Bioethics in Faith and Practice, Volume 2, Number 1

30 Lones ⦁ A Christian Ethical Perspective on Surrogacy In describing incest, Scripture dwells upon the carnal act itself. Jurists are aware that, in virtually all systems of law, the sexual act, whether in the context of rape, incest or the consummation of marriage, is defined as penetration rather than ejaculation. That is true in Jewish law as well and remains true even with regard to the prohibition against adultery. But, surprisingly, the language employed in Leviticus 18:20 (which is mistranslated in the standard English translations of the Bible) in the formulation of the prohibition against adultery speaks specifically of the deposit of semen in the genital tract of a married woman. The question one must ask, “Is this a general prohibition against adultery?” or “Can this passage be applied as a prohibition of IVF and surrogacy?” While further research should be done by Old Testament scholars, one could argue that “verbal” inspiration is important concept in forming one’s opinion of this passage in view of surrogacy. Verbal inspiration has to do with the actual formation and use of the words themselves. It involves the employment within sentences of nouns, verbs, prepositions, articles, etc. This “verbal” concept of inspiration contends that the Spirit of God guided the writers, utilizing their individual talents and personalities, so that the very grammatical modes they employed were divinely orchestrated in order to convey subtle meanings of truth. The concept of “verbal inspiration” brings the issue into sharper focus. The “verbal” concept of inspiration would contend that in this passage, God, in His infinite wisdom, prohibits surrogacy as evidenced by the author use of specific words shifting emphasis from the sexual act, defined as penetration, to deposit of semen. Surrogacy provides for procreation outside the context of the marital union of a husband and his wife, by the insertion of another person’s “seed” into another woman’s uterus, and thus would be forbidden in this text. Conclusion Careful consideration should be provided by those within the Christian community as to the morality of surrogacy, especially in light of the numerous associations backed by European and American personalities who are calling for the abolition of the baby business called euphemistically “surrogacy”. (The European Women’s Lobby (EWL), the Center for Bioethics and Culture (USA), the French Collectif pour le Respect de la Personne (CoRP), to name a few. ) xx Other more conservative and evangelical groups have also spoken out against surrogacy. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has made available an “Issue Analysis” on Surrogacy where they attempt to answer if surrogacy is ethical: “Almost all Christian bioethicists agree that most forms of surrogacy are theologically and morally problematic. The moral qualms generally concern the exploitation of women (e.g., “womb-renting”) the selling of children, the violation of the marital covenant, and the use of embryo-destructive reproductive technology.” xxi Christians must not fail to consider the moral implications of surrogacy in this age of fertility treatments. Yet, empathy should be felt for the anguish experienced by infertile couples. However, in addressing the desires of infertile couples, society should not undermine fundamental family relationships of the natural mother, parental responsibilities and the long term interest of children. Surrogacy risks blurring the child’s identity, disrupts the natural links between marriage, conception, gestation, birth and the rearing of the child. Adults involved in surrogacy should not behave as though they alone are involved. An individualistic concept of autonomy and reproductive freedom overlooks the rights of the child who is easily treated as an impersonal object.