If a couple are unable to have children, should they be allowed to find a woman who is capable of taking the the parent's egg and sperm and just carrying the baby until the child is born? Its a bit like a host mother.
Is this ethically wrong?
In situations where the mother cannot have children?
Comments
If a couple are unable to have children, should they be allowed to find a woman who is capable of taking the the parent's egg and sperm and just carrying the baby until the child is born? Its a bit like a host mother.
Is this ethically wrong?
In situations where the mother cannot have children?
Are you trying to get a Christian answer based on the belief of the Church or just an "ethical" answer?
What's the difference between an ethical answer and a Christian answer?
An ethical answer would: sure. They have the right to get a child in anyway.
Our Christian would be: we are a church that first believes on God's will and His great miracles. Doing anything outside that realm is simply not christian.
Knowing how will you answer to what I just said, I also say this part in our lives is in God's hands.....not us.
Our Christian would be: we are a church that first believes on God's will and His great miracles. Doing anything outside that realm is simply not christian.
minagir,
Are you saying the Christian thing to do is either wait for a miracle or to be satisfied in not having children because that is what should be supposed to be God's will?
George
[quote author=minagir link=topic=7893.msg102403#msg102403 date=1241026930]
Our Christian would be: we are a church that first believes on God's will and His great miracles. Doing anything outside that realm is simply not christian.
minagir,
Are you saying the Christian thing to do is either wait for a miracle or to be satisfied in not having children because that is what should be supposed to be God's will?
George
In my opinion yes. I don't think this is any different from like the concepts of pulling-the-plug on a person who is brain dead or similar contemporary issues.
you kind of speak about "God's will" as a joke. it's not. we expect God's will to always be what "we want" , what "doesn't hurt us" or even "what satisfies us." But in reality, we really don't know God's will!!
The best we can do is fully be with HIM that His will be upon us, us letting it BE, even though we might not understand it.
I can tell you about MANY MANY famous saints stories about this "barren" incidents and we see how the true faithfuls deal with it and how God works. You'll tell me it's different times, i will tell "Did our GOD change in those times?!" you'll tell me we changed and i'll tell you, "OK. But that shouldn't change much of our faith in God."
I would like Father Peter opinion about what i just said.
God's will is God's and we should not question that for we do not understand it.
I am not aware of any church rule either with or against it. This is simply advancement in modern science, that not necessary disagree with church doctrines. I would say it is different than pulling the plug in a sense that you are not really killing a person (no separation of the spirit and the body). I think this is akin to getting getting medical treatment for a condition. How is it different than getting a transplant or cancer removed? why doesn't the person say that I will wait on God to provide me with a miracle instead of relying on God and the use of science, a gift form God? Also, how is that different from adoption?
This is simply my opinion not the church's (obviously).
+ak
I think H.E. Bishop Serapion delved into this issue and wrote a book about such things. Do you have it? I'd really like to know the CoC's perspective on such issues.
I heard it being discussed on the radio, and many people who had this (IVF) were very happy with their choice. Many couples who had illnesses and couldnt bear children, had to go through surrogate mothers.
I'm not at all judging the CoC's perspective - i'd just like to know what it is, and why it is. (its just from all these threads, it isnt clear what the Church's view is)
Thanks
According to the link below,ff you can get hold of the El kereza paper of 1998,you will find the complete HG's article on the Church's view on IVF and Surrogate motherhood.
Here are two links that shed some light on the subject
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?mf05031
On Stemcells:
http://tlhcopts.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=71
you kind of speak about "God's will" as a joke. it's not. we expect God's will to always be what "we want" , what "doesn't hurt us" or even "what satisfies us." But in reality, we really don't know God's will!!
I asked a question of clarification and you're pinning blasphemy on me.
I will appreciate you not accusing me of things like that in the future.
George
[quote author=minagir link=topic=7893.msg102406#msg102406 date=1241033522]
you kind of speak about "God's will" as a joke. it's not. we expect God's will to always be what "we want" , what "doesn't hurt us" or even "what satisfies us." But in reality, we really don't know God's will!!
I asked a question of clarification and you're pinning blasphemy on me.
I will appreciate you not accusing me of things like that in the future.
George
I am sorry. I guess you didn't mean it that way. It's just that saying "because that is what should be supposed to be God's will" sound a little differnt for me....r atleast it implies, as i said before, we expect God's will to always be "satisfying for us."
but again, i am sorry for doing that.
[quote author=akramy link=topic=7893.msg102413#msg102413 date=1241038946]
I am not aware of any church rule either with or against it. This is simply advancement in modern science, that not necessary disagree with church doctrines. I would say it is different than pulling the plug in a sense that you are not really killing a person (no separation of the spirit and the body). I think this is akin to getting getting medical treatment for a condition. How is it different than getting a transplant or cancer removed? why doesn't the person say that I will wait on God to provide me with a miracle instead of relying on God and the use of science, a gift form God? Also, how is that different from adoption?
