What Do You Believe is God’s View?

[4ever4Jesus]

I’m not trying to make anyone sick but I know in this day and age some women have Babies by Sperm donors. We never heard of anything like this in the Bible that I am aware.

 

[jaigner]

Sweet mercy.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I’m not trying to make anyone sick but I know in this day and age some women have Babies by Sperm donors. We never heard of anything like this in the Bible that I am aware.

The Bible does not talk about airplanes, radios, television, computers, I-pods, penicillin, gall bladder operations, MRIs, the Pill, etc., etc. Technology and human knowledge increases. Thus many things come about that is not mentioned in the Bible. No one would have known what they were talking about if they had and those writings would not have made it into scripture.

 

[annsni]

If God has not provided a way for a couple to have a child together, why is she then basically looking to another man to father her child? She knows nothing of his spiritual background - last I checked that was not in the interview. Instead, it would be better for her to adopt a child.

So I think daughters of the King should not go to another man to father a child. Just because it doesn't involve intercourse doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Jon-Marc]

I have no problem with it, but then I'm not God. He hasn't bothered to tell me what He thinks about it.

 

[webdog]

If it's a single woman, I have a problem with it.

If it's a gay couple, I have a problem with it.

If it's a married couple where the father cannot produce sperm and they want the joy of experiencing the whole experience, I have no problem with it. It's a matter of liberty. I don't think we can tell a couple it would be better for them to adopt, it's not really our place.

That being said, my choice was not available on the poll

 

[dwmoeller1]

I can find no reason from Scripture why it would be wrong. I can find no reason from Scripture why it would be acceptable.

Thus I can take no position one way or the other. If someone can do it in faith then I can see no reason to suggest they are going against Scripture. But personally, I couldn't.

 

[webdog]

I can find no reason from Scripture why it would be wrong. I can find no reason from Scripture why it would be acceptable.

Thus I can take no position one way or the other. If someone can do it in faith then I can see no reason to suggest they are going against Scripture. But personally, I couldn't.

Do you think a lesbian couple should? What about a single woman? Wasn't God's command to be fruitful and multiply given to couples?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Do you think a lesbian couple should? What about a single woman? Wasn't God's command to be fruitful and multiply given to couples?

EDIT: By couples, I assume you mean specifically married couples.

In a society where procreation is possible only through becoming one flesh, then the command to be fruitful and multiply is necessarily limited to couples. That is no longer the case in our society though. So the question is whether the command applies to married couples when being "one flesh" is no longer a factor.

If the command to be fruitful and multiply is necessarily limited to couples regardless of what is technologically possible, then by the same regards, one would have to conclude that the command to subdue and rule the earth applies only to couples. After all, both commands are given in the same sentence with no textual reason to say the first part applies only to couples while the latter applies to everyone. Since I think we would agree that the command to subdue and rule the earth is not limited to couples, we would also have to conclude that the command to be fruitful and multiply is not necessarily limited to couples either.

Conversely, if one holds that the command to be fruitful and multiply is only for couples, then this would rule out a sperm donor altogether for married couples since this act of procreation with a donor would no longer involve just a married couple - it involves the sperm donor as well. The fact that the donor may not have had sex with the woman is beside the point since there was NO sex involved in this particular act of procreation. So either procreation via a sperm donor for a married woman can be seen as involving a non-married couple (donor and married woman), or a group of 3 (donor, married woman and her spouse). In either case, its not involving only the married couple. If the command is only for couples, then sperm donors are prohibited altogether by this command. But if not, then there certainly can be no problem with a single woman also having a child in the same way.

The only logical way you could restrict being fruitful and multiplying to married couples would be to claim that this commands refers not to the act of procreation in particular but means that children should only be raised by a heterosexual couple. This though leads to its own problems - for instance, what about widows and widowers who have children.

In short, there is no fallacy free and/or consistent way to allow sperm donor for married couples but disallow it to single women on the basis of the command to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[rbell]

If it's a single woman, I have a problem with it.

If it's a gay couple, I have a problem with it.

If it's a married couple where the father cannot produce sperm and they want the joy of experiencing the whole experience, I have no problem with it. It's a matter of liberty. I don't think we can tell a couple it would be better for them to adopt, it's not really our place.

That being said, my choice was not available on the poll

I agree with WD.

I would add that if the married couple is going to go that route, they should definitely spend time in prayer over the issue, as well as seeking wise counsel.

This is a huge decision, and should be treated accordingly.

 

[webdog]

EDIT: By couples, I assume you mean specifically married couples.

In a society where procreation is possible only through becoming one flesh, then the command to be fruitful and multiply is necessarily limited to couples. That is no longer the case in our society though. So the question is whether the command applies to married couples when being "one flesh" is no longer a factor.

