Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Donating Sperm

Sothenes said:
thessalonian said:
Sothenense do you have a scripture for the masturbation thread that is clear? I know that one is closed so let's not go down that road. But the point is that on moral issues scripture alone does not work. Of course this board proves that Scripture alone does not work from a doctrinal standpoint either.

Sperm can be gotten from natural means without what you are talking about.

Don't forget that whispering doctrine down a line can be corrupted and misinterpreted by popes just as well as humans trying to interpret what God already said in His word.

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven". Whenever they speak authortatively as successor of Peter for the whole Church they cannot. Even when they have not spoken in this manner the number of times they have contradicted eachother in even a minor fashion is rather incredible. They have never proclaimed something for the Church that was not consistent with what the Church taught. So you simply don't know what you are talking about.

That is not my only objection (point) to the immoratily of sperm donation. It violates the natural law. Test tube babies and sperm donation are not just wrong if done by masturbation. It separates procreation from the God given act of intercourse by which the love of a man and woman is to create a child between THEM. Donation enters a third party in to the mix in a petri dish. No doudt this is wrong and you are corrupting natural law!
 
.

When certain scripture is taken out of the bible and one tends to think it is relevant to the topic, in this instance, it is that of sperm donation, and then, when one neglects to look at the whole surroundings that were involved in the particular sin or situation, then what? We have to then go over our tracks and see what was left out of the whole picture and make note of it. :-?


One must consider the consequences of what happens when sperm is used for surrogate purposes outside of the "marriage" bond, and also, what happens when sperm is wasted onto the ground (in this instance) to avoid impregantion?

Genesis 38:8 has nothing to do with "donating sperm" outside of marriage. Because, Onan "married" Tamar.

  • Genesis 38:8
    And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.


Onan knew his seed would not be of "his" own and this would be son, thereafter, would be the "first in line" to inherit Judah's estate. Onan was thinking of his own welfare and didn't want anyone to be ahead of him when the time came to gain his fathers wealth.

So then, why was the LORD displeased with Onan? Let us look at the verse and put it into perspective! First of all Onan was told by his father to "marry" Tamar. So then, If, in fact Onan married Tamar, he was not donating sperm, he was married to her and the thing that displeased the LORD was that Onan spilled his sperm onto the ground instead of impregnating his WIFE.

So then that being the case, no one can think that they can take this verse in Genesis 38:8 and then say it is okay to donate sperm to someone you are NOT MARRIED TO. Onan married his brothers widow.

He did not sin in having sex with her.

But later in the story, after Judah's wife died, Judah sinned, he went into what he thought was a harlot. He didn't know that Tamar was tricking him into making her pregnant with his child. Tamar tricked him because she knew that Judah wasn't going to let any of his sons marry her after what was happening. Tamar wanted to remain in the bloodline of Judah, she was entitled to that much, according to customs of those days. The brother of the widows husband was to MARRY the widow and take care of her.


So then, Sothenes, You can't take this particular scripture out of context and use it to say that "sperm donation" outside of being "married" to the woman is an acceptable practice.


Also, when you look at other accounts in the bible in which the seed is used for surrogate purposes, you will find that thereafter the family feuds and jealousies grow out of the making of surrogate children. And the children also have problems of dealing with their siblings because of the legalities and customs of "first in line" for the inheritance of their father.


.
Excerpt from:

David Guzik's Commentaries
on the Bible



3. (8-10) Onan's refusal to raise up offspring for Tamar.

a. According to the custom of levirate marriage (later codified into law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10), if a man died before providing sons to his wife, it was the duty of his brothers to marry her and to give her sons. The child would be considered the son of the brother who had died, because really the living brother was acting in his place.

i. This was done so the dead brother's name would be carried on; but also, so the widow would have children who could support her. Apart from this, she would likely live the rest of her life as a destitute widow.

b. Onan refused to take this responsibility seriously. He was more than happy to use Tamar for his own sexual gratification, but he did not want to give Tamar a son he would have to support, but would be considered to be the son of Er.

c. Onan pursued sex as only a pleasurable experience. If he really didn't want to father a child by Tamar, why did he have sex with her at all? He refused to fulfill his obligation to his dead brother and Tamar.

d. Many Christians have used this passage as a proof-text against masturbation. Indeed, masturbation has been called "onanism." However, this does not seem to be the case here. Whatever Onan did, he was not masturbating! This was not a sin of masturbation, but a sin of refusing to care for his brother's widow by giving her offspring, and of a selfish use of sex.