This is simply my opinion not the church's (obviously).
+ak
Akram. I respect your opinion. but i have to disagree.
First, I am not against this because it's a new scientific advancement.
Second, the cases you presented are not the same. Let me explain:
We can understand why our Church don't really believe in pulling the plug, so i am not getting into that.
With the cancer case, cancer is a sickness. We deal with it as any case of sickness (when they actually find a cure for advanced cases of it). And we also understand the concept of that in our Church; I am not going to get into that.
But then let's look at being "barren." It's a condition that doesn't come through a sickness or an accident or anything like that. The person is simply barren. It's unlike the cases we know how to explain in our Church.
But then let's look at being "barren." It's a condition that doesn't come through a sickness or an accident or anything like that. The person is simply barren. It's unlike the cases we know how to explain in our Church.
That statement is incorrect. There are a lot of situations that cause a woman to be infertile. For example pelvic inflammatory disease, scar tissue formation, previous surgeries, poly cystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, cancer/chemotherapy etc.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with IVF or using a surrogate as long as both egg and sperm are not from donors. Just like we are allowed to seek medical attention for all our illnesses this is not any different and we should do the same if we choose to.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=7893.msg102425#msg102425 date=1241051064]
But then let's look at being "barren." It's a condition that doesn't come through a sickness or an accident or anything like that. The person is simply barren. It's unlike the cases we know how to explain in our Church.
That statement is incorrect. There are a lot of situations that cause a woman to be infertile. For example pelvic inflammatory disease, scar tissue formation, previous surgeries, poly cystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, cancer/chemotherapy etc.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with IVF or using a surrogate as long as both egg and sperm are not from donors. Just like we are allowed to seek medical attention for all our illnesses this is not any different and we should do the same if we choose to.
i understand that....but i dono if the term "barren" can still be used here. i thought for those cases it's best to use "infertile" as you just said it.
Same meaning.
barren= infertile
Same meaning.
am sorry then. all i meant is that there is a differnce between becoming barren that implies being a "sickness" and just being born barren kida.
"Here you, you can have your baby back now...." She would obviously be attached to the baby...
and once again, when God promised Ibrahim a son, then Ibrahim went and got himself a son from his wife's servant, God didn't like what he did.... If God is planning on giving you children, He will give them to You, through your "wife" or w.e.
Sorry if i have offended anybody
Coptic Pharaoh
[quote author=minagir link=topic=7893.msg102425#msg102425 date=1241051064]
But then let's look at being "barren." It's a condition that doesn't come through a sickness or an accident or anything like that. The person is simply barren. It's unlike the cases we know how to explain in our Church.
That statement is incorrect. There are a lot of situations that cause a woman to be infertile. For example pelvic inflammatory disease, scar tissue formation, previous surgeries, poly cystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, cancer/chemotherapy etc.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with IVF or using a surrogate as long as both egg and sperm are not from donors. Just like we are allowed to seek medical attention for all our illnesses this is not any different and we should do the same if we choose to.
Hi Grace,
I'm a bit confused as to why this should be OK as long as both egg and sperm are not from donors?
Well, let me elaborate here. You see, yesterday, on the radio, they were talking about this, and most people who called in were saying that their wives could not have children because of medical illnesses (cervical cancer etc) - so, what they did was they took the egg from the mother, and sperm from the father and inserted the embryo in another mother.
And she carried the baby for them until it was born.
So, in a way, the term "surrogate" has sort of evolved. THey were referring this "surrogate" mother as "the Host".
Perhaps i'm not thinking straight, but why is it important that the egg and sperm are NOT from the donors? I'd have thought that this was the entire idea - that someone else is carrying their children because they cannot. Otherwise, what is the difference between this, and adoption?
[quote author=coptic pharaoh link=topic=7893.msg102440#msg102440 date=1241066935]
just saying.... if God wanted the couple not to have Children, then they shouldn't be bending the rules an looking around for ways like this, cause theink of this "host mother" after... do you think she will only want to give birth to the baby then leave him after that? with all the pain and all the suffering, and after she nurses the baby, she will simply let the baby go as in like:
"Here you, you can have your baby back now...." She would obviously be attached to the baby...
and once again, when God promised Ibrahim a son, then Ibrahim went and got himself a son from his wife's servant, God didn't like what he did.... If God is planning on giving you children, He will give them to You, through your "wife" or w.e.
