Surrogate Motherhood-Right or Wrong to God?

[soulsisterclaire]

[Moderators move thread if you feel the need]

I saw a show about a woman that was a surrogate mother, and it got me to thinking that it would be a wonderful gift to give someone their own child, that they physically could not bear themselves, but that would be totally theirs still, even though the baby was carried and birthed by a woman other than the natural mother.

Biblically speaking - Do you think that being a surrogate mother would be sinful?

How do you feel that God views surrogacy? Do His commandments support it, or speak against it?

Do you know of any Bible verses about it?

I myself have no fertility problems and thought that maybe I could be a surrogate mother for a childless couple. I must be honest and say that my motive to do so would not be solely out of kindness, although that is part of it. I have heard that surrogate mothers are monetarily compensated and that would help me as a single mother to provide better for my family and maybe someday buy a house. So part of my reason for doing it would be selfish, but somehow I feel that that is not entirely wrong, seeing as how I get paid to work, and that is not much different, or is it?

Anyhow, sorry that this turned out so long, but your opinions, guidance and advice on this matter is very appreciated!

Praise God!

 

[soulsisterclaire]

7 views and no replies...Hmmmmmmmm...what up with that?

Does that mean that no one knows how God feels about Surrogate Motherhood, or is everyone afraid to state their opinions on the subject? Or maybe no one cares...could be that...Oh well...I will go back to digging in my Bible for answers.

I know that God approves of Adoption cause Moses was adopted, right?...so where does that leave surrogacy?

Anybody?????? Hellooooooo?

 

[ZiSunka]

Well, it didn't work out for Sarah and Hagar, did it?

Or Rachel and Bilhah?

That's because a woman who can't bear is naturally jealous of one who can, especially if it is her husband's baby.

A couple women I know who went the surrogate route ended up divorced shortly after, because they constantly worried that their husband's might feel more loving toward the babies' biological mother, than to their wives.

And although it might seem great to provide a baby to loving parents, it is emotionally difficult for a woman to carry and bear a baby, then give it away, because women become emotionally and physically invested in the babies they carry.

It's a hard route to go, and I don't recommend it.

 

[Hervey]

HELLO

There is nothing wrong with being a surrogate mother for someone, because that is how the Jerusalem above is the mother of us all. She needed to use two surrogats . Sarah (Sarai) in the OT used her handmaiden Hagar to bring forth the first son of Abram and Sarai. Hagar became a surrogate mother.

The Jerusalem above which is the mother of us all - Galatians 4:26 But she is barren herself, and bearest not; and has many more children than than she which has a husband - verse 27

The first surrogate was the earth (because the earth is a she - 'her ' - Revelation 12:16

The second surrogate is Mary the mother of Christ

The third surrogate is the body of Christ the wife to Christ.

L I C - Hervey

 

[soulsisterclaire]

Thanks lambslove for the advice

Hervey, you totally lost me...I don't understand the Jerusalem references.

In any case I am not married and have no husband to get jealous. It is just me and my daughters.

Are ya'll saying that there was surrogacy in the Bible, can you give me a Chapter on it?

 

[Hervey]

SSC

No I can not give you a chapter on surrogates. But I can give you bits and peaces from throughout the Word, as I did in my previous post. Galatians 4:26 & 27

The Jerusalem that is above, is the female side of God. Now I know you are totally lost right ?

This is all, more than likely is above your spiritual level at this time.

But the truth is, is that there is nothing wrong with being a surrogate mother, because that is how certain women in the Word became mothers.

God did not condemn it, nor did he proclaim anywhere within His Word that one should not be a surrogate.

I know your situation with your two children, as you have been very open about your life.

Do you mind if I make a suggestion however ? Your heart is tender and loving , to have the desire to do this for someone else. I am not going to tell you not to do this. But make sure if you do decide to do this, that you fully understand the undertaking you were about to endure.

It takes a strong woman to separate herself from a child she just gave birth too.

Here is a verse that implies a surrogate -

Psalms 113:9 - "He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children "

L I C- Hervey

 

[VOW]

To Claire:

The first surrogate mother was Hagar. Sarai was childless, and she gave her handmaid to her husband Abram, so he would have an heir.

God had big plans for Abram. He gave him a new name, gave his wife a new name, and even though she was "old," he opened her womb so that she would bear a son.

However, Hagar's son was born first, and even after Isaac was born to Sarah, Sarah was beside herself with jealousy. She eventually made Abraham turn Hagar and Ishmael out to the desert. If God had not intervened, Ishmael and his mother would have died.

