Sc
ientific breakthroughs have made so many medical procedures possible. People are living longer, recovering from preventable diseases quicker and ultimately improving our evolutionary fitness. Science, when used appropriately, is an amazing asset to the human experience.
Artificial insemination and various other methods of scientific impregnation have allowed sterile or same-sex couples to start a family. Who wouldn't agree that two loving people should be able to start a family? If someone has a problem with this idea, they indeed have a major issues themselves.
When you read the Bible, "barren" women were a marginalized community during the time that the Bible was written. A woman who couldn't have children was looked down upon. A few times, we read that God gave women past prime children that they never thought that they'd have.
Abraham's wife Sarah and Mary's cousin Elizabeth were two older women who became "great with child" even when they didn't believe it was possible. I can't even imagine the hurt, isolation, anger and frustration that these women may have felt in their prime when they couldn't bear children. They must have been full of angst and suffering---the very cocktail that God uses to turn people's worlds upside down for the better.
God looks after the world's rejects in a special way. The ones who the world tends to throw away, cast down, and trample upon are the ones that God uses to do the bravest and boldest things in His Kingdom. God allows us to experience pain and heartbreak so that He break down the doors of our suffering and be our comfort. Restoration wouldn't feel so good if you were never lost.
Isaiah 54: 1 says "Sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman that of her who has a husband" says the Lord. In this verse, we read that God acknowledges the status of a desolate or barren women. God has His eyes on these member of His kingdom. Even more importantly, God is telling them to rejoice! Why would God do that? I believe that God is telling barren and desolate women in this verse that they need to mother the orphans and the fatherless. Those without children of their own can mother orphans in a way that another women couldn't. God has a special place for the orphan and the barren women. Both of their shortcomings bring them together.
Is artificial insemination a selfish way of "getting your own way" no matter what? If you really believe that God can do anything, why would you result to a medical procedure to give you a child? Do you disagree that God has your best interests at heart? Do you feel the need to intervene? Trusting God completely is trusting Him with your body. Couples who can't conceive naturally and then seek artificial insemination may be seen as "poo pooing" God's perfect plan for them.
God looks after the orphans and widows but He does that through us on Earth. God works with all the hands that we give Him. What if a couple becomes so wrapped in the child that they had due to a medical procedure, that they don't even consult the local adoption agencies to give birth to God's plan for their lives? Being a childless couple can be socially stigmatizing I imagine. But God still works miracles and He still wipes the tears from all faces. Perhaps God wants the couple to know Him in a new way by being childless. But the newly conceived couple will never know that now.
Two loving parents are the only type of people who should start a home. But does that home have to be made up of children from their own bodies? How much greater of a calling it is to love a child that was not born of your body but of your heart? That requires the love of Christ. An adopting couple is called to love a man (child) as you love yourself (your own child). If couples get so busy with artificial insemination and procedures, what happens to the orphaned and the fatherless? Who will look after God's little one's of whom the Kingdom was specifically made for?
What are your thoughts on artificial insemination? Is adoption a legitimate option or is artificial insemination the only way to start a truly loving family?
Recommend
Comments (34)
If my heart stops and they bring me back to life.... did I defy the fact that it was indeed my time to go? This is the thing, if artificial insemination actually works, and nothing is possible without God, how can it not be God's will? It doesn't work for everyone. Some people try everything and never get pregnant. I am a firm believer that these methods were put here to help us. I don't believe adoption is ever going to slow down, couples are reaching the point where they are tired of trying and want a child. Now the real problem is that no one really ever wants to adopt a teenaged child but that's another story. I don't think artificial insemination is going against God's will. If you are truly barren... no procedure or medicine will be able to help you. Just my thoughts. xoxo
I don't think artificial insemination is Biblically wrong, but obviously it's not the only true way to start a truly loving family. I don't think I'd necessarily condone one over the other, although in the case of artificial insemination I do worry a little bit about people like Octomom and Kate Plus Eight who thought more about having babies than how to feed them.
