Gestational Surrogacy Biblical
My husband and I are considering gestational surrogacy because I cannot carry a baby to term. We have prayed about it and still both desire at least one more child, but adoption isn't a good option for us. We would only choose a surromom who is a strong Christian. What do you think?
Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Parenting Bible Quiz
---Momma_to_Olivia on 1/22/10
Helpful Blog Vote (9)
I'm not sure I understand Elder's point about how this could be upsetting for a child. If surrogacy is presented in a negative way, then I can understand how this could create insecurity for a child. But consider if you are the child of a gestational surrogacy arrangement and upon asking about your birth your mother explains your birth but also tells you this-"for one reason or another my body couldn't carry you. We tried a long time. But we could never give up on you. We loved you so much we wouldn't quit until, with God's help, we found a way to bring you to us. We found a woman who believed in you, too, and was willing to carry you so that you could have life, and be here with us." Now I ask you, would this give you baggage?
---Surromommy on 7/6/11|
Whether or not the results were sub-optimal is beside the point. The fact remains, they did it, and neither God nor God's prophets criticized them for it at all - even though both were all too ready to criticize patriarchs for other infractions of God's laws.
Yes, God criticized Abraham, but it was NOT for the act of surrogacy itself, but rather for the lack of trust in God's promise.
Just as God's dissatisfaction with Samson over cutting his hair was not over the idea that "cutting hair is evil", but because by doing so he violated his nazirite vow.
---StrongAxe on 5/17/11|
\\Both Abraham and Jacob took their wives handmaidens when their wives were unable to conceive.\\
And look at all the trouble it caused and is still causing!
Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/16/11|
The Bible mentions surrogacy on several occasions. Both Abraham and Jacob took their wives handmaidens when their wives were unable to conceive. And these were not merely gestational surrogacies (i.e. a woman providing a womb to nurture another woman's egg), but the handmaidens provided the eggs as well.
---StrongAxe on 5/16/11|
I am thinking of becoming a gestational surrogate and I will only be willing to carry the baby of a couple who really loves the Lord. Although the baby would not be mine, naturally as a christian (knower of the truth:), I would want to feel absolutely confident that this baby was going to be loved and led in the ways of the Lord. This is my main concern since I would be responsible for helping to bring this child into the world. Thank you for your blog. I am interested in know how your journey went.
---Angie_Hockney on 5/15/11|
concubines concubines concubines
Genesis 16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
---francis on 11/15/10|
//I personally do not see the problem. Many couples do not have the money required to adopt in foreign countries. Some mothers are unable to adopt because of health concerns (diabetics are often not "good candidates")//.
Elder it is not about what you think feel or limited yourself to find out. People perish for lack of knowledge but also for wilful neglect of the scriptures.
What know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?
A woman's body belongs to her husband what would a holy God be saying if you then accept another man's seed into your holy members?
---Carla on 11/15/10|
\\God does believe in this\\
God told me to tell you He said no such thing, kathy. He doesn't believe in this at all.
God doesn't believe. God KNOWS.
---Cluny on 11/15/10|
hi I'm a gestational surrogate my self and have seen the pain in the IP's eyes to have the love and joy of a child and as long as it gestational it has nothing to do with the surrogate and God does believe in this and as long as everything is clearly in black and white with the help of lawyers there is ALWAYS room for God's children in this world!!!
---kathy on 11/15/10|
I support use of gestational-carriers. Im currently a carrier for my brother-in-law & wife, first-child was born with heart-defects caused by mothers body. Doctors said abort a now healthy14-month-old child-of-God. Our whole-family prayed for her survival, we didnt stop when considering surrogacy for her sibling. I would do anything for my children/nieces, if carrying one in my body gives them a chance to survive, then Ill do it, knowing the Lord and my church gave blessings. I will not accept compensation, the child will know his parents, auntie, & entire family chose to trust our Lord with his life through available medicine. A small sacrifice for another life we ALL know how HE feels about that.
---Jennifer on 4/27/10|
A GESTATIONAL surrogate is just a woman who carries the biological parent's child for them. It is the mother's egg and the father's sperm combined to make a baby and then placed into the gestational surrogate to keep safe until birth. It is all their bun, just the surrogate's oven!
I do not see a problem with this. It is their biological child, they are just needing a little assistance in carrying it. Good luck and blessings to you!
---Brittanie on 3/9/10|
Momma to Olivia-- Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "gestational surrogacy".
I'm not sure whether or not it is Biblical, because such a possibility was never considered by writers of the Bible.
The few instances I've heard of resulted in prolonged conflict over custody, even though custody was clearly spelled out as belonging to the genetic parents. There was much heartbreak on both sides.
There may be many cases I haven't heard of, that ended happily for all.
---Donna66 on 2/3/10|
Sarah forced her slave to marry her husband. The statement of courses incorrect.
---mima on 2/2/10|
Sarah and Abraham and Hagar did not do gestational surrogacy. Sarah forced her slave to marry her husband to have a baby with him. And then to make things worse, Hagar got pregnant right away and had the baby. She never gave her baby to Sarah. She raised it herself because it was her and Abraham's baby.
I'm confused how this is anything similar to a woman carrying an embryo of my husband and me, delivering the baby, and signing off to any parental rights. since the baby would have my husband and my dna, etc. it could never belong to the birth mother.
---Momma_to_Olivia on 2/1/10|
Abraham and Sarah tried it. See Gen. chap 16. Read the whole story. You will see It caused a lot of heart-break for Sarah, Hagar, and Abraham. It was NOT God's plan.
