- Jun 26, 2015
- 26,368
- 15,457
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Thanks, this is the near kinsman law that we see played out in the story of Ruth and Boaz.Deuteronomy 25:5-10
Upvote
0
Thanks, this is the near kinsman law that we see played out in the story of Ruth and Boaz.Deuteronomy 25:5-10
A single anonymous sperm doner could potentially have hundreds of progeny who have no idea they have siblings. With adopted children there are generally clear records available of their true parentage and the number of potential siblings is not significant enough to be an issue.I disagree with that reasoning. This is true for the many adopted children and no one claims that adoption is immoral on those grounds. Besides all that, this goes into another topic on whether incest is innately immoral. For example, Abraham married his half-sister. Was this immoral of them?
A single anonymous sperm doner could potentially have hundreds of progeny who have no idea they have siblings. With adopted children there are generally clear records available of their true parentage and the number of potential siblings is not significant enough to be an issue.
I can't see how guaranteeing that your offspring will sufffer all their lives from genetic disorders is in any way moral. It is pretty much premeditated child abuse. Apart from that it is pretty much universal in that all cultures reject marriage between blood siblings.You never addressed my question about whether incest was innately immoral. If you are going to claim that one of the moral issues with sperm donation is the incredibly small possibility of two biological siblings unknowingly getting married, then you have to prove that incest is always morally wrong in this situation.
The majority of adopted children know they were adopted so would be more likely to have tests done with their potential marriage partner. There have been some recent cases of sperm doner offspring having unknowingly married their siblings, so it is a real issue with serious consequences.Plus, this can be avoided with genetic testing. You can just as easily claim that it is immoral for an adopted child, who doesn't have clear records of who his biological parents are, to get married without first getting a genetic test done. What would you say?
You apparently don't think masturbation is sex. Let me guess... Clinton did not have sex with that woman. You are right. We have nothing to discuss.It is apparent we define "sex" differently. However, I do not wish to go down another semantic dead end. Thanks for adding your opinion.
I can't see how guaranteeing that your offspring will sufffer all their lives from genetic disorders is in any way moral. It is pretty much premeditated child abuse. Apart from that it is pretty much universal in that all cultures reject marriage between blood siblings.
Let's discuss the biblical references. Where would you like to start?
Definition from American Pregnancy Association:
Donor insemination is a simple procedure that uses a syringe to place sperm into a woman's vagina to assist her in getting pregnant. The sperm is normally obtained from someone other than the woman's husband or partner.
Secondary questions for all those who would say this is a moral act.
1. Does the woman need to be married?
2. Does the woman's husband need to be infertile?
I Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Ephesian 6:4
And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
I can understand why kids are normally born out of wedlock. But in this case, the father doesn't even get to enjoy the momentary pleasures of being with a woman out of wedlock. He's just making a kid which, in most cases, he knows he isn't going to raise. Why would someone do that?
And why break your own heart? Can you imagine having a child out there and not getting to know the child?
Apex,
Choosing to have a child of your own 'genetic kin' and to not provide for it-- of your own choice-- is immoral. It's not providing for one's own.
And if you just give your kid away to someone else to raise, you aren't teaching the child, raising him 'in the nuture and admonition of the Lord.'
I suppose someone could donate sperm and be in the child's life? But why purposefully make a kid a 'bastard'-- pardon the harsh sounding archane language?
I can understand why kids are normally born out of wedlock. But in this case, the father doesn't even get to enjoy the momentary pleasures of being with a woman out of wedlock. He's just making a kid which, in most cases, he knows he isn't going to raise. Why would someone do that?
And why break your own heart? Can you imagine having a child out there and not getting to know the child?
Is true parentage based on genetics or relationship?
I have a young sister-in-law who was adopted by my wife's family. She is their daughter. Or would you look this little girl in the face and say otherwise?
And if your niece met her birthparents, should they look the girl in the face and say, "You are not my daughter"?
I'm talking about the biological father not acknowledging the child or not treating the child as his own.
Adoptive parents who raise a child who was rejected, 'given up', etc. by his/her parents or whose parents died may be doing a good work. But how is it ethical for the father to sire a child he has no intention of raising?
No, I don't believe donor insemination to be moral.Definition from American Pregnancy Association:
Donor insemination is a simple procedure that uses a syringe to place sperm into a woman's vagina to assist her in getting pregnant. The sperm is normally obtained from someone other than the woman's husband or partner.
Secondary questions for all those who would say this is a moral act.
1. Does the woman need to be married?
2. Does the woman's husband need to be infertile?