Anyway, side point, there are couples out there who can't have kids at all, and they can artificially inseminate themselves blue in the face and they'll still never have kids. My modern definition of barren would be a woman in that situation.
this is ridiculous. God gave us a way to start a truly loving family. it's called sex. sex is only right if it's within the sacrament of marriage. marriage is only one man and one woman. that's the way God laid it out from the very beginning. marriage = sex = baby. marriage must be free, total, faithful, and fruitful. please ask me if you want me to explain each of those.
now, let's look at the exceptions to that general rule, so to speak, that you raise at the beginning. barren or infertile couples. they are not sinning as long as they are open to the possibility of having children. the couple, assuming they're married, are free, total, faithful, and fruitful. IF they are being faithful, then they should be seeking the Lord and His will through prayer. now, i can't fully explain why infertility is a gift from God, and it's a case by case basis. yet, the power of prayer is extrodinary. i've heard of a story of a man who got a vasectomy at one point in his life. later in life, he was diagnosed with cancer, i think. he went to a prayer house of some sort. he was prayed over for "total healing". he was cured of the cancer, i think... but then he and his wife got pregnant! furthermore, take a look at Abraham. he was into his hundreds when he and his wife finally bore a son. in fact, it was when he decided to take God's plan into his own hands by being unfaithful to his wife (and to God) that Ishmael was born... there's so much more i could go into there... the point however tho was that because Abraham was faithful, eventually, that his namesake was fulfilled and he was the father of many nations, despite he and his wife's infertility. point is, if a barren or infertile married couple is still free, total, faithful, and are trying to be fruitful, AND it's God's will, He will bless them with children.
the other exception you mention is same sex couples. that seems pretty obvious to me. there is no way that a same sex couple can be all 4 of the criteria mentioned above: free, total, faithful, AND fruitful. they can be free, total, and faithful... but they are never going to get any kids out of it. that's not biologically possible. if they do want kids, they'd have to either do surrogacy, which would involve a third person, thus voiding the aspect of being faithful to each other... and even artificial insemination is not being faithful in that case because, in the case of a lesbian couple, the word itself means that semen from a man (a third person) is joined with an egg of a woman outside of the womb. so in the case of the lesbian couple... sine it's always only one egg, the child either never know who his or her biological mother is, thus almost intentionally creating confusion and chaos in his or her life... and we know that's not love at all because it doesn't put the child's good ahead of the parents... OR, the child would know which is his or her biological mother and thus the true bonds of motherhood would form with her and not the other, which would be totally unfair to the other "mother"...having to watch the woman she loves grow close to the child she loves... unless of course the fix to that is to have another child, with the other mother being that child's biological mother... but then you end up with two children, neither of which is fully belonging to both parents, because that is still a biological impossibility...
i'm sure there are many other scenarios in which all that could play out... but do you all begin to see how complicated this all gets in order to try to satisfy God's will on our own? even when we try to accomplish God's will, or what we think is God's will, or parts of it, we end up completely missing other parts of it.
the bottom line is still this. who ultimately knows better, God or us? if God is everything He claims to be, then the answer is simple. we need to recognize that we cannot face all of these problems in life without Christ. we cannot attempt to answer all of the questions posed on revelife without trusting in what the Lord has revealed to us. we cannot expect to swim through the sea to salvation and Perfect Union with the Trinity on the small plank of wood that is sola scriptura, especially when Christ has built for us an amazing ship that has everything we need and more to cross that vast sea!
sincerely,
devout Catholic
oh yeah... and then there's this blog entry posted by an acquaintance of mine. it's very relevant and well thought through!
if your god is omnipotent, artificial insemination shouldn't be capable of changing His plans. and i never hear Christians argue against chemotherapy because it keeps you from dying of cancer like He probably wants.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Chemotherapy is a treatment to stop death. AI is an operative procedure to procure life. One is to sustain life. One is to procure life through a test tube of sorts. Not sure I follow your logic. God will have His way. But people do foil His best for us. It's called free will. Adam, Eve, apple, Garden of Eden.