There are many adoptable children that don't succeed in finding good homes. Many restrictions are relaxed for adoptive parents of older children (not newborns) or those who are less than perfect physically (the defect may be very mild). To save a child from years in the State Childrens Protective Service and give them loving parents is an act of incalcuable value.
---Donna66 on 1/31/10|
"Your husband's seed impregnating some other woman other than yourself"
That is not what gestational surrogacy is.
What it is, as Momma to Olivia says, is "my egg and my husband's sperm fertilized and placed into a carrier"
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/31/10|
"Your husband's seed impregnating some other woman other than yourself is not righteousness. Why is not adoption a good option for you? For the command is, "Be a father to the fatherless."
---Eloy on 1/24/10
its not righteous? how's that? if you're not in good health, adoption is not always allowed. i don't mean to sound rude, but are you being a father to the fatherless as well, Eloy?
---Rachel on 1/30/10|
"there would be no unexpected characteristics to get a child curious, later. In such a case, do you feel it would be necessary to tell a child?"
---Bill_bila5659 on 1/23/10
Bill, my responce is not based on physical characteristics. It is based on the curious nature of children. (IE Where do puppies come from?)
When the question is asked it must be answered truthfully. I don't care what the parents decide to do. They do need to consider the child and the issues to come later.
---Elder on 1/24/10|
I personally do not see the problem. Many couples do not have the money required to adopt in foreign countries. Some mothers are unable to adopt because of health concerns (diabetics are often not "good candidates").
The Lord gives us our medical knowledge. Of course I do not believe all of that is good (I'm thinking of cloning), but for a couple that adoption isn't an option -- I do not feel it is some sort of "sin" to use surrogacy.
The previous posters do not give a real reason why they believe it to be wrong, so it is just their opinion as this is mine.
---Debbie on 1/24/10|
Since it is true that this will be your genetic child, therefore removing any concern about who the "real" parents are and since the situation with Sarah and Hagar is different (they did not use surrogacy -how could they with the medical practices and of the day?) this is a new area for Christian families.
I don't know why adoption (domestic, foriegn, or foster/adopt) would not be an option for families who loves Christ- I hope you would prayerfully consider it. If you already have, you can rest in the answers to your prayers.
I think if your family is in real, serious prayer and has a good deal of Godly mentoring and support, you will know if this is a way the Lord could provide you with another child.
---Tiffany on 1/23/10|
Your husband's seed impregnating some other woman other than yourself is not righteousness. Why is not adoption a good option for you? For the command is, "Be a father to the fatherless."
---Eloy on 1/24/10|
Who is shown as the "mother" on the birth certificate? ... the biological mother or the surrogate mother?
If the surrogate mother is shown, that would require explanation later, and cause possible confusing emotions in the child.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/24/10|
Yes, Hagar was *not* carrying a baby who was Sarah's biological son. Abraham got Hagar pregnant, by means of *Hagar's* own egg. You have made it clear, Momma to Olivia, that any child would be produced by your husband and *your* egg. So, the carrier would *not* really be the mother of your child.
But I don't feel your first child being "carried" in a medical facility is the same as a child being carried in a woman's body. Likely, the strong Christian woman carrying would have a very different spiritual and emotional experience and relationship with the child, than might care workers in a hospital ICU. Not to mention . . . child ICU workers can go home, leaving the babies, but the carrier can't take time out (c:
---Bill_bila5659 on 1/23/10|
gestational surrogacy means my egg and my husband's sperm fertilized and placed into a carrier. i'm not sure how this is like ishmael.... genetically the baby is very-much ours. i would definitely explain it to my child. i wouldn't be ashamed.
we have 1 child, our firstborn. she was born 3months premature and survived her NICU days. she was in the hospital for 76 days after birth. i was not able to touch, hold or care for her for many weeks... yet my husband and i were there every day to cheer her on and pray for her. if it weren't for modern advances we wouldn't have her. so... is there a huge difference between being "carried" in the NICU at the hospital for 2.5 months vs. being carried in a healthy womb till full term?
---Momma_to_Olivia on 1/23/10|
well considering how ishamel was conceived.
---tom2 on 1/23/10|
I don't see anything wrong with surragacy, as long as all parties involved agree in writing as to what is expected of each of them. It has it's risks, like anything else, but with the right people involved, it can be beautiful :) My best wishes to you :)
---Mary on 1/23/10|
Elder, about your post of 1/22/10, below . . . if the child was produced using the carrying mother's egg, then her characteristics would show in the child, instead of those of Momma to Olivia, and this would possibly become noticed, in time, and a child could be asking questions. But if Momma and her own husband provide their own genes to produce an in-vitro fertilized egg, then the carrier would be just carrying and there would be no unexpected characteristics to get a child curious, later. In such a case, do you feel it would be necessary to tell a child? And I'd think this would not be quite so significant to a child, as much as if the carrier was the *biological* mother.
---Bill_bila5659 on 1/23/10|
Well, Abraham and Sarah had a surrogate motherhood arrangement with Hagar, and look at all the trouble it caused--and is still causing today.
---Cluny on 1/23/10|
I think you should think about the well being of the child in the later years. Adopt. It will do the child good to be chosen to be loved by someone. It will also do you good.
Your other option will produce a child that will one day ask,"Where did I come from?" If you tell the truth then they will wonder where their "real" Mom is.
The same question may come up in adoption but it will be easer to answer. To have someone "paid to produce you" would be very confusing to anyone.
---Elder on 1/22/10|