Question on In Vitro fertilization - quote from 12/15/12 WT

by sd-7 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sd-7

  12/15/12 WT p. 15:

  "In a variation that some term 'embryo adoption,' the embryos placed in a wife's womb involve neither her eggs nor her husband's sperm. In yet another variation, a married couple's eggs and sperm are fertilized outside the womb by IVF. The resulting embryos are then implanted in the womb of a surrogate, a woman who carries the baby and delivers it for them.

  "Those reproductive procedures are unacceptable to God's servants out of respect for his direction: 'You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it.' (Lev. 18:20, 29; Prov. 6:29) When fertilization involving eggs or sperm (or both) from someone not within the marital union occurs, this amounts to what the Bible terms porneia, sexual immorality. Those procedures are a gross misuse of the sexual organs."

  Question: Does anyone know of anyone who faced a judicial committee because they did something like this?

  It's hard to imagine standing accused of fornication without having actually had sex with someone. I mean, wow. I'm sure this isn't a new rule, but seeing this in the year 2012 is still kinda freaky. They're using a rule from the Law of Moses, for one, and the issue isn't the bodily fluids themselves, unless we're to assume that guys were just putting it in a cup and handing it to the wife of their associates back then. And really, by making this rule, it's extending the concept of fornication to one that goes outside of all physical contact with a person.

  Picture this: JW couple just had sex, leaves the room to clean up, dog/cat comes into their room out of nowhere and jumps on bed! Is the couple now guilty of bestiality? See how far this can go? Loony!!

  --sd-7
• 

  sd-7

  Okay, I see a quote from a 2004 Awake! article. Interesting that this is in Awake! of all places. I would've expected to see it in a Watchtower first:

  ***

  g049/22p.10TheChoices,theIssues***thereanyrestrictionsastohowone’sreproductivepowersmaybeused? God’s view can be found at Leviticus 18:20, which says: “You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it.” The underlying principle in that Scriptural decree is this: A man’s semen should not be used to inseminate anyone other than his wife, and a woman should not bear a child for someone other than her own husband. In other words, the reproductive powers are not to be used for someone other than one’s marriage mate. True Christians, therefore, avoid surrogate motherhood as well as any procedures that involve the use of donated sperm, eggs, or embryos.

  Are

  --sd-7
• 

  sd-7

  Now here's an interesting quote, from the Creator book:

  ***

  ctchap.9p.146AGreatTeacherShowsUstheCreatorMoreClearly

  To illustrate it another way, think of what some physicians accomplish with in vitro fertilization. A life that begins in a “test tube” is transferred into a woman and is later born as a babe. In the case of Jesus, the Bible assures us that by the “power of the Most High,” his life was transferred into a virgin named Mary. She was of the line of David, so Jesus could be the permanent heir of the Messianic Kingdom promised to David.—Luke 1:26-38; 3:23-38; Matthew 1:23.

  --So, there's a lesson about in vitro fertilization: God can, but you can't!

  --sd-7
• 

  NOLAW

  And you think anyone will them?
• 

  sd-7

  Sorry, can you repeat that NOLAW? I don't understand your statement.

  --sd-7
• 

  King Solomon

  Interesting topic/post, SD-7!

  WT SAID:

  g049/22p.10TheChoices,theIssues***there any restrictions as to how one’s reproductive powers may be used? God’s view can be found at Leviticus 18:20, which says: “You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it.” The underlying principle in that Scriptural decree is this: A man’s semen should not be used to inseminate anyone other than his wife, and a woman should not bear a child for someone other than her own husband. In other words, the reproductive powers are not to be used for someone other than one’s marriage mate. True Christians, therefore, avoid surrogate motherhood as well as any procedures that involve the use of donated sperm, eggs, or embryos.

  What a mind-numbingly stoopid (sic) statement they make, when one considers the Bible is RIDDLED with the idea of concubines, female slaves bearing the offspring of the male owners, etc.

  Do I really need to mention Abraham, Jacob, Samson, et al? Which Bible patriarch DIDN'T "use their reproductive powers with someone other than their marriage mate"? How about the responsibility of a brother to insemenate his brother's widow, so that his brother's name lives on (a flawed concept, by virtue of ancient men not understanding the basics of genetics)? THAT was Onan's crime: he withdrew before ejaculating, thus preventing her from conceiving. Onan's sin was NOT "using his reproductive powers with someone other than his marriage mate" but REFUSING to get her pregnant by using the withdrawal method of contraception.