If the command to be fruitful and multiply is necessarily limited to couples regardless of what is technologically possible, then by the same regards, one would have to conclude that the command to subdue and rule the earth applies only to couples. After all, both commands are given in the same sentence with no textual reason to say the first part applies only to couples while the latter applies to everyone. Since I think we would agree that the command to subdue and rule the earth is not limited to couples, we would also have to conclude that the command to be fruitful and multiply is not necessarily limited to couples either.

Conversely, if one holds that the command to be fruitful and multiply is only for couples, then this would rule out a sperm donor altogether for married couples since this act of procreation with a donor would no longer involve just a married couple - it involves the sperm donor as well. The fact that the donor may not have had sex with the woman is beside the point since there was NO sex involved in this particular act of procreation. So either procreation via a sperm donor for a married woman can be seen as involving a non-married couple (donor and married woman), or a group of 3 (donor, married woman and her spouse). In either case, its not involving only the married couple. If the command is only for couples, then sperm donors are prohibited altogether by this command. But if not, then there certainly can be no problem with a single woman also having a child in the same way.

The only logical way you could restrict being fruitful and multiplying to married couples would be to claim that this commands refers not to the act of procreation in particular but means that children should only be raised by a heterosexual couple. This though leads to its own problems - for instance, what about widows and widowers who have children.

In short, there is no fallacy free and/or consistent way to allow sperm donor for married couples but disallow it to single women on the basis of the command to be fruitful and multiply.

I think your focus is misplaced. It should not be on the act of procreation, but what God intended a family to consist of. What's best for the child? Is God neutral in a child being created for a homosexual couple? Does God desire a single woman who doesn't want a husband or doesn't want to get married to raise a child?

 

[SaggyWoman]

I can only speak from this one single woman's perspective.

I have chosen as a single woman not to bear children.

There are too many children in the world for me to post my impact upon as a woman of God than to bear children of my own without being married. (I hold strongly to the importance of the daddy principle if I were to bring a child into the world.)

So I do what I believe.

Having spoken my peace, my answer would be.....none of the above.

Cheers.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I think your focus is misplaced.

I was focusing solely on the command you brought up - to be fruitful and multiply. My post was dealing solely with how that command cannot be used to create a problem for single women taking advantage of a donor - not unless you also use it to disallow it for couples as well. You made a point, I addressed it. My focus was not misplaced unless your initial point was misplaced. The mistake is in seeing my response as a general answer to all possible objections or points.

It should not be on the act of procreation, but what God intended a family to consist of. What's best for the child? Is God neutral in a child being created for a homosexual couple? Does God desire a single woman who doesn't want a husband or doesn't want to get married to raise a child?

Let me first point out, that this line of inquiry isn't really about what God thinks of using sperm donors. Why? Because the same exact issues exist for adoption - something that existed long before sperm donation was ever an issue. Thats not to say the issues you raise aren't valid, merely that they aren't particularly about sperm donation. Nevertheless...

What of widows and widowers who have children? Would you have a problem with them not getting married again? If so, to what sort of level does the "problem" rise to? Not the best? Not wise? A sin?

But if you don't have a real problem with a single parent (widow or widower) raising a child, then it would seem to be inconsistent to have a problem with a single person who never wants to get married to raise a child. So, would you have a real problem with a single person adopting? If so, what type of problem?

Do I think God desires single people who don't want to get married to raise a child? Weill I certainly can't find any reason to condemn it. And I certainly won't deny that God can and does give grace to single parents to make up the lack of the other parent. Thus, I can't deny that a person might be able to do so in faith. I might have a problem with it, but not a Scriptural one. So, since the question of the thread is what I think God's view is, I will limit myself to Scriptural problems I see.

As to the question of a homosexual couple, thats a different subject. Any issue God might have with them comes into play long before any question of their having a child or not. The issue of sperm donor is beside the point since the same exact issues would arise if they chose to adopt. Thus, the problem you have is with them raising a child at all, not whether the use a sperm donor or not. So, as far as the question of what God thinks about using sperm donors, the case of a homosexual couple is a red herring.

 

[Melanie]

Isn't it weird that there is all this techno stuff happening for the folks who cannot conceive and yet on the other hand there is all the techno stuff that allows the murder of the unborn child, which includes most types of contraception.

 

[4ever4Jesus]

I’m not debating between you guys. But what I would like to say in the Bible Sarah wanted a Baby. Instead of having one herself Abraham tries to have a baby from Hagar. His name was Ishmael. But as you know God kept his promise. Even that Sarah had laughed she had a baby at 90. His name was Isaac. Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are in the family linage of Jesus. Take a look at the genealogy of Matthew one. Yet know Jesus is truly the Son of God conceived by the Holy Spirit.