@ventimochamom@xanga - Great commentary. I appreciate it. Health and faith are funny things. You make a good point. Operative treatment is different than preventative treatment. Just because I can get breast implants, does that mean it's God's will for me to be a double D instead of my nice C that I am now? Completely a treatment out of vanity. It's not the same as saving a life with open heart surgery. You can't even compare the two. We need to inspect your comment though. "no one wants to adopt a teenaged child". That's selfish and it's telling of the couple. If you can't love a teenage child who really needs it more than one who isn't here, are you that loving of a couple? What happens when their teenage child spins out of control and is too hard to handle? Will they now want to parent that child. Motives and means of AI are telling of what's really in people's hearts. If you're looking to truly love and start a family, any family will do... xoxo. :)
@rusty0505@xanga - Your comment is very confusing, so I'm going to ask for clarification about three things:
[1] You claim that the only way to start a "truly loving family" is through sex Are families with adopted children not "truly loving"?
[2] You use the example of a lesbian couple who undergoes artificial insemination so that one woman can bear a child. Your claim is that if the child knows which parent is his/her biological mother, then s/he will love one parent more than another. (This argument seems to apply equally well to a heterosexual couple.)
Do you think it is impossible for a child to love a non-biological parent in the same capacity as a biological one? What are the implications of your belief for the love between children and their adoptive parents and/or step-parents?
[3] You claim that "intentionally creating chaos and confusion in [a child's] life" is "not love at all because it doesn't put the child's good ahead of the parents." To me, this seems like an argument in favor of artificial insemination or adoption: Both processes are expensive and time-consuming. Such couples have planned for parenthood for a long time. I think it's also safe to assume that these couples are financially stable. In the case of adoption, adoption agencies put a lot of effort into deeming whether potential adoptive parents are emotionally stable as well.
It's hard for me to understand how parents who take advantage of artificial insemination or adoption are intentionally causing chaos and confusion their children's lives. More important sources of chaos include unplanned pregnancies, financial uncertainty, and emotional instability.
***
Artificial insemination might not be the most traditional way of being fruitful, but it is far from the most chaotic or confusing. I'm curious to know whether it is prohibited by the Bible. I know that the Bible condemns lustful thoughts and sexual transgressions. Does artificial insemination count as a sin even though lust and sex are absent?
Excellent post and question! Because I don't think infertility has the same stigma it once did--at least not in the world at large, there are still certainly some niches and regions where the stigmatization is still heavy--I don't think artificial insemination is really God's providence to the barren. I think it's the result of God's providence of amazing minds and research abilities, and thus, in a roundabout sort of way, is a manifestation of God's providence, but I don't think it's his new way of ensuring women can have kids, effectively replacing the miracles he worked for Sarah et al.
Truth be told, I think the use of artificial insemination is really a very selfish act. It is an incredibly expensive process and I think that money would be better spent on other things, most notably adoption. Choosing artificial insemination over adoption is basically saying, "look I'm a better person with better genes than the parents of that orphan, and I think the world is better off if I procreate." That may be an extreme way of saying it, but I have difficulty phrasing it in a way that isn't arrogant.
I'm sorry if that's offensive to anyone, but I can't come up with any explanation for going through such great lengths to have your own, biological child except to refer to Dawkins' Selfish Gene, which may be very descriptive of how things work, but to say it is morally upright is a long shot. If you think I'm misframing the situation, then please, enlighten me.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Even though God has the capability of being omnipotent, He can suspend that power (as we see in the life of Christ)--or it could be seen as exercising his omnipotence by choosing not to act or intercede--and give humans some level of free will. Thus it's possible for us to sin and otherwise deviate from His plan.
That being said, you hit the nail on the head: when it comes to modern medicine, where do we draw the line before health care becomes "playing God." Personally, I'm against life support--e.g. feeding tubes and respiratory machines--with the exception of temporary, medically-induced comas for surgical purposes, etc. But I base that on economic and moral grounds as they relate to societal responsibility, not because I think it's playing God, per se.