  So JWs want to excise SOME elements of the OT to apply to modern-day life (like the IVF policy, blood ban), but not others? Positively insane... .
• 

  blondie

  But remember, the WTS teaches that Jesus did not have any of Joseph's DNA because Mary was artificially inseminated by God. I always wondered how that did not qualify as adultery under the law for engaged people?

  *** w76 5/1 p. 263 Was There Really a Virgin Birth? ***

  After thus emptying himself of heavenly glory, Jesus had to have his life, with its distinctive personality traits, transferred to the womb of the virgin Mary. This was accomplished through the agency of God’s holy spirit. It posed no problem for the Most High God. As the Creator, he fully understands the makeup of all his intelligent creatures. Nothing about human conception and the development of a baby in the womb is a mystery to him.—Job 31:15; Ps. 139:16; Eccl. 11:5.

  It really should not be difficult to grasp that a transferal of life and personality traits could be and was accomplished invisibly by means of God’s spirit. In the case of humans, the cell that results from the uniting of the sperm and the egg is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Yet just a tiny fraction of that cell contains the complete code for producing a boy or a girl with distinctive physical features and personality makeup. Accordingly, no more than a microscopic particle would have been needed to make Mary pregnant with the perfect Son of God.

  When Mary actually did become pregnant by holy spirit, her betrothed Joseph was in a quandary as to what he should do. This was because he had not yet had sexual intercourse with her.

  *** it-2 p. 56 Jesus Christ ***

  Mary was a descendant of the sinner Adam, hence herself imperfect and sinful. The question therefore is raised as to how Jesus, Mary’s “firstborn” (Lu 2:7), could be perfect and free from sin in his physical organism. While modern geneticists have learned much about laws of heredity and about dominant and recessive characteristics, they have had no experience in learning the results of uniting perfection with imperfection, as was the case with Jesus’ conception. From the results revealed in the Bible, it would appearthat the perfect male life-force (causing the conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary’s ovum, thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that was perfect from its start.

  *** g99 8/8 p. 30 From Our Readers ***

  Prior to Jesus’ conception, the angel Gabriel told Mary: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” (Luke 1:35) Evidently, God’s holy spirit caused an ovum in Mary’s womb to become fertile, transferring the life of God’s firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth. The holy spirit no doubt saw to it that this Son’s perfect male life force canceled out any Adamic imperfection in Mary’s ovum, while retaining certain genetic traits. Likely, Jesus resembled Mary.—ED.
• 

  sd-7

  Then I guess three elders are going to be knocking on Jehovah's door, to deliver an invite to a judicial committee. Anointed elders, of course.

  "Uh, Jehovah? We need to uh, talk to you about your conduct with Mary."

  "But that was 2,000 years ago."

  "But you didn't talk to the elders about this. We're, uh, we need to meet with you about this situation. How's Saturday looking for you?"

  "I'm not coming."

  "Apparently you are. Just ask Mary. Would you like us to just make the announcement?"

  "What's your name again, Brother...?" [Pulls out iPhone, texts Jesus "need u 2 destroy a brothr @ the Big A..."] [Jesus replies "ok...brb...u got a name?"]

  --sd-7
• 

  Pistoff

  The WT may be the only religion on the planet to think that immorality, porneia, can be committed without either parties genitals touching.
• 

  King Solomon

  I just LOVE reading the WTBTS' version of DNA:

  Yet just a tiny fraction of that cell contains the complete code for producing a boy or a girl with distinctive physical features and personality makeup.

  (sarcasm/ON)

  Huh, learn something new every-day: I never KNEW that someone's personality was determined exclusively by their DNA.... I guess it explains where Jesus seemingly got his hot-headed temper from, esp. when it came to money-changers and Pharisees!

  (sarcasm/OFF)

  EDIT: nevermind, as I see the WTBTS anticipated an objection from someone like me who knows a thing or two about genetics:

  While modern geneticists have learned much about laws of heredity and about dominant and recessive characteristics, they have had no experience in learning the results of uniting perfection with imperfection, as was the case with Jesus’ conception.

  Damn, they got me there: I admit it, I DON'T have ANY experience in "uniting perfection with imperfection".... DAMMIT! (saunters off...)

  (saunters back...)

  But wait a minnit: if Jesus is the result of "uniting perfection with imperfection", would he have at least a teensie, weensie bit of human imperfection in him? I thought he HAD to be PERFECT to atone for the sin of perfect Adam?

  This is usually when I just lose interest in talking about JW eschatology, knowing it's all just BS anyway....