Did God break his own rules by making Mary pregnant

by lighthouse19something 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  blondie

  Hagar was considered a secondary wife to Abraham so it was not considered adultery. Both Leah and Rachel had Jacob sleep with their maidservants to have children and that was considered a legal marriage as well.

  You and your husband could have your egg and his sperm combined outside your bodies and then reinserted into your womb to carry to term and that would not be adultery.

  There was a case of a JW couple who did just that in the UK (?) newspapers. There was a discussion about it on JWD if I could find it.

  Mixed Reaction To 'Frozen Egg' Baby
  By Mike Wendling
  CNSNews.com London Bureau Chief
  October 11, 2002
  
  London (CNSNews.com) - The birth of a baby girl using a British woman's once-frozen eggs was hailed as an important advance Friday by scientists, but pro-life campaigners expressed mixed feelings on the ethical issues surrounding the procedure.
  
  While not the first such procedure worldwide, the birth was the first in Britain using frozen eggs drawn from the birth mother rather than donated cells.
  
  In standard in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, sperm are combined with eggs to create embryos which are then frozen. Pro-life campaigners say the process is wasteful and results in the destruction of human life, while some scientists say "leftover" IVF embryos can be used to advance stem cell research.
  
  The woman giving birth using the frozen eggs and her husband objected to the creation of embryos that might not be used on the basis of their religious beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses.
  
  Instead, Helen and Lee Perry opted for so-called "natural IVF", where only a few eggs are taken from the woman and frozen without being inseminated. The eggs are later defrosted and fertilized one at a time until a successful pregnancy develops.
  
  The leader of the team that performed the procedure at the Midland Fertility Services clinic said egg freezing will work for women "who want to freeze their eggs to keep their reproductive options open."
  
  "I think that egg freezing may come to be seen as the ultimate kind of family planning," said Dr. Gillian Lockwood.
  
  The technique has also been recognized as a way to allow women undergoing cancer treatment that may affect their fertility to later bear their own genetic children.
  
  "We were thrilled as we realized we could tell young women who were about to undergo cancer treatment that if we collected their eggs first there was a realistic chance that one day they'd be able to be mothers of their own babies," Lockwood said.
  
  Mixed reaction
  
  Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) said the procedure was "ethically a great step forward" over traditional IVF.
  
  "The fact that the woman undergoing this procedure cited religious reasons is also quite significant," she said.
  
  Quintavalle warned, however, of the social implications of delayed childbirth on a large scale.
  
  "From our perspective, pragmatically it is a solution ... but it would be wrong to create a mentality that children can always be postponed," she said. "There are consequences that result from the divorcing of reproduction from a physical act between a man and a woman."
  
  Quintavalle said CORE would want to draw a line between women using the egg-freezing procedure in advance of cancer treatment or for moral reasons and those who simply want to delay reproduction.
  
  Nuala Scarisbrick of the Life charity said her group was afraid egg freezing would end up being just one more part of a "designer baby lifestyle."
  
  "The birth of any baby is a source of great joy," she said. "But many women will not be undergoing this procedure for health reasons."
  
  "We have always opposed the freezing and storing of eggs and sperm," Scarisbrick said, citing potential health risks for both the resultant child and the mother, whose ovaries must be stimulated to release eggs as part of the procedure.
  
  Egg freezing, Scarisbrick said, could become "part of the commodification of procreation and the manufacture of children."
  
  The first U.S. birth using frozen eggs occurred in Georgia in 1997 and there are thought to be around 30 children who have been born as a result of the procedure worldwide. The Perrys were scheduled to appear on British television Friday night to discuss their experiences.
  

  Blondie
• 

  greendawn

  No one should trust the WTS ideology since it has over time proved to be very unreliable and of a transient nature. They do not have good, inspired, well educated religious thinkers, end of story. As for God He is not bound by any laws which exist for humans and angels.
• 

  Scully

  The March 8, 1993 Awake! contained an article regarding surrogate motherhood. It states the WTS's view that a woman's body is the property of her husband, and that it would be a defilement of the "marriage bed" for someone other than the woman's own husband to impregnate her. At the time of Mary's conceiving Jesus, she was already betrothed to Joseph, so it would appear that God really did interfere with Joseph's property rights with respect to Mary's body.

