Yeah, donated sperm/artificial insemination is a biggie, or at least it used to be--probably flip flopped on that as well. I remember reading one of WT or Awake articles about things Christians must consider in artifical reproduction/conception (you know, one of those, it's a "conscience matter" that's really veiling "don't do it." It cautioned true Christians to carefully consider how the sperm was obtained. They didn't go into detail, but obviously it would be dispeasing to Jehovah if the donor jerked off in a dixie cup.
What do the JW's believe about....
by desib77 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
desib77
I'm very surprised they haven't taken some sort of stand on this issue. I'm not positive but I think in some instances an embryo may die or be unused....something to that extent. It seems to me that this would be forbidden by the society....as is abortion.
Desi
-
Valis
Well, here's thier take on adoption...which they imply is OK only offhandedly..almost in reverse as if they were speaking to adopted JW children and not the parents I don't think.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2003/4/22a/article_01.htm
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
talesin
desib
This ws a thought-provoking comment for me.
Reproductive technology is relatively new. Think of all the flip-flops they have done on organ replacement. Maybe they are adopting a 'hands-off' attitude because they are afraid they may have to back-track later!
talesin
-
NeonMadman
I remember reading one of WT or Awake articles about things Christians must consider in artifical reproduction/conception (you know, one of those, it's a "conscience matter" that's really veiling "don't do it." It cautioned true Christians to carefully consider how the sperm was obtained. They didn't go into detail, but obviously it would be dispeasing to Jehovah if the donor jerked off in a dixie cup.
I'm shooting from the hip here because I didn't really look this up. But as I recall, the Dixie cup scenario you refer to applied to sperm samples obtained for medical testing or for artificial insemination only from the husband of the woman to be inseminated. Artificial insemination using sperm obtained from any person other than the husband would be considered adultery.
-
NeonMadman
OK, this time I did look it up...
*** w84 8/15 p. 26 Insight on the News ***
Surrogate Mothers
A case of human artificial insemination was recorded as long ago as 1799. But in recent years this has come to be more widely practiced. According to The New York Times, a woman who is artificially inseminated and bears a child for another woman, as a substitute for her, is called a surrogate mother. The infertile wife and her husband agree to this arrangement, and when the surrogate mother gives birth the baby is adopted by the couple. The sperm in this case could be from the husband of the couple or from another donor.
Although such an arrangement may be approved by many in the world, the Christian rightfully asks whether it is in harmony with God?s laws. The Bible, at Leviticus 18:20, is clear on this point when it says: "You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it." Artificial insemination of a woman by a donor other than her legal husband, makes her guilty of adultery, a sin against God. (Deuteronomy 5:18) The sperm donor and the surrogate woman have not been yoked together by God in matrimony.?Matthew 19:4-6.
-
NeonMadman
And some more:
*** g74 8/8 p. 28 Is Artificial Insemination Acceptable to God? ***
Inasmuch as artificial insemination by an anonymous donor is not acceptable to God, if a Christian married couple resorted to it, they would be in line for expulsion from the modern-day congregation of Jehovah?s people. (Compare Leviticus 20:10.) After all, the consenting husband in effect gave his wife to another man, and the wife gave herself to that person in order to become the mother of a child by a man with whom she had not been yoked together by God in matrimony. (Matt. 19:4-6) The absence of direct physical contact and the fact that the consenting husband adopts the child cannot set aside the adulterous conduct.?1 Cor. 5:1-13.
Some Christian marriage mates who are unable to produce children have been told that this problem might be overcome if the husband provided sperm that could be administered to his wife artificially. If both husband and wife fully agree to have this done, that would be a personal matter, as God?s Word says nothing about it and a resulting offspring would be their own; it would not be a child of adultery. Nevertheless, they would have to resolve any personal questions of propriety as to the manner of acquiring the semen. Similarly, they would bear the responsibility if any medical or psychological difficulties resulted from the procedure.
-
blondie
So as Gopher said, if the egg donor and the sperm donor are married to each other, and the woman incubating the baby in her womb is married to the sperm donor and is the egg donor, then the WTS would have no scriptural grounds. It would be something I wouldn't advertise to others in the congregation though.
I'm no expert in fertilization procedures but they can up the sperm count artificially and provide several eggs to fertilize outside the wife's body to be reimplanted improving chances of fertlization.
I'm sure they would consider it unnatural. Of course, what was Sarah doing when she was unable to have children offering her slave Hagar to her husband to have children by? I don't remember anything in the Bible saying that was wrong.
Blondie
-
talesin
Neon
That makes sense (well, as much as anything they do!). I figured they would consider it 'adultery'.
blondie
Excellent point!
t
-
blacksheep
Neon, thanks for researching that..I totally forgot about the adultry thing.
But, I'm really unclear about how the NWT interprets Deut. 5:18. The KJ version simply says: "Neither shalt thou commit adultry," not:
"You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it." Artificial insemination of a woman by a donor other than her legal husband, makes her guilty of adultery.
Seems to me they are really trying to stretch this interpretation--whereever they got it-- to fit this modern day scenario.
Either way, they're scewed up.