@rusty0505@xanga - Why do you refuse to capitalize the first word of a sentence? You go through the effort of capitalizing divine pronouns, so clearly you're not completely against the shift key, and your grammar is pretty good other than that--especially for the blogsphere. So why not expend that extra fraction of a calorie to capitalize the first word of a sentence?
@EBailey - if the argument against AI is that it interferes with what God wants (a woman to be infertile), why isn't the same said of all medical procedures? if God wants a woman to suffer through the pain of remaining childless, it doesn't seem illogical to me that He'd want someone to suffer and die of cancer as well.
@blacksheep - exactly. i fail to see how AI is really any more intrusive to God's plan than surgery, CPR, or any other treatment, really. even dieting... what if it's God's plan for you to be overweight? sure, you can draw the line somewhere for yourself personally if you choose. but to say that it's not what God wants sounds more like you're trying to show that God is on your side.
@jim_the_american@xanga - AI isn't directly addressed in the Bible b/c it wasn't around back then. Principles about AI could come in to play. Like I said, God had a special purpose for the barren women. We can' tunderstand this concept unless we truly understand the social standing of these women. If God wanted us to have children, He would freely give them. It says that a man's children are blessings from God. Sarah, Mary, and Elizabeth are 3 women of the Bible who concieved under unnatural conditions. They were Holy Ghost conditions not medical conditions.
God said that the duty of giving and taking life belongs to Him alone. Sin can be defined as a disargreement with God over waht the good is & it's what tempted Even in the Garden. She wanted to be "like a god" Fiddling with life and death is taking on the role of a god. My thoughts.
Thanks for commenting. GREAT Point.
God looks down on barren women? Read the biblie again. Your god shits on all women, not just barren ones.
Also consider this: If your god says a barren woman is not supposed to have children at all and she gets herself artificially inseminated, then who germinated the seed? Isn't your god supposed to be responsible for that, the creation of life? Or better yet, how is it some poor schmuck is able to defy the will of the creator of everything, the most powerful being in existence, who has a plan and controls all? Do tell.
@Jal_Phoenix@xanga - Sometimes when I read posts quickly, I skip over minor wording that completely changes the meaning of the post in my mind. I think that may have happened here. If you read the post again, you'll see that I said society marginaled barren women---not God.
God is responsible for life and death. But, human beings steal that responsibility from God everyday. The death penalty, murder and war are perfect examples of taking the responsiblittes of life and death into human hands.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Again, you're comparing an operative and preventative treatment. Would you compare lip suction and rhinoplasty with heart transplant? If you do, we have to talk about your logic. Operative treatment, like breast implants, is completely different than bone marrow transplant. You can't even compare them. It's insenstive and ignorant to put these procedures on the same playing field.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Okay when I first read that, I saw "AI" and thought "artificial intelligence." Thanks, now I'm going to be paranoid all day that demon-spawn robot babies are following me. Anyways, I would say AI is certainly more invasive than many other medical procedures (though I might be biased because "invasive" is a medical term that I can't quite get out of my head), but I still agree that is besides the point. Everything is on a continuum of invasiveness with OTC analgesics on one end and life support, plastic surgery, AI (in both senses), etc. on the other end; though it could, theoretically, extend almost infinitely far out. I feel like there has to be a line somewhere along the continuum, but as you suggest, far be it from me to say with any authority where God draws that line. The best I can do is personal conviction.
Just out of curiosity, where do you think the line should be drawn? Maybe not the line "after this is God's domain," but from a social standpoint. For example, should terminally ill cancer patients who are 85+ years old and already bed-ridden accept treatment that will, at best, extend life by a few painful months? (Sorry, that wording is super biased, but I have to run, so I don't have the time to phrase it more appropriately.)
@blacksheep - Resounding AMEN!
@EBailey - Yes, I see where you said society marginalized barren women. It does not change the way women are supposed to be treated according to the bible. It just means barren ones get it even worse.