I however don’t know what God would say on the matters of donation. But if anyone is aware, there are lots of kids that need adoption. I would either as a parent or parents go for adoption knowing how many kids need parents as it is. It sure would not be right a couple who is married that a guy should have his best friend sleep with his wife that she should have a baby. I’m not in favor of Sperm Donor but I am letting God be the Judge of this.

In the Bible we are called adopted heirs children of God. We were adopted into His family among the Jews who first where salvation is from as Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the Well. Moses was drawn out of the water that’s how He got his name.

Sarah Gilbert who was Darlene on Rosanne just told the LA press she is a Lesbian and has a girlfriend of 8 years. And they are raising her girlfriend’s kids. Now this for sure I know God does not approve of in the least. The first marriage occurs in Genesis chapter 2 when God brought the woman to the man. As you will see after that the Bible says Adam is her husband. Only God can bring and join a man and women together never the same sex. Same sex doctrine is heresy to the Word of God.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I’m not debating between you guys. But what I would like to say in the Bible Sarah wanted a Baby. Instead of having one herself Abraham tries to have a baby from Hagar. His name was Ishmael. But as you know God kept his promise. Even that Sarah had laughed she had a baby at 90. His name was Isaac. Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are in the family linage of Jesus. Take a look at the genealogy of Matthew one. Yet know Jesus is truly the Son of God conceived by the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, Christ is descended through Solomon - the son David had with the wife of a man he murdered, the son conceived out of wedlock. In short, its nearly impossible to argue for or against sperm donation based on Biblical examples. The examples fall all over the spectrum and can be called in defense or negation of either position depending on how one uses them.

I however don’t know what God would say on the matters of donation. But if anyone is aware, there are lots of kids that need adoption. I would either as a parent or parents go for adoption knowing how many kids need parents as it is. It sure would not be right a couple who is married that a guy should have his best friend sleep with his wife that she should have a baby. I’m not in favor of Sperm Donor but I am letting God be the Judge of this.

I am right with you there. I can't see any good reason to use a sperm donor...but I can't see any good Scriptural reason to condemn it either.

 

[rbell]

I can't see any good reason to use a sperm donor...but I can't see any good Scriptural reason to condemn it either.

I do think God makes it quite clear that His plan for the family is one man, one woman, untied for life, raising the kids they have to follow the Lord.

Thus, a "family unit" outside of those bounds (single parent, or a "union" which goes against God's law) can't rightfully go that route.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I do think God makes it quite clear that His plan for the family is one man, one woman, untied for life, raising the kids they have to follow the Lord.

Thus, a "family unit" outside of those bounds (single parent, or a "union" which goes against God's law) can't rightfully go that route.

I don't necessarily disagree. But I am not sure what your application would be of this general principle. For instance...
- Is it somehow wrong for a widow/widower with children to remain a widow/widower?
- While a single mother may be at fault for having sex outside of wedlock, is she also at fault for failing to immediately get married?
- Would it be somehow wrong for a single Christian person to raise orphans?

 

[rbell]

I don't necessarily disagree. But I am not sure what your application would be of this general principle. For instance...

- Is it somehow wrong for a widow/widower with children to remain a widow/widower?

That's not entering into parenthood without both parents. That's "after the fact." Not the same issue as the OP.

- While a single mother may be at fault for having sex outside of wedlock, is she also at fault for failing to immediately get married?

Again...not the same issue as the OP. Would it be wise to compound the actions of a sin with the actions of a hasty, unwise decision? I think not. Sometimes, the couple should get married. Other times, I think that's a terrible decision. Honestly, I wish there were more adoptions from this situation than there are...but that's another thread.

- Would it be somehow wrong for a single Christian person to raise orphans?

Too broad a question for a unilateral answer. Should a single person seek to adopt orphans? Not usually, IMO. I do think there is some room for debate, with regards to what condition the kids are currently in. For instance--if a single, growing Christian offers a willing and immediate alternative to an abusive, irresponsible, non-Christian couple willing to give up the child for adoption--that's one thing. But a single mom who "wants to experience motherhood"--that's another story altogether.


I still come back to what God has prescribed as the most desirable way.

Does that mean He can't bring about good from less than the best? No...of course He can.

However, I think it unwise of us to intentionally get things "out of order."

 

[abcgrad94]

I once watched a news report on sperm donors. They put a man in a room alone with a pile of dirty magazines, and he came out with his "donation" after a while. Women could choose genetic traits they wanted in the donor, like eye color, hair color, and body type and size. Sorry, but even if I couldn't have children, I still couldn't take part in a business like that.

I speak for myself, not God. I'm not sure what his opinion is on the matter, but I have a feeling if he wants a married couple to have children, he'd provide them HIS way and in his time.