Should Married Couples Who Are Able Be the Only Ones to Have Rights to a Biological Child?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dirtman

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#21
I think the topic boils down to asking whether or not people who can't fully have their own biological children should be allowed to look into current technology in order to do so.

It's a discussion of how far can people go to have their own DNA offspring, whether married or single but wanting to be a parent.
Ok,
I would definitely say no to single because children need both parents. I would say that if you arent able to maintain a married relationship its probably best you dont have a child.
There are definitely some fertility methods that leave many moral questions. A married couple to seek alternative way to having children isnt extraordinary, or necessarily morally questionable. I would think that would be a matter of what is an ethical method?
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#23
I think the topic boils down to asking whether or not people who can't fully have their own biological children should be allowed to look into current technology in order to do so.

It's a discussion of how far can people go to have their own DNA offspring, whether married or single but wanting to be a parent.
they can if they got the $$$ IVF is very expensive, like hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I dont know all the rules surrounding it though but you can google it.

If it doesnt work apparently you dont get your money back. (its not guranteed)
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#24
I dont know how doctors can pronounce someone 'infertile' meaning well you just cant have children but I think eugenics regimes did sterilise people, and of course after having children couples do get hysterectomies, tie their tubes, or vasectomies.

Its not something people just think oh just cant have children unless they just constantly keep having miscarriages and stillbirths. Conception may be easy, carrying to term may be the difficult part.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#25
one of my is aunties was a midwife and she never had her own children but she midwives hundreds if not thousands of babies, so, maybe that put her off lol.
The family lores is she tried to take my brothers who are twins
shes not biologically related to us either. we just called her aunty She was married but I dont know what uncle did, he went fishing a lot though. She was a chatterbox and he was quiet.

I think if you involved with childbirth its not a piece of cake. first time mothers often just dont know anything about having children at all. Lactation has to be taught. Lots of mothers said to me they just didnt know anything and didnt want to admit it. Not sure why they told me though....?! One thought she knew everything about children cos she trained as a teacher but babies are quite different from school age children. A nursery is a different environment its not like you can just have a baby and go off and leave them to it.

Also many infants die in their first year child mortality is still quite high around the world
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#26
In nz there is Plunket which is free nurse care to help mothers with their child.

Before that infant mortality was quite high and I still remember in the 80s mothers still didnt know what caused 'cot death' or sudden infant death syndrome.

Then researchers found out babies were just suddenly stopped breathing for no reason in their sleep. It was because they turned to face the pillow and suffocated cos they couldnt UNTURN themselves. Thats why they say to place a baby sleeping on its back.

A baby cannot even walk, talk or do anything on its own its very dependent on its mother for survival. For mothers who lose their children (even if they grown up) that is the most devastating thing that can ever happen. I think because that mother bond is much stronger than a dad who never had to carry a child in his own body. But that doesnt mean a mother who did not carry her own child in her womb cant still be a mother. Being a mother is more than being simply a vessel I would think.
 

cinder

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2014
4,328
2,361
113
#27
Well since I'm working on this Bible study that's a quick run through the old testament, you ask about modern reproductive technologies and all I can think of is something like....... better than BC fertility treatments which were - here take my slave and she can have babies for me. So while it might not be best, using donated gametes is better than fornicating so you can have a child.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#28
the donor IS your slave if you force them or bribe them to do it for you

This is why lots of surrogate mothers in poor countries do it.,,for the money. Rent a womb.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#29
I recall the lady that did it in the memoir bribed her 'donor' to do it. often women just want some guy to do it then turn around and say BUT YOU CANNOT BE THE FATHER. so they cant even say its theirs as well.

What price is love? I dont know. But no love is made in that transaction.

At least in the Bible Tamar who got pregnant told Judah he was going to be the father AND he promised to look after the child and it would take his name. So that the child would actually belong to the tribe. Even though he could never marry her nor touch her again.


The child was not cast out because he unwittingly fornicated. Most illigetimate children do not inherit anything. Inheritence meaning not just traits but birthright and land. They are cast out, called bastards, dumped in orphanages, fostered etc. They had to make their own way in life with zero support once reaching adulthood. Well in the olden days they were unless lucky enough to be adopted
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#30
im trying to remember what the name of the memoir was. If I find it I will post it then you could find it and read it yourself and make up your own mind about her story.

I do rememeber the author was Canadian and worked as a vet in nz, was determined but because she was from overseas adoption laws were different or difficult. She looked into surrogacy too. I think with surrogacy some women love having babies and want to do it but I think theres rules about money changing hands so it cant be seen as renting a womb.