And is not everything according to your god's will? Isn't that the excuse when he fails to answer prayers? Answering them wasn't according to his plan, it was against his will. So what makes you or anyone think we can do anything, anything at all, that isn't part of his plan? This is the supreme being we're talking about! Man has no capacity to defy him. And if he claims so, then he's not the creator, not the ultimate entity, and not worthy of worship.
@Jal_Phoenix@xanga - Society and man are an unfortuante reality. As a black woman, I'm totally marginalized. That is not God's will. I am made in His image and likeness. I deserve respect to.
Everything is according to God's will. His will is for us to love Him completely without cohersion. Hence we have free will. Have you ever seen people that are codependent and only around each other out of some sick need and psychological dependence? Not pretty. Two people who love each other freely are beautiful.
God doesn't fail to answer prayers. The Bible says that we don't have because we ask amiss. God never proclaimed that He would give us any and every single thing we wanted. That's because we are fallen and incomplete people. We don't know what's good for us. Thank God I don't get what I want. God will have His way. We can be a part of His plan or step outside of it but His will be done. Choosing to be involved or stepping out of God's plan is personal. Living outside of God's plan makes me people angry, argumentative mean-spirited and stiff-necked. Man can defy God contary to your belief. Again, that's what free will is.
@EBailey - These are your words: "That is not God's will." These are your words in the next sentence: "Everything is according to God's will."
"God never proclaimed that He would give us any and every single thing we needed."
Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain,'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but
believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I
tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and
it shall be yours.
(Mark 11:24-25 NAB)
You are a well spoken, well written and apparently intelligent person. If you feel marginalized in society, and I believe your reasoning, then fight back. Make your own destiny. I am a white male. I too am marginalized, but because of my beliefs. Atheism is a hard lifestyle to maintain in a world of religious people. I have to fight against their prejudice everyday. It makes me confrontational, which is why I came into your thread and questioned your views. I don't have a nebulous all-loving entity to fall back on, and I don't need one to feel good about myself. My life is my own, and it is full and enjoyable. The struggle makes it worth it. Put your faith in yourself instead of your mythology, and see what you can really accomplish.
@EBailey - both categories of medical procedures exist to make someone's life better. you seem to be drawing the line at whether a procedure is necessary for life to continue. and that's fine. but what would you say to someone who has elective liposuction, not because they want to be skinny, but because their obesity is about to kill them? what would you say to a model who opts for a nose job, not out of vanity, but because she knows she could be better at her chosen profession and be able to provide more for her family?
if you want to argue that the line should be drawn at life-saving procedures, the argument that elective procedures go against God's will is useless. if we assume that all conditions are God-given and God-approved, everything from cancer to small breasts to infertility, then all medical procedures that intervene go against His will.
@blacksheep - hehe sorry for the creepy image :p
as for me personally, i draw the line at the balance between risk and benefits. regardless of what the procedure is, if the risk outweighs the benefits for me... i won't do it. so... if i found out i was infertile and really wanted children, i'd probably opt for AI (although adoption is far more likely). if i merely felt pressured to have children, i probably wouldn't. similarly, if i had cancer and chemotherapy would only extend my life (as opposed to actually saving it) i probably wouldn't get it. the only cosmetic surgery i'd ever consider is anything like liposuction or a "tummy tuck" because frankly, my stomach is the only part of my body i really want to change (and only if all other options were exhausted). losing that insecurity would be worth the risks for me.
i don't believe that any medical procedure is inherently wrong. it's a personal decision, and it's not my place to decide that for others. i agree that one can never know where God draws the line, but i have a hard time understanding why one would want to be so sure that their guess was right. to me, appealing to a higher authority only serves two purposes: either you want to have the right to tell others to do the same, or you don't think your personal opinion is worth enough in and of itself. i'm not interested in either, so i don't see any need for having a reason beyond, "I don't want to."
This article really angers me. I am the result of artificial insemination. Should I go tell my parents how dare they choose to have me and they should have adopted? Should I condemn them for not adopting someone else's child instead of having me?
