What is their position on IVF?

voodoo lady

For example, if a married couple had fertility issues relating to the male partner's sperm, could they use a donor?

Is it frowned upon in a more general sense because people should be preaching rather than procreating?

millie210

As far as I remember that would be wrong (according to JWism)

using the old testament and laying down with another mans emission etc, it would be akin to adultery.

If that has changed, I am unaware of it.

They conveniently forget this is technically how Jesus was conceived in the Bible.

ETA article

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."

cappytan

What the actual f-ck? That's porneia?

Bull. The scriptures quoted have nothing to do with porneia. A case could be made for uncleanness, but Jesus H Christ, what the hell is wrong with these people? AI isn't sex!

How could I have believed this Bullcrap as long as I did?

millie210

Its porneia minus the fun part.

Scully

And yet.... Jehovah purportedly transferred the life force of his Son, Jesus, to the womb of Mary, who was already betrothed to Joseph...

Seems like AI and surrogacy suited Jehovah just fine in that instance. It wasn't porneia then, was it now??

smiddy

My understanding , going back 25 odd years ago it would have been viewed as adultery ? porneia ?, so a definite no-no .

But of course Lot`s two daughters could have sex with their father Gen:19:30-38 and that was O.K.

Because their was no punishment/ reprimand for either Lot or his daughters .

smiddy

Xanthippe

Interesting question voodoo lady. Also what I understand about their position on IVF using the husband's sperm only is that it's now a conscience matter. Which infuriates me because I have a sister and a sister-in-law who can't have children and IVF was forbidden when we were all young. Who knows, it may have worked for them. Now they are too old to have children the almighty GB say go ahead. So many lives wrecked by these megalomaniacs.

voodoo lady

Thank you for your responses. I suspected that perhaps it would be an "conscience" issue in the instance of a married couples' sperm and egg ultimately destined to grow in the mother's body. However, it does cost money, and I thought it might be frowned upon for that reason alone because surely they'd prefer to have it!

I can imagine that decades ago the very concept would have been highly taboo. It must hurt for those who wanted to have children but couldn't, who now see that the militant position has been relaxed.

I wondered about surrogacy too, so the Watchtower article quoted by millie makes it quite clear. At least until the light changes.

Heaven

If you believe the Adam and Eve story to be true, the entire human population is the product of incest... soooo...

I get the impression Botchtower doesn't like children. Kids are definitely a hindrance to the preaching work. They aren't exactly kid friendly either. But if the Borg decides to redefine the way the preaching work is done they may relax a bit.

In their history they have counseled people about not getting married (which also then translates to not having a family) 'because the end is so near and there is much work to do before then'.

Back in the Bronze and Iron Ages, there was no technology to allow for IVF or sperm donation (at least in the sense of a modern sperm bank).

If a couple really wants children and IVF is their only option I say do it. Why would it be Botchtower's business anyways? If the couple never says anything, how is anyone going to know.

DarioKehl

The sin of masturbation must occur before IVF is even possible. So, husband donor or not, the answer is "no."

should that come as a surprise from The Church of 'No?'

What is their position on IVF?

Share this