The surrogate may or may not be related to you. IVF sounds like a long drawn out process from the sound of it. Basically Leah was also used as a sort of surrogate for Jacobs children but he preferred Rachels even though having Benjamin killed her.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#31
And the thing about Leah that was tragic is that Jacob did NOT love her, even though she bore him 4 sons. Their handmaids also bore several children. I guess he just wanted a big family.Though its never really said that Jacob loved his children more than all the other dads at the time. He also picked a favourite.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#32
It was this one Mission to Motherhood: A powerful story of infertility, surrogacy, and the journey to becoming a parent by Amira Mikhail

maybe your library has it or amazon.

Anyway, she did have a still birth and lost the baby, and I think the dad didnt want or know or something.So that broke up yet she still wanted to be a mother, went through IVF, had fibroids removed, then got a surrogate in Canada and her. eggs shipped over, and then when the baby was born, he was shipped back to nz. Something strange like that, and then SPOILER she admitted she knew next to nothing about raising children and had to learn watching you tube videos.
 

TheNarrowPath

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2022
1,012
546
113
#33
It was this one Mission to Motherhood: A powerful story of infertility, surrogacy, and the journey to becoming a parent by Amira Mikhail

maybe your library has it or amazon.

Anyway, she did have a still birth and lost the baby, and I think the dad didnt want or know or something.So that broke up yet she still wanted to be a mother, went through IVF, had fibroids removed, then got a surrogate in Canada and her. eggs shipped over, and then when the baby was born, he was shipped back to nz. Something strange like that, and then SPOILER she admitted she knew next to nothing about raising children and had to learn watching you tube videos.
who knew when YT first came out that it was going to be educating many people in many areas of their lives.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#34
who knew when YT first came out that it was going to be educating many people in many areas of their lives.
haha mostly cat videos

Im not really a you tuber. The only thing I use it for is for karaoke. lol
 

TheNarrowPath

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2022
1,012
546
113
#35
haha mostly cat videos

Im not really a you tuber. The only thing I use it for is for karaoke. lol
can you sing? i wish i could sing in tune. i heard there is a sing room on the chat app.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#36
I have watched the next door neighbours cat give birth about five times though.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#37
can you sing? i wish i could sing in tune. i heard there is a sing room on the chat app.
I love singing though I sort of have to be in a singing mood. Also its funny how sometimes you mishear lyrics and then you see the actual words/lyrics in print and go OH thats what they were singing about.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,176
113
#38
the poor cat though, the father of her kittens (and there were several) basically left her to be a solo mum. And she gave birth to litters, like four at a time.

The neighbours had to give the kittens away they couldnt keep them all but refused to neuter/spay her.
 

Lynx

Folksy yet erudite
Aug 13, 2014
24,882
8,150
113
#39
I recall the lady that did it in the memoir bribed her 'donor' to do it. often women just want some guy to do it then turn around and say BUT YOU CANNOT BE THE FATHER. so they cant even say its theirs as well.
Reminds me of a girl at work, talking about wanting another baby:

"I don't want to get married, I don't want a deep, long lasting relationship, I just want a man's (genitals) and then we both go on with our lives."
 

Moses_Young

Well-known member
Sep 15, 2019
9,100
4,926
113
#40
Hey Everyone,

I didn't want to distract from the very interesting thread that's already going on regarding sperm donation and resulting possible single motherhood, so I thought I'd start a separate thread.

I was particularly interested in the talk about the uniqueness that God puts into every human being's DNA.

I am all too familiar with the issue of DNA in my own way.

Many know my story. I was adopted from Korea to Caucasian parents -- the story goes that I was found in a cardboard box in front of a theater when I was a few days old -- but just a few years ago, I read an article saying that at the time I was born, this was often the fairy tale social workers were instructed to tell prospective parents to soften any unknowns or realities that might have been much harsher (for instance, babies who are literally found in trash dumps because someone has literally thrown them away.)

I can only speak from my own experience, but I grew up with a huge hole in my heart, all due to the subject of DNA. "No, but really, who are your REAL parents?" I am asked constantly, even as an adult. My parents adopted because they were told they could not have biological children, and to many, all the focus seems to be on the missing biological component.

I grew up watching and hearing family members say things about my other relatives like, "Oh, he's tall like Uncle Don was," "She must take after her dad," or "Those kids look exactly like their mother," but when they got to me, they would shrug awkwardly and tell me, "My, how much you've grown!" I haven't gotten any taller since I was probably 13. It's just all they can think of.

And I do understand. But it doesn't make it sting any less.