  *** g93 3/8 pp. 26-27 Surrogate Motherhood—Is It for Christians? ***

  The Bible’s Viewpoint

  Surrogate Motherhood—Is It for Christians?

  THE ancient Roman poet Horace knew nothing of surrogate motherhood when he wrote: “It is of no consequence of what parents a man is born, so he be a man of merit.” The 17th-century French writer’s maxim, “Birth is nothing where virtue is not,” was also penned long before the concept of surrogate birth became a legal quagmire. But, as Mary Thom reported in Ms. magazine, with new reproductive technology, “the functions of producer of the egg, incubator of the fetus-becoming-baby, and caretaker of the baby once born” may be divided among two or three “mothers.” The question of “virtue” and “consequence” has become both ambiguous and complex.

  The practice of using surrogate mothers burst onto the world scene during the mid-1970’s, raising social, moral, and legal problems not faced before. Some infertile couples were eager to take advantage of this nontraditional mode of reproduction. On the other hand, doctors, lawyers, and legislators have struggled to keep up with the expanding fertility technology in an effort to set guidelines that address the ethical and moral questions raised.

  What Is Surrogate Motherhood?

  Surrogate, or contract, motherhood is having an artificially inseminated woman bear a child for another woman. So-called traditional surrogacy occurs when the surrogate mother is impregnated through artificial insemination with the sperm of the husband from the couple who have contracted with her. The surrogate is thus the genetic mother of the baby. Gestational surrogacy means that the wife’s egg and the husband’s sperm are united outside the womb in a process known as in-vitro (test-tube) fertilization, and the resulting embryo is placed in the surrogate’s uterus for gestation.

  Why the rise in surrogate motherhood? For one thing, high-tech science has discovered several ways to help women have babies. Couples may desperately want a child, yet because of infertility, inconvenience, or too few healthy babies for adoption, they cannot have one. So they rent another person’s body to have a baby. Since large sums of money are involved, surrogacy has been described in unflattering terms, such as “involuntary servitude and slavery” and “strip-mining the fertility of the poor.”

  In the United States, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized the potential for the rich to exploit the poor and in a surrogacy case stated: “There are, in short, values that society deems more important than granting to wealth whatever it can buy, be it labor, love, or life.” The Supreme Court of France stated that surrogate motherhood violates a woman’s body and that “the human body is not lent out, is not rented out, is not sold.”

  Problems With Surrogacy

  Surrogacy brings a number of problems. One is the potential for ugly legal battles if the woman who gives birth wants to keep the baby. Whose baby is it, the woman who gives birth or the woman who provides the egg? So the birth of a child, usually a time of joy, sometimes leads to a courtroom battle. Another problem: Some women who agree to become surrogate mothers find their feelings changing with the development and birth of the contracted child. The contract laid out some months earlier becomes harder and harder to accept. A powerful bonding relationship is being formed between the mother and the baby inside her. One surrogate mother, not anticipating this bonding, explains her feelings about giving up the baby: “It was as if somebody had died. My body was crying out for my daughter.”

  Also, what long-term effects might such a birth have on the surrogate’s other children, the family that accepts the baby, and the child itself? Or what will happen if a child born by a surrogate mother has a birth defect? Is the father obliged to take the baby? If not, who pays for the child’s support? And an even more important question, What is God’s view of surrogate motherhood?

  Does Surrogate Motherhood Honor Marriage?

  God’s Word tells us that he looks upon marriage as something sacred. For example, Hebrews 13:4 states: “Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” God expects all Christians to consider marriage honorable and to keep it that way. What defiles marriage? Fornication, which can dishonor marriage in advance, and adultery, which dishonors marriage after it has been entered into.