4. (11) Judah's unfair dealing with Tamar.

a. One can understand Judah's hesitancy to give his last son as a husband to Tamar. God has already judged two of her previous husbands. So Judah essentially vows he will not give Shelah as a husband to Tamar as custom and righteousness commanded, but he will simply keep putting her off on the issue.

b. But none of this was the fault of Tamar. All the blame belonged to the sons of Judah.

To read the full commentary for
Genesis 38 - Tamar and the Sin of Judah


http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&qu ... v&oq=&sr=1

.
 
thessalonian said:
That is not my only objection (point) to the immoratily of sperm donation. It violates the natural law. Test tube babies and sperm donation are not just wrong if done by masturbation. It separates procreation from the God given act of intercourse by which the love of a man and woman is to create a child between THEM. Donation enters a third party in to the mix in a petri dish. No doudt this is wrong and you are corrupting natural law!

Then adoption would violate the natural law because the children you adopt are not your children.
 
thessalonian said:
That is not my only objection (point) to the immoratily of sperm donation. It violates the natural law. Test tube babies and sperm donation are not just wrong if done by masturbation. It separates procreation from the God given act of intercourse by which the love of a man and woman is to create a child between THEM. Donation enters a third party in to the mix in a petri dish. No doudt this is wrong and you are corrupting natural law!

How does sperm donation violate "natural law" any more than any other medical practice? If I get a heart transplant, aren't I violating God's intent to kill me with heart disease? If I take some Sudafed, aren't I violating God's intent to make me congested?

If God doesn't want a woman to have kids, he can just make the IVF attempt fail - it's pretty much a crap-shoot, anyway.
 
Sothenes said:
thessalonian said:
That is not my only objection (point) to the immoratily of sperm donation. It violates the natural law. Test tube babies and sperm donation are not just wrong if done by masturbation. It separates procreation from the God given act of intercourse by which the love of a man and woman is to create a child between THEM. Donation enters a third party in to the mix in a petri dish. No doudt this is wrong and you are corrupting natural law!

Then adoption would violate the natural law because the children you adopt are not your children.

You take a piece of my arguement and try to make a point by it once again. Look at the whole arguement please. Certainly, naturally best is that the natural parents raise the child. This is proven by studies. But it is not a violation of nature for another to take care of a child especially in the event that the parents are deceased. In no way could this be said to be immoral from a natural law standpoint. Yet, it is not natural for a child to be created in a test tube or out of sexual intercourse as ordained by God himself. Man playing God is the issue here.

So Soth, I guess you wouldn't be against cloning? On what basis if you are against it? Chapter, vs.. I thought relic's arguement on scripture was good. Your response will be interesting. I am sure you will find some way around his opinion.
 
ArtGuy said:
thessalonian said:
That is not my only objection (point) to the immoratily of sperm donation. It violates the natural law. Test tube babies and sperm donation are not just wrong if done by masturbation. It separates procreation from the God given act of intercourse by which the love of a man and woman is to create a child between THEM. Donation enters a third party in to the mix in a petri dish. No doudt this is wrong and you are corrupting natural law!

How does sperm donation violate "natural law" any more than any other medical practice? If I get a heart transplant, aren't I violating God's intent to kill me with heart disease? If I take some Sudafed, aren't I violating God's intent to make me congested?

If God doesn't want a woman to have kids, he can just make the IVF attempt fail - it's pretty much a crap-shoot, anyway.

God wants us to preserve life. Death is not due to him, though he allows it. Death is not what is natural to us. i.e. adam and eve would not have died had they not corrupted their naturre in the garden. To try to fix what is corrupt, cannot be against natural law. Your aguements make Jesus out to be against natural law by curing the blind and the lame, some of whom were born that way according to scripture, so your arguements won't hold much water with me.

I've answered further the NL question in my reply to Soth.

blessings
 
thessalonian said:
God wants us to preserve life. Death is not due to him, though he allows it. Death is not what is natural to us. i.e. adam and eve would not have died had they not corrupted their naturre in the garden. To try to fix what is corrupt, cannot be against natural law. Your aguements make Jesus out to be against natural law by curing the blind and the lame, some of whom were born that way according to scripture, so your arguements won't hold much water with me.

In the sense that Adam and Eve wanted to become like God, I suppose that you can say they corrupted their nature but the truth is that the curse entered in as a result of their disobedience. I still don't see your point as to how this relates to the miracle of life.
 
thessalonian said:
So Soth, I guess you wouldn't be against cloning? On what basis if you are against it? Chapter, vs.. I thought relic's arguement on scripture was good. Your response will be interesting. I am sure you will find some way around his opinion.

Cloning has a lot more baggage than trying to help a brother and sister in the Lord out. It has more to do with natural selection, has a lot of abuse potential, grey areas, manipulation beyond what we know, etc. I'm not really for cloning.
 
