Gag. This really p*ssed me off when I read it last night. I got a real good rant on, husband couldn't figure out why this made me madder than anything else I've learned so far. Frankly, I don't know why it does either, it just does. And obviously, while not an outright condemnation of sterilization, the '99 WT certainly implies that it's unacceptable. The wording to an outsider would appear to leave a little wiggle room for conscience, but to an entrenched JW, it is clear there is only one "proper" viewpoint.
WT99, 6/15, p. 27:
Questions
From ReadersSince
sterilization procedures are now said to be reversible on request, might a Christian view them as a birth-control option?(...description of sterilization edited out...highlighted text mine)
...
Consequently, it is unrealistic to treat male or female sterilization lightly, as if it were temporary birth control. And for the sincere Christian, there are other aspects to consider.
A central point is that reproductive powers are a gift from our Creator. His original purpose included procreation by perfect humans, who would "fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:28) After the Flood cut earth’s population to eight, God repeated those basic instructions. (Genesis 9:1) God did not repeat that command to the nation of Israel, but Israelites viewed having offspring as something very desirable.—1 Samuel 1:1-11; Psalm 128:3.
God’s Law to Israel contained indications of his regard for human procreation. For example, if a married man died before producing a son to carry on his lineage, his brother was to father a son by brother-in-law marriage. (Deuteronomy 25:5) More to the point was the law about a wife who tried to help her husband in a fight. If she grasped the privates of her husband’s opponent, her hand was to be amputated; significantly, God did not require eye-for-eye damage to her or her husband’s reproductive organs. (Deuteronomy 25:11, 12) This law would clearly engender respect for reproductive organs; these were not to be destroyed needlessly.
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.
Christians do well to weigh such indications that God esteems their reproductive ability. Each couple must determine if and when they will employ appropriate methods of family planning. Granted, their decision would be particularly telling if there were confirmed medical assurances that mother or child faced grave medical risks, even a probability of death, with a future pregnancy. Some in that situation have reluctantly submitted to a sterilization procedure as described earlier to make sure that no pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother (who may already have other children) or that of a child who might later be born with a life-threatening health problem.
But Christians who are not facing such an unusual and distinct risk 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.
(footnotes edited out)
