My neighbor...the surrogate mother

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abundant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abundant

Guest
Recently, one of my neighbors served as a surrogate for a married couple that cannot have children of their own. I don’t know the specifics and whose egg/sperm was used. She recently had twins and everyone is praising her for being “selfless.” They gush about how wonderful it is that she could help the couple, etc. etc. How should I respond in these conversations? We are going to have a neighbors night out soon for the holidays and I don’t want to be caught up in the conversation because I don’t want to get into a debate or lecture people about my beliefs and have them think I am mean or judgmental, but I also don’t want to say how wonderful I think it is when the Church teaches that surrogacy/IVF/etc. are wrong. So far, I try to change the subject and just deflect onto the babies and say something neutral like, “I bet it was hard carrying twins, but they are adorable.” Is it sinful NOT to speak up? :confused:
 
I feel your pain. I actually brought your question up in confession over this past weekend.

I have some acquaintances who have done things that go against church teaching and when the behavior comes up in conversation, I feel really awkward and try my best to not say anything in support of their behavior but have deflected the topic, just as you described.

In confession, I asked if it was a sin that I wasn’t speaking up about their behavior and the priest told me that it is only appropriate to offer moral correction in these situations if the person is showing signs that they are receptive to spiritual correction (e.g., searching for moral answers, guidance).

Hope that helps:thumbsup:
 
NurseyJ said:
In confession, I asked if it was a sin that I wasn’t speaking up about their behavior and the priest told me that it is only appropriate to offer moral correction in these situations if the person is showing signs that they are receptive to spiritual correction (e.g., searching for moral answers, guidance).

Hope that helps:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I like that advice.
 
That is a really tough one. The previous poster who shared her pastor’s advice is probably the best to follow. I was in a similar situation recently where on a posting board for other stay at home moms I had mentioned I was considering doing some part-time work from home to bring in a little extra money. One of the moms said, “If you don’t mind pregnancy and giving up 9 months, you should consider surrogacy! You’ll make at least $20,000 EASY.” It made me feel sick to my stomach, and I really debated how fervently I should speak out without disregarding all of the other useful and helpful advice that had been given on the thread. I decided that I couldn’t hold it back, though. I laid it right out there that I could never sell my body or my children for any monetary amount and that the idea makes me feel sick to my stomach. Because it does.
 
Please pardon my ignorance.
Surely carrying a child for a barren couple is a selfless act, if not done for profit.
To me it epitomises all that is good in Christianity.
Why is it against Catholic doctrine?
I do not mean to cause any offence saying this, and I hope someone will explain this to me, but wasn’t Mary used by God as a surrogate mother for Jesus?
 
prometheus1 said:
I do not mean to cause any offence saying this, and I hope someone will explain this to me, but wasn’t Mary used by God as a surrogate mother for Jesus?
Click to expand...
No. She was his mother. She carried him, gave birth to him, cared for him, mothered him.

Children are not things that we can trade with, treat them like commodity. They are human beings. People don’t have rights to other human beings.

It is beyond me how anyone can think that surrogacy is fine and moral, even a Christian thing to do. :confused: Perhaps someone will have an idea how to answer this so it makes sense to you.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
No. She was his mother. She carried him, gave birth to him, cared for him, mothered him.

Children are not things that we can trade with, treat them like commodity. They are human beings. People don’t have rights to other human beings.

It is beyond me how anyone can think that surrogacy is fine and moral, even a Christian thing to do. :confused: Perhaps someone will have an idea how to answer this so it makes sense to you.
Click to expand...
Especially when a lot of people these days have concerns about adoption as a practice.
 
OP,

If you don’t want to get into a big discussion about it but feel that it is important that you don’t seem like you are supportive of that practice, perhaps if out on the spot you can simply say something like: “I’m sorry but I really disagree with this.” And leave it at that.
 
prometheus1 said:
Why is it against Catholic doctrine?
Click to expand...
I can suggest you read two Church documents which cover why artificial conception in all its forms is gravely wrong: Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae
prometheus1 said:
I do not mean to cause any offence saying this, and I hope someone will explain this to me, but wasn’t Mary used by God as a surrogate mother for Jesus?
Click to expand...
No, Mary was not a surrogate mother. Mary was Jesus’s actual mother. That is why Mary’s title is Mother of God.
 
Ophelia23 said:
That is a really tough one. The previous poster who shared her pastor’s advice is probably the best to follow. I was in a similar situation recently where on a posting board for other stay at home moms I had mentioned I was considering doing some part-time work from home to bring in a little extra money. One of the moms said, “If you don’t mind pregnancy and giving up 9 months, you should consider surrogacy! You’ll make at least $20,000 EASY.” It made me feel sick to my stomach, and I really debated how fervently I should speak out without disregarding all of the other useful and helpful advice that had been given on the thread. I decided that I couldn’t hold it back, though. I laid it right out there that I could never sell my body or my children for any monetary amount and that the idea makes me feel sick to my stomach. Because it does.
Click to expand...
The morals are difficult to impossible to bring up in a friendly neighborly gathering without sounding like a bad person (“How could you plan to give up your babies!”), but quite a bit easier in an online forum where there isn’t the same social pressure to just smile and nod.

I wonder if there wasn’t some sort of huge, pressing financial need in the family.

Here are some pragmatic angles that might have an influence on a friend who was considering doing it in future or in an online forum:
  1. Pregnancy is dangerous and unpredictable. Is it worthwhile for a woman to risk major medical problems (and even death) for money? With any complication, there’s the risk of leaving her own children at least temporarily motherless, or even permanently motherless.
  2. Again, it’s not just mom giving up 9 months, it’s also her husband and her kids giving up 9 months (perhaps more with medical complications and recovery, not to mention preliminary medical procedures).
  3. Bedrest is not infrequent. Also, being ordered to do “pelvic rest” (i.e. no sex) during pregnancy (even outside of bedrest) is not infrequent.
  4. In the case of fetal abnormality, what if the “customer” won’t take the baby or babies? That happens.
cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/

You can turn up a lot of sad and weird stories by googling “surrogate” and “sue” or “surrogate family won’t take disabled baby.”

There are also issues with multiples. What if the pregnancy yields triplets and the parents insist on a reduction?
  1. Bigger kids may be creeped out by mom “giving away” babies.
  2. It’s also not unknown for surrogates to become attached to the babies and refuse to hand them over.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
No. She was his mother. She carried him, gave birth to him, cared for him, mothered him.

Children are not things that we can trade with, treat them like commodity. They are human beings. People don’t have rights to other human beings.

It is beyond me how anyone can think that surrogacy is fine and moral, even a Christian thing to do. :confused: Perhaps someone will have an idea how to answer this so it makes sense to you.
Click to expand...
You could also make the case for women not being walking incubators.

I can see it now, wealthy first world couples going to the third world to rent wombs. All they need is a fertilized egg, from the couple