Sorry if i have offended anybody
Coptic Pharaoh
No offense to you, but this is rather foolish reasoning. By your reasoning, sick people shouldn't go to the doctor's and take medicine because if God wants them to feel better, He can heal them. Or if I want to do well in school, I don't need to work hard because if God wants me to pass, then I will. Or, if I'm drowning in the sea, and a boat comes to rescue me, I should ignore it because God can save me. Do you see the danger in thinking like that? Science, technology and medicine have come a long way in helping in the advancement of mankind as a whole. Do you believe that this is contrary to what God wants? Sure, God is capable of doing anything. That does not mean we should sit idly by and wait for Him to do it. The miracles of barren women having children in the Bible are not the 'norm', nor should we make them out to be. If a married couple wishes to have children, and are unable to for whatever reason, then there are available alternative to them and I see no reason why they should not take advantage of them. I wear glasses. Currently, there is a means available to me by which I can again have 20/20 vision (viz. Lasik eye surgery). Now, God can very easily restore my vision and give me perfect 20/20 vision, but does that mean I should sit by and not get the Lasik surgery done, if I so wish? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with making use of whatever medical technologies are available. It's not somehow showing a lack of faith in God. If a person exhausts all means of trying to have a child, and cannot, then it is clearly God's will that they not have one. However, there is nothing wrong with trying.
Its been ages since we've seen you.
I just read your post, and I couldnt help thinking of when Christ fed the 5,000 people. Sure, He could have made the manna come down from heaven and feed each one, but he made use of their resources.. what they had available to them: that was 5 loaves of bread, and 2 fish. He blessed this resource, and thanked God, and then did some project management and organised the entire dinner.
Hi Grace,
I'm a bit confused as to why this should be OK as long as both egg and sperm are not from donors?
Well, let me elaborate here. You see, yesterday, on the radio, they were talking about this, and most people who called in were saying that their wives could not have children because of medical illnesses (cervical cancer etc) - so, what they did was they took the egg from the mother, and sperm from the father and inserted the embryo in another mother.
And she carried the baby for them until it was born.
So, in a way, the term "surrogate" has sort of evolved. THey were referring this "surrogate" mother as "the Host".
Perhaps i'm not thinking straight, but why is it important that the egg and sperm are NOT from the donors? I'd have thought that this was the entire idea - that someone else is carrying their children because they cannot. Otherwise, what is the difference between this, and adoption?
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I meant that it's ok if the egg is from the mother and sperm from the father so the donors are the parents of this child and the surrogate is only a carrier (usually the surrogate is a volunteer or is paid to carry the baby and its clear that this is not hers).
Now I am sure you have heard of sperm banks and frozen eggs for sale from donors (usually anonymous). You can go and pick and choose what you want your kid to look like, what kind of personality etc based on a large selection of choices. Kinda like going and shopping for a car. This really goes against God in every possible way and is completely wrong. Children born by such methods are really messed for many reasons. I watched a show about this and its really sad because the children don't know who their father/mother is and for privacy reasons that information cannot be released to them. All they know is some information on paper and the donors number. Their biological parents never knew each other, it is just too much for a child to handle. In the long run it creates a lot of problems and this child will probably suffer a lot as a result of such decisions. This is quite different from adoption even though I realize that adoptive children might go through some similar experiences of not knowing who their biological parents are.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
No offense to you, but this is rather foolish reasoning. By your reasoning, sick people shouldn't go to the doctor's and take medicine because if God wants them to feel better, He can heal them. Or if I want to do well in school, I don't need to work hard because if God wants me to pass, then I will. Or, if I'm drowning in the sea, and a boat comes to rescue me, I should ignore it because God can save me. Do you see the danger in thinking like that? Science, technology and medicine have come a long way in helping in the advancement of mankind as a whole. Do you believe that this is contrary to what God wants? Sure, God is capable of doing anything. That does not mean we should sit idly by and wait for Him to do it. The miracles of barren women having children in the Bible are not the 'norm', nor should we make them out to be. If a married couple wishes to have children, and are unable to for whatever reason, then there are available alternative to them and I see no reason why they should not take advantage of them. I wear glasses. Currently, there is a means available to me by which I can again have 20/20 vision (viz. Lasik eye surgery). Now, God can very easily restore my vision and give me perfect 20/20 vision, but does that mean I should sit by and not get the Lasik surgery done, if I so wish? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with making use of whatever medical technologies are available. It's not somehow showing a lack of faith in God. If a person exhausts all means of trying to have a child, and cannot, then it is clearly God's will that they not have one. However, there is nothing wrong with trying.
Ok, i never thoguth of it that way, you are trully right, probabably should have thought about it first... thank you for your clarification.... but yet again, don't you think the mother that gave birth to the child won't feel attached to the baby?
i also wanted to say....why is it so out of the question that it IS God's will. Most posts about it have said it goes against God's will to have a baby using these alternaitves...but why is it so wrong to think that maybe it IS God's will that the couple has this baby using this method...I mean ..you really don't know....none of you are God and none of you can say if it is or isn't...i mean i could be completely wrong about my reasoning...but that's how i feel aboutit.'
And i def agree with knopc...it's def not okay to sit nack and wait for things,l thinking that God's will has to be done a certain way exactly while you just wait.
Why can't people just be more open minded. It is probably for the best that they can't conceive (e.g. If either parent is passing on congenital abnormalities).
People should consider adoption more!