alternative methods of conception? I'm just curious about where they stand on this. If a couple cannot have a child, is the only acceptable option adoption?
Just curious.
Desi
What do the JW's believe about....
by desib77 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
ozziepost
is the only acceptable option adoption
No, not the only option. The preferred option is pioneering!!!
Ozzie
-
Doubtfully Yours
Personal option. However, they highly encourage you to consider it a blessing because now you as a couple can pursue higher spiritual privileges within the organization without the burden of children.
DY
-
shamus
Yup. Ozzie is absolutely right.... that's about the freakin' mind set.
-
FMZ
Unfortunately, any means of conception that do not involve the genitalia are classed as "improper use of turkey baster".
FMZ
-
ezekiel3
JW have been given complete license for contraception with no restrictions:
Watchtower 1 August 1981 says YES: However, nowhere does God?s Word, the Bible, equate such birth control with fornication or adultery. While it condemns the latter, it is silent about the former, making it a matter for personal decision.
However it gets weird when it comes to a v asectomy or t ubal ligation (female tubes tied) the Governing Body is guilty of its classic flip flops. Currently:
Watchtower 15 June 1999 says NO : We know that Christians are not under Israel?s Law, so the regulation at Deuteronomy 25:11, 12 is not binding on them. Jesus neither ordered nor implied that his disciples must marry and have as many children as possible, which many couples have considered when deciding on whether to use some method of birth control. (Matthew 19:10-12) The apostle Paul did encourage passionate ?younger widows to marry and bear children.? (1 Timothy 5:11-14) He did not bring up the permanent sterilization of Christians?their voluntarily sacrificing their reproductive potential to bear children. (So where is the scriiptual backup?)
But Christians who are not facing such an unusual and distinct risk (such as condition that would cause death to mother or child) would certainly want to use ?soundness of mind? and shape their thinking and deeds by God?s esteem for reproductive potential. (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5-8) This would reflect mature sensitivity to Scriptural indications. Yet, what if it became publicly known that a Christian blithely disregarded God?s evaluations? Would not others doubt whether he (or, she) was a good example, having a reputation of making decisions in harmony with the Bible? Such a disturbing blemish on one?s reputation could, of course, affect a minister?s being qualified for special privileges of service, though that might not be so if one had in ignorance had this procedure performed .?1 Timothy 3:7.
All this gives us some idea of how God feels when a person or a nation dedicated to him tampers with the reproductive organs, preventing their normal function. It is true that the Mosaic law containing the above provisions was done away with in Christ, but God has not changed his attitude on sterilization. The sense, the force, the basic, inherent idea and purport of the above laws remain in effect with respect to Christians, who are under a law even higher than that given through Moses. A dedicated Christian is under the law of loving Jehovah God with the whole heart, mind, soul and strength. The force and effect of sterilization is against this, as sterilization harmfully affects the asexualized person physically and mentally. (Can we get proof on this??) A Christian is not a habitual criminal or an imbecile that needs to be sterilized.
-
Gopher
I don't think Desib was talking about contraception. She was talking about new methods for creating children, such as taking the sperm and egg from the parents and combining them in a test tube, and replacing the fertilized egg back into the womb.
I would hope that it'd be a personal decision (as long as the sperm and egg donors were married to each other).
-
ezekiel3
Sorry REPOSTED because of formating woes, please disregard former. JW have been given complete license for contraception with no restrictions: Watchtower 1 August 1981 says YES: However, nowhere does God?s Word, the Bible, equate such birth control with fornication or adultery. While it condemns the latter, it is silent about the former, making it a matter for personal decision. It gets weird when it comes to a vasectomy or tubal ligation (female tubes tied) the Governing Body is guilty of its classic flip flops. Currently: Watchtower 15 June 1999 says NO: We know that Christians are not under Israel?s Law, so the regulation at Deuteronomy 25:11, 12 is not binding on them. Jesus neither ordered nor implied that his disciples must marry and have as many children as possible, which many couples have considered when deciding on whether to use some method of birth control. (Matthew 19:10-12) The apostle Paul did encourage passionate ?younger widows to marry and bear children.? (1 Timothy 5:11-14) He did not bring up the permanent sterilization of Christians?their voluntarily sacrificing their reproductive potential to bear children. (So where is the scriiptual backup?) Watchtower 1 May 1985 says MAYBE: Since the Christian Greek Scriptures give no direct guidance on such matters, Christians must make personal decisions about limiting the size of their family and about birth control. As to sterilization, they should bear in mind that even though a reversal is theoretically more possible now than it was a decade ago, physicians cannot guarantee that reproductive ability can be restored. Above all, a couple should keep a clear conscience before Jehovah and toward their fellow Christians. If a couple is thinking of sterilization as a form of birth control, they still should consider any effect their actions may have on others. Though married couples do not usually publicize their decision about birth control, if it became widely known that a couple had resorted to voluntary sterilization, would the congregation be greatly upset and lose respect for them? (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, 13) These are factors to consider very seriously, even in this private and personal matter. In the final analysis, Paul?s statement is appropriate: ?To his own master [Jehovah] he stands or falls.??Romans 14:4, 10-12. Watchtower 1 December 1961 says NO: But Christians who are not facing such an unusual and distinct risk (such as condition that would cause death to mother or child) would certainly want to use ?soundness of mind? and shape their thinking and deeds by God?s esteem for reproductive potential. (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5-8) This would reflect mature sensitivity to Scriptural indications. Yet, what if it became publicly known that a Christian blithely disregarded God?s evaluations? Would not others doubt whether he (or, she) was a good example, having a reputation of making decisions in harmony with the Bible? Such a disturbing blemish on one?s reputation could, of course, affect a minister?s being qualified for special privileges of service, though that might not be so if one had in ignorance had this procedure performed .?1 Timothy 3:7. Can someone tell me the moral difference between sterilization and contraception (pill, condoms)? Especially when JW couples are encouraged if they choose to remain childless?
-
ezekiel3
And again sorry, I now understant this thread is a different issue. Does anyone what to sort through my format-less post and thread on the issue of contraceptives?
-
BluesBrother
Ezekiel, the question was about conception, not cotraception.
I had a look on the CD Rom, expecting to find something, but no, at least not in the extent of my search . That does surprise me.
I guess then it would be a personal matter, provided the method did not involve donated sperm (technical adultery) or a surrogate mother