Sothenes said:
thessalonian said:
So Soth, I guess you wouldn't be against cloning? On what basis if you are against it? Chapter, vs.. I thought relic's arguement on scripture was good. Your response will be interesting. I am sure you will find some way around his opinion.

Cloning has a lot more baggage than trying to help a brother and sister in the Lord out. It has more to do with natural selection, has a lot of abuse potential, grey areas, manipulation beyond what we know, etc. I'm not really for cloning.

Chapter, vs. please. Thank you.
 
thessalonian said:
God wants us to preserve life. Death is not due to him, though he allows it. Death is not what is natural to us. i.e. adam and eve would not have died had they not corrupted their naturre in the garden. To try to fix what is corrupt, cannot be against natural law. Your aguements make Jesus out to be against natural law by curing the blind and the lame, some of whom were born that way according to scripture, so your arguements won't hold much water with me.

If I don't give my current batch of sperm to someone to make a baby, those sperm will die. They aren't like eggs - they don't last forever. They're created and they die and then new ones are created to take their place. Given your contention that every sperm is sacred, and that spilling them on the ground to die is an affront to God, I'd think you would appreciate the ability to help those sperm become a baby.

And at the end of the day, the mechanism for insemination is the same. A bunch of sperm float about an egg, and hopefully one of them decides to fertilize it. The only thing that differs between artificial insemination and the classical method is the scenery and the amount of fun involved. We could make up for those things by painting the petri dish to look like a uterus, and then having the contributors to the process fool around with their respective spouses for awhile.
 
Sothenes said:
thessalonian said:
God wants us to preserve life. Death is not due to him, though he allows it. Death is not what is natural to us. i.e. adam and eve would not have died had they not corrupted their naturre in the garden. To try to fix what is corrupt, cannot be against natural law. Your aguements make Jesus out to be against natural law by curing the blind and the lame, some of whom were born that way according to scripture, so your arguements won't hold much water with me.

In the sense that Adam and Eve wanted to become like God, I suppose that you can say they corrupted their nature but the truth is that the curse entered in as a result of their disobedience. I still don't see your point as to how this relates to the miracle of life.

No, you miss the point. Sin does not just cause damage in our relationship to God. It damages our souls and our bodies. Our natures. Sin turns us toward more sin. A man who overdrinks once has a tendancy to do it again and eventually become and alcoholic. His body eventually shows effects of alcoholism. The same thing happens to our natures and sin. The curse came about because of disobedience, which effected our bodies and souls. Thus God said "you will die". The Hebrew is actually die die as in die twice, body and soul. But the body did not die right away. The effects of the sin however brought about the eventual death. The scriptures tell us that sin even effects the earth itself.

My point in all of this is that it is natural for man to procreate God's way using the means he has given us. A couple who cannot do this because this natural means has been damaged by the corruption of the flesh as a result of sin, cannot justify the action of creating test tube babies and related sperm donation because it violates the natural laws with regard to the natural way of procreation. It is not as seriously in violation of the natural law as cloning but it is not good.
 
If I don't give my current batch of sperm to someone to make a baby, those sperm will die. They aren't like eggs - they don't last forever. They're created and they die and then new ones are created to take their place. Given your contention that every sperm is sacred, and that spilling them on the ground to die is an affront to God, I'd think you would appreciate the ability to help those sperm become a baby.

It is natural that they die. It is as God designed our reproductive systems. There is no violation of the natural order. Your just arguing to argue here. I am quite certain you are in favor of contraception so that those sperm cannot be babies. So you are not arguing on principal but on trying to tell me what I believe and then coming up with non-sequitors based on what you think I believe. The end does not justify the means.

And at the end of the day, the mechanism for insemination is the same. A bunch of sperm float about an egg, and hopefully one of them decides to fertilize it. The only thing that differs between artificial insemination and the classical method is the scenery and the amount of fun involved. We could make up for those things by painting the petri dish to look like a uterus, and then having the contributors to the process fool around with their respective spouses for awhile.

In other words the end justifies the means. There is no God and all is okay. No basis for judgements on morality. Why even have a discussion. Oh wait you are making a judgement. Your telling me it is all okay. No basis of course. Just the nuerons in your brain coming up with reasons to argue against Christians. No real reason why you should be right that you can defend other than that it is your own thinking. No authority that you hold. No real moral system. Just about you feeling good about what you think. That should provide a solid foundation on which to judge things. Not.
 
Soth,

You do realize that in order to do artificial insemination, the fertilize several eggs. Get on to implant in the uterus and then kill the rest. You find nothing objectionable in that? You would want to be a part of that by sperm donation? That is a form of abortion! I would question your Christianity if that is the case.
 