  Does surrogate motherhood honor marriage and keep the marriage bed undefiled? Simply put, no. Traditional surrogacy requires the insemination of the woman by donor sperm. The Bible’s view may be found at Leviticus 18:20, which says: “You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it.” There is no Biblical basis for making a distinction between insemination by intercourse and insemination artificially by donor implantation. Therefore, in either case, fornication or adultery is committed when insemination is accomplished by a male other than the woman’s legal husband.

  What about gestational surrogacy? This too defiles the marriage bed. True, the fertilized egg would be a union of the husband and his wife, but it is thereafter placed in the womb of another woman and, in fact, makes her pregnant. This pregnancy is not the result of sexual relations between the surrogate woman and her own husband. Thus, her reproductive organs are now being used by someone other than her own mate. This is inconsistent with the Bible’s moral principles that a woman bear a child for her own husband. (Compare Deuteronomy 23:2.) It would not be proper for a man other than the surrogate’s own husband to make use of her reproductive organs. It is an improper use of the marriage bed. Thus, surrogate motherhood is not for Christians.

  [Footnotes]

  The reference work New Testament Word Studies shows that “the marriage bed” of Hebrews 13:4 means that not only the state but also the use of marriage should not be defiled.

  [Picture Credit Line on page 26]

  Pastel by Mary Cassatt, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. Ralph J. Hines, 1960. (60.181)
• 

  agapa37

  Not hardly.
• 

  lighthouse19something

  Agapa,

  I've had a relative arguing that God violated the marriage of Mary & Joseph by making her pregnant before their marriage. It raises another question, Did Joseph refrain from sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. Many Catholics believe Mary stayed a virgin her entire life (even though bible said Jesus had brothers.
• 

  Sirona

  That morning Joseph, teary eyed wakes with a foul taste in mouth and a head feeling like a chariot has rode over it decides that he wants things to carry on with mary but needs to save face and therefore lets mary off the hook. He also needs an excuse to tell the blokes in the pub as they were more than aware he wasnt getting any and that any child couldnt have been his.

  I swear thats exactly how it happened...

  DB74

  ROFLMAO!!! I think you could be right.

  Sirona
• 

  Scully

  agapa37	Re: Re: Did God break his own rules by making Mary pregnant?
  Post 147 of 148 since 15-Aug-06	Not hardly.
  IP: ggEurbzFuHKNugzQ

  In other words, God's rules apply to humans, but not to God. Therefore, God is a hypocrite.
• 

  JWdaughter

  I figure all that stuff was added later by somebody trying to reconcile the OT with the new Christian Church. I think they were very concerned to add to Jesus' standing or credibility or something by making him the literal son of God. Jews never really expected an actual virgin to give birth to the messiah. Their young girls are not all anxiously awaiting God to overshadow them or something. But the Christian church seemed to get caught up in a lot of other things happening religiously in the region at the time, not to mention they all seemed to go wacky about sex in general. Read up on the early martyrs-it was nuts. The early church fathers- many seemed to have 'issues' with sexuality. I don't know exactly what brought on the religious mania against sex, but clearly they had one. Except for the looneys who took it in the other direction.

  You know-people have been screwed up for millenia!
• 

  agapa37

  I would love to discuss this with you but it seems that i have been disciplined. Can only post 5 now. I guess old habits are hard to break.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Why not? It doesn't require him to have had sex per se. If Jesus is going to die he has to be mortal (i.e. Mary has to be the Mother) but if Jesus is also going to pay the price for all the sins in the world then he must have a Divine, immortal element otherwise I don't see how He could have borne our sins in any meaningful way (for example I pass out when I get my blood taken.) There is more going on than meets the eye here theologically (to me anyway) as Adam wasn't 'born' of mortal parents so he must have been born of immortal parents ??? Since an immortal brings death by choice (but couldn't die until he made the choice) then Jesus would also need to be somewhat immortal so he could stay the course until the price is paid and then he can decide to die. I don't think our ethical decisions over birthing and parentage are quite as important, looking from a 'saving the world' viewpoint.