touch on sensitive kinship rules. Some traditions advise against them; others allow them only after careful scrutiny to avoid prohibited kinship and future conflicts.

Some communities prefer this to keep lineage, identity, and religious affiliation consistent. Others place less emphasis on the donor’s religion but stress transparency and clear agreements on values and the child’s upbringing.

Religiously, it is often required that core principles such as clear origins, no exploitation, and respect for marriage are not circumvented. Cross-border arrangements can create tensions between religious requirements and foreign law and are therefore often examined critically.

Many religious viewpoints distinguish between reasonable expense compensation and commercial exploitation. Excessive payments and financial pressure are often rejected, while fair and transparent arrangements are more readily accepted.

Testing is often supported when it promotes health and clarity of lineage. At the same time, responsible handling of sensitive data is required, respecting privacy, dignity, and family harmony.

Open registers are frequently viewed positively because they facilitate later identity clarification. The scope of data release and the timing of access for those concerned remain contentious and vary by religion and culture.

Many traditions respect the interest in origins and identity, provided all parties act respectfully. Clear, pre-agreed rules are recommended so that expectations and boundaries are transparent from the outset.

Some faith communities prefer adoption over heterologous donation; others place both options within a framework of responsibility, the child’s welfare, and transparency. Decisions are often made individually and with community input.

Many traditions emphasise responsibility, care, and stability as central parental duties. Although genetic lineage matters religiously, social parenthood is often regarded as morally binding when lived reliably.

Some religious voices argue for early, child-appropriate openness; others for a staged approach based on maturity. Truthfulness, the protection of sensitive relationships, and safeguarding the child’s welfare over their lifetime are decisive.

Several traditions link procreation to an existing marriage and reject posthumous use or use after separation. Where exceptions exist, clear contractual arrangements and documentation of origins are required, often under restrictive conditions.

In some traditions, status questions arise from genetic descent or the birth context. Therefore, clear arrangements on religious affiliation, names, rituals, and family roles are recommended to avoid later conflicts.

Many communities advise this because local interpretation, traditions, and practical questions about lineage can best be clarified there. Respect for privacy and sensitive communication are also recommended.

Documentation is often seen as central to safeguarding genealogy, preventing incest, protecting the child’s rights, and assigning fair responsibilities. Clear records of donor data within the permitted scope and clear rules for retention and later access are recommended.

Transparency, avoidance of exploitation, and secure proof of origins are decisive. Institutions that credibly implement these standards are more readily accepted than informal or anonymous arrangements without reliable evidence.

Generally yes, provided the requirements of the respective tradition are met. Certain rites may be tied to specific status issues, so clear local guidance is useful to avoid misunderstandings.

Many couples choose a solution that respects the strictest requirements of both traditions, e.g. open donation with complete documentation, clear agreement on religious upbringing, and early coordination with both communities.

Private routes are often viewed critically where documentation, identity checks, and safeguards are lacking. Structured pathways tend to be trusted more if they ensure clear origins, fair conditions, and no exploitation.

Religious assessments rarely cite fixed numbers, but emphasise responsibility, health, and reliable proof of origins. Practical criteria such as medical suitability, maturity, and stability of agreements often outweigh exact age.

Discretion and privacy protection are important, yet many religious voices call for clear relationships and no deception. A restrained but truthful communication within the necessary circles is often recommended.