Legend has it that the descendants of Ishmael became the Arab nations, and of course, Isaac's descendants are the Jews.

And I'm sure I don't have to tell you about THAT mess today!

Humans are not milk cows or broody hens. A bond is created during pregnancy, to facilitate the survival of the helpless baby. Childbirth itself is traumatic, and many women suffer postpartum depression. Imagine how much it would be intensified if you had to relinquish custody of the baby!

On a moral point, how could you guarantee that your children won't meet up at some point in the future? Imagining half-siblings in a romantic relationship is troubling.

On a legal point, suppose the child is not perfect? You are considering this as a way to provide for the family you have now. Would the adoptive parents still accept a disabled child? Would you be able to raise a disabled child on your own?

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that interference with the natural process of conception is wrong. That of course means birth control, but it also includes artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, and surrogacy. And I, for one, completely understand and support the Church's teachings on this one. It looks like a potential for serious trouble. If things are supposed to go right 99% of the time, I make sure I am ready for the 1% that it doesn't...because that's the way Life ends up for me.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[soulsisterclaire]

VOW(I am glad that you did not leave us for good BTW)

On a moral point, how could you guarantee that your children won't meet up at some point in the future? Imagining half-siblings in a romantic relationship is troubling.

This is a good point VOW, but what about adoptees meeting up...I am adopted, I never worry that I will have a romantic relationship with a sibling...of course I have never been with a white man(and I am white)so maybe God gave me that inclination to NOT date white men, not that I wouldn't, mind you, it has just never happend. I have always felt drawn to African American men and they to me. That is for another thread though altogether.

On a legal point, suppose the child is not perfect? You are considering this as a way to provide for the family you have now. Would the adoptive parents still accept a disabled child? Would you be able to raise a disabled child on your own?

This too I did not think of...that would be bad, and no I am not prepared to take care of a disabled child...I am not financially able...emotionally, maybe I could do it....in any case...that would be a task to take up with the lawyers...if the couple would not agree to take the disabled child...I would not agree to have it for them...

I would not be a surrogate if I had to use my egg in the processes, I would only be carrying a child for them, their child, Her egg and His sperm.

In a way I believe that Virgin Mary was a surrogate to Jesus, don't you?

 

[VOW]

To Claire:

(and thank you for the warm Welcome Back)

In a way, Mary was a surrogate, but she was allowed to keep the Baby and raise Him. Even that wasn't hassle-free, for Joseph wasn't too crazy about the idea when he first learned of Mary's pregnancy. Joseph DID have divine guidance, however... and perhaps that is what it takes for surrogacy to succeed.

A legal contract is nice, but if folks want to make a fuss (in the tragic occurrance of a disabled child), you can be talking about incredible hassle as well as expense. Folks are crazy with lawsuits these days, and natural parents often haul the doctors, the hospitals and anyone else they can think of when a baby with a disability is delivered.

In-vitro fertilization (which is essentially the same process as you are discussing, in using the egg and sperm from the to-be parents) carries many moral implications. When the eggs are harvested, the fertility specialists ALWAYS collect too many. After fertilization, only the ones which begin a normal development are kept. Of those, some are selected for implantation. What to do with the others? They can be frozen, but custody lawsuits have appeared, when the parents divorce, and one parent no longer wishes to retain the potential for future offspring. What happens if both parents die? Another BIG lawsuit, in Australia, I believe....the parents were quite wealthy, and left a sizeable estate. Do you HIRE someone to bring the embryos to fruition, so the kids can get the money? Then, the stem-cell research advocates are campaigning for the leftover embryos, believing they hold the future to cures for presently-incurable diseases. Whether you experiment on the embryos for research purposes, or whether you flush them down the drain, you still are destroying a potential life.

Finally, there has been a recent lawsuit (boy, EVERYONE is going to court these days!) by a surrogate between her and the contract parents. She was implanted with two fertilized eggs, and in the contract, it was pointed out that she was to carry ONLY ONE to term. The sanitary explanation of this procedure is "reduction." A graphic definition is that using an ultrasound as a guide, the obstetrician inserts a needle into the womb, and punctures the heart of the "reduced" embryo, killing it. In the lawsuit, the surrogate refused to have the reduction performed. The parents then claimed breach of contract, and stated they would take NEITHER baby. I have no idea what the outcome was.

All I can say is this: I completely understand and agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on this situation.


Peace be with you,
~VOW