Now I know this seems like a very simple, everyday thing, but for me, it was a constant source of grief and heartache. Every encounter was always a reminder that I did not belong or fit in, all because I did not have this thing called shared DNA. Fortunately, my parents are wonderful and have always emphasized that I am THEIR child, and that's probably why I didn't fall off the rails completely.

But I always feel like I'm on the outside looking in when I am around biological families who talk about strong resemblances, qualities that were passed down, and similar likes or dislikes. Now of course I know that DNA is no guarantee, and many children turn out to be nothing like their families.

But I have always wondered -- do I look like anyone? Am I am the way I am partially because the people responsible for me being here are, or were that way? Because I am very different from my family. As interesting as the debate of Nature vs. Nurture in developing who we are, I only have one half of the formula. And as the years ticked by and I felt my own window to have at least one child fade into the sunset, it started to hit me that I will never have a biological relative this side of heaven.

I know that DNA isn't everything. But we all long for what we don't have.

I have known two other Korean adoptees who were adopted by single moms (no fathers) and they turned out just fine. In one case, the mother had no interest in sex (I don't know if it was due to abuse or what -- I only know what her daughter, my friend, told me.) Therefore, this woman didn't feel it was right for her to marry (because she didn't want to entrap a man into a situation in which she knew she wouldn't be interested in sex,) and so she decided to adopt a child on her own.

The other thing about adoption is that in almost all cases, even among Christian circles, it is almost always seen as second best. I have known some adoptees who grew up to loathe adoption (because they grew to hate being seen as second best, or a last resort,) and would only accept having biological children themselves as an option. They believed that going on to have their "own" children would provide the missing DNA link they had been searching for all their lives.

I also remember a member we had on the site some time ago who preached that "real Christians" shouldn't adopt, because unless they were your own biological offspring, they were "fake children." (At least, those were the words he used.)

I do feel a hole in my heart knowing I will never a DNA connection. And again, I know it's no guarantee. I know plenty of people with biological relatives they can't stand or don't get along with. But like I said, we all wonder about what we don't have. And now all I can do is know and trust that God is moving me on. (For medical reasons, I know that my window is fully closed.)

And this brings me to a very interesting series of questions on the other side of the sperm donation thread we already have going on.

If masturbation is sinful (which is what I've always been taught, but we've had many here on the site over the years who disagree,) and the only way to produce sperm, I understand why people would believe collections for sperm banks would be wrong.

But then does this mean:

1. That the only people who have a right to biological children are those who can produce them naturally?

2. If a couple is married and one partner can't have children biologically, does that mean this couple has to forfeit the rights to a biological child? If the husband has a low sperm count, or if the wife can't produce viable eggs, does this mean that their only option for children should strictly be adoption and nothing else?

3. And as a flipside to the question about sperm donation, what about the other choices we now have?

4. What if a woman who can't produce eggs herself uses another woman's egg but her husband's sperm? What if her husband's sperm won't create a child, but it could be placed within another woman mechanically? What if the wife just couldn't carry, but their egg and sperm could be placed into the womb of a surrogate mother who was able to carry their child to term?

DNA is undoubtedly one of the most unique things God has created.

But in today's world, who has the rights, or not, to propagate it?
I am sorry for your situation with your biological parents.

I believe only married couples should be able to produce biological children. God created man and wife and marriage for a reason. Children are the fruit of their union, and supposed to be loved by both parents. People often frown on the families in the Old Testament, where the man might have had multiple wives by which to have more children, and make accusations of sin and polygamy. But at least even in these cases, the children had two loving parents. How much worse for IVF children, where the child doesn't even know his (or her) own father? If having multiple wives or concubines is a sin, I'd argue IVF (to single parents) is 10 or 100 times worse. At least the former doesn't necessarily deny a child knowing who his father was, and if the father is half-decent, the child will still have two loving parents.

In bible times, if a husband died childless, it was the responsibility of his brother to provide an heir for the widow, not some unknown, random stranger. (Okay, they're not technically married in this case, but it's in a family environment for the raising and protection of the child - the uncle/dad would still be close-at-hand).

I think in many cases where couples are of child-bearing age, the inability to produce children is caused by malnutrition. I've heard of cases where such parents went to live somewhere "uncivilised" for a period, and suddenly were able to become pregnant, because it was the poisonous Western diet and conveniences of "civilisation" that were causing problems - the biological issue was the symptom, not the cause.

Basically, in our fallen world, man is evil, and he will always do selfish things to satisfy his evil desires. In my view, to allow generation of children outside the mechanism God created poses unacceptable risk to the child.