My mother was not barren. My father cheated on her consistently and he had a vasectomy so that he could screw around on her and not get any of his girlfriends pregnant. My parents already had two children. Then my brother died in a tragic accident just days before he turned 5. My mother was devastated. She had lost a child and was in a loveless marriage. She tried to get pregnant with my father hoping that the surgery just didn't 'take' but had no luck. So she went had had AI done to conceive me.
Is that so wrong? Is it wrong of her to have wanted her own child after she lost one of hers? I grew up to be 16 years old before I knew about my fathers vasectomy and the AI procedure. I have since found out that I have 2 siblings that were born from the same 'father' in completely different circumstances. I have not found my father.
Why should a woman (in a marriage or single) be condemned for trying to have a child of her own flesh and blood? What about couples that spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments? The ones that have in vitro? The ones that have surrogates? Are they wrong or sinning since they are trying ways to have a child of their own instead of adopting? There are some people in the world that feel that adopting is they way for them. There are some that want their own child. Is either way worse than the other? Isn't the fact that children still being wanted so much that parents would go thru so much to get a child enough?
@blacksheep - idk. just habit i guess. maybe also that when i do capitalize, it's to emphasize reverance for God, so everything else is lowercase. again, just a thought.
really though if that's all you have to say about my comment... lol...thank you.
@jim_the_american@xanga -
[1] You claim that the only way to start a "truly loving family" is through sex Are families with adopted children not "truly loving"?
i didn't say that at all.
[2] You use the example of a lesbian couple who undergoes artificial insemination so that one woman can bear a child. Your claim is that if the child knows which parent is his/her biological mother, then s/he will love one parent more than another. (This argument seems to apply equally well to a heterosexual couple.)
Do you think it is impossible for a child to love a non-biological parent in the same capacity as a biological one? What are the implications of your belief for the love between children and their adoptive parents and/or step-parents?
nope. not saying that either. it's just so very clear that the connection between biological mother and son is one of the strongest bonds...so much so that we see God Himself, Jesus Christ, lifting up His Mother as Queen of Heaven (but that's a completely different story and many of the readers here don't understand it, so you can choose to ignore it and i won't push it further)... my opinion is that the biological bond is stronger than a non-biological bond.
[3] You claim that "intentionally creating chaos and confusion in [a child's] life" is "not love at all because it doesn't put the child's good ahead of the parents." To me, this seems like an argument in favor of artificial insemination or adoption: Both processes are expensive and time-consuming. Such couples have planned for parenthood for a long time. I think it's also safe to assume that these couples are financially stable. In the case of adoption, adoption agencies put a lot of effort into deeming whether potential adoptive parents are emotionally stable as well.
It's hard for me to understand how parents who take advantage of artificial insemination or adoption are intentionally causing chaos and confusion their children's lives. More important sources of chaos include unplanned pregnancies, financial uncertainty, and emotional instability.
you do make a LOT of assumptions. i was merely going through a few scenarios that might be exceptions to gift of one man and one woman through marriage with God bringing new life into the world, freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully. by doing so... i tried to point out how confusing and frustrating and chaotic and even disunifying doing that is... and you know what... that's the work of the devil. to divide is satan's work... God is Perfect Unity (and calls us to be united with Him, right?)
so... when doing things in the name of love... be sure that you first understand God and understand what God's Love Truly is...and the depths of Love. i think so often we find issues and say, how can i act with love... but we forget that it should be first and foremost how do i act with Christ? i could go on to make further statements, but they are hotly disagreed upon among this community, so i will refrain. if you do want to know what i would say, or have any other questions, feel free!
sincerely,
devout Catholic
I think it depends on the situation. I can understand a couple's desperation to have kids of their own, causing them to resist the idea of adoption, but I do think it might be a sign that a couple is meant to adopt if they can't conceive on their own. A better question would be what happens to the unused "potential" babies? Isn't it better to implant them than destroy them?