Surrogacy and the bible?

Question

I know that giving a "maidsevant" to the husband is not biblical, with the examples of Sarah and Hagar, and Rachel and her maidsevant. but in today's society with all of the technology with in-vitro and such I need to find a verse in the bible or PROOF that surrogacy TODAY is not wrong. obviously in this day and age we wouldnt give somone to our husbands to help us concieve a child. but for those childless families there has to be somthing out there to help them bear thier own children. I know about adoption so please dont talk to me about that. I want specifically anything you all can give me about surrogacy

Answer 1

The only thing that I can give you biblically is the command to Love one another.

So, if done out of Love and not for the money or pride and other ungodly reasons, there is no reason that you could not bear the child of another for them, and obviously someone whom Loved you could bear a child for you.

Anything that we can think of has already been done in some form or another as you referred to with Hagar and Rachel and Leah's bondservents whom they used in their baby race with Jacob as the gigilo.

If you take what you are thinking about, in this case surrogacy, apply it to the command to Love one another. If you charge or pay for this service, it is not Love , but business, and that woud make it worldy and not biblical.

Answer 2

Actually, the stories of Sarah/Hagar and Rachel are not examples of surrogacy. A "surrogate" is defined by Merriam Webster as:

"a woman who becomes pregnant usually by artificial insemination or surgical implantation of a fertilized egg for the purpose of carrying the fetus to term for another woman."

Because Hagar didn't carry Ishmael for Sarah, she was not a surrogate. But the Bible does have an example of what you're looking for.

Consider the story of Ruth, Naomi and Boaz. Naomi's son and husband died without any heirs. Therefore, when she returned to Israel with Ruth, there was no son to claim the land that belonged to these men. To address this problem, Naomi suggested Ruth marry Boaz and try for a son "so to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate." (Ruth 4:10b). When baby Obed was born to Ruth, he was considered Naomi's son and the rightful heir of the property left by her husband and dead son (Ruth 4:17). As Ruth 4:22 explains, Obed fathered Jesse, who fathered King David ... Jesus Christ's forefather.

This Biblical example (known as a "levirate marriage" or "kinsman redeemer" marriage) proves that surrogacy is acceptable to God. (See also Deut. 25)

I hope this helps. Peace.

Answer 3

I see nothing wrong with it. Adoption is complicated and the baby doesn't belong to either of you whereas in surrogacy at least one of you is the parent if not both if your egg is implanted. As long as there isn't any sex between either of you and the surrogate, I dont' see what is wrong. I did know a couple at church though that wouldn't do it and ended up adopting, which is not always the answer since they ended up with a child of a different race (very different) and as a result they can never fully intergrate their family because others can see it right away.

Answer 4

The Bible does not say something explicitly approximately IVF and surrogacy as neither existed in the time of the time of authorship of the Bible. you could desire to ask your self: Do you suspect existence (human personage) starts on the very 2d of theory? If particular, then IVF is a type of homicide. to ensure that IVF to be sensible, medical doctors will fertilize multiple ova yet will purely use a handful and discard the rest. in case you suspect existence starts on the very 2d of theory, then those medical doctors could have purposefully began existence and purposefully ended it for a dozen souls. in case you do no longer have confidence that existence starts on the very 2d of theory, then this is beneficial to look on the implications of your action as a surrogate. you would be bringing a sparkling existence into the international, endowing a pair who won't be able to reproduce with an rather profound ability of happiness. i for my area think of those are virtuous endeavors. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, ***please*** ensure you're in the suitable psychological state to try this. you would be wearing a toddler for particularly much 10 months. you will grow to be related beforehand the toddler is even born, or perhaps although i'm a guy, i could no longer think of how no longer basic this is to resign the youngster whom you delivered into existence. only make advantageous that's some thing you have definitely NO reservations against for as quickly as you initiate there is not any going lower back. better of success, and my prayers are with you! :-)

Answer 5

As an experienced surrogate mother, I am frequently posed with this question. I think Suzanne nailed it perfectly... I feel that this is something that God has sent me to do - help childless couples achieve their dream of creating a family.

Of course, I always like to think of Mary as the "ultimate" surrogate! ;o)

Answer 6

There's nothing wrong with surrogacy, donating eggs, in-vitro, etc.

Telling someone to have sex with your hubby so you can have a baby, though, is adultery.

Answer 7

Jonita S,

You have done your research - but to find a scripture that proved another scripture wrong would make the Bible false.

You have a very good question and I hope the answer will find it's way to you.

Answer 8

Seems ok to me