Wait a minute, did we just enter the realm of the "death of a sperm"? Is this a new Broadway play? :-?


8-)

I thought this was about donating sperm and the method(s) of retrieving the little guys. Besides, Sothenes stated there is another way and I elaborated on Sothenes comment, which "no one" seemed to address.
 
thessalonian said:
It is natural that they die. It is as God designed our reproductive systems. There is no violation of the natural order. Your just arguing to argue here. I am quite certain you are in favor of contraception so that those sperm cannot be babies. So you are not arguing on principal but on trying to tell me what I believe and then coming up with non-sequitors based on what you think I believe. The end does not justify the means.

It's natural that people die of heart attacks. That doesn't make it against God's will to perform CPR to revive someone, according to you.

And I don't have to oppose contraception to point out the flaws in your argument. Whatever the case may be against such things as masturbation and sperm donation and whatnot, it can't be that they're not "natural", because we do all manner of unnatural things that you seem to have no problem with. So find a different argument, or at least admit your inconsistent interpretation of why God finds certain things to be sinful.

In other words the end justifies the means.

Not at all, because that would presume that there was a sin being performed. If the only sin inherent in "spilling your seed upon the ground" is that life isn't being formed, then donating sperm can't be a sin on those grounds, because life is being formed. And the "natural" argument doesn't work, because the entire medical industry is premised on the use of unnatural means to extend life, up to and including replacing entire organs with mechanical constructs. Isn't an artificial heart at least as unnatural as sticking sperm and eggs in a test tube and letting them go at it?

What other arguments do you have?

There is no God and all is okay. No basis for judgements on morality. Why even have a discussion. Oh wait you are making a judgement. Your telling me it is all okay. No basis of course. Just the nuerons in your brain coming up with reasons to argue against Christians. No real reason why you should be right that you can defend other than that it is your own thinking. No authority that you hold. No real moral system. Just about you feeling good about what you think. That should provide a solid foundation on which to judge things. Not.

How do you convert a disagreement with you on the particular point of sperm donation into me being an atheist who doesn't believe in God or morality? Is this what you do when you don't have a good response? Insult people and tell them they aren't Christians? Pretty shameful behavior, I'd say.
 
Art,

How come you never come accross as a Christian? Half the time your arguing on the side of aethists. It is quite clear you don't understand what is and isn't natural. What is your basis for morality then? Do tell.

Preserving life is most definitely not natural. Using any means to do it is and that is how it is to be evaluated. That we desire to fix or replace a body part that is in the state it is because of corruption of nature is not against natural law. It is again not unnatural to preserve life!
 
How do you convert a disagreement with you on the particular point of sperm donation into me being an atheist who doesn't believe in God or morality? Is this what you do when you don't have a good response? Insult people and tell them they aren't Christians? Pretty shameful behavior, I'd say.
Thanks Art. Accusing those who profess to be Christian of not being Christian shouldn't be tolerated here.

4 - Treat everyone on this board with respect. In other words, "Love your neighbor".

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.
 
thessalonian said:
How come you never come accross as a Christian? Half the time your arguing on the side of aethists. It is quite clear you don't understand what is and isn't natural. What is your basis for morality then? Do tell.

Presumably I "never come across as a Christian" because you believe that any real Christians would agree with you on these matters.

If I find myself siding with atheists on certain points, it's only because I recognize that just because someone is wrong about the existence of Christ does not make them wrong about everything else besides. If an atheist and a Christian disagree about the capital of Iowa, the atheist isn't automatically wrong just because he denies God.

I understand what is natural and what isn't natural. I may disagree with you on the subject, but please don't mistake this for ignorance. Reasonable and intelligent people can come to different conclusions - this is perhaps the most important lesson I've learned in my travels and travails on the internet.

Lastly, you ask what I use as the basis for my morality? I use the teachings of Jesus. That I may come to different conclusions about somewhat less-than-clear passages than you doesn't mean I don't view the Bible as the ultimate reference book on the subject of morals and values. This brings us back to the reasonable-people-can-disagree bit. I may well be mistaken, but if so, it has nothing to do with any desire to shun God, or replace his teachings with my own. I'm simply trying my best to learn about life's truths through my observations of the Bible and of God's own creation. I certainly expect that I will err on many points - I'm only a man, after all.
 
Personally I could care less if someone questions my salvation so long as it allows me to question the salvation of someone who is destroying the 'flock' through secular humanism and worldliness, which is far more serious than what an atheist brings here.
Just my opinion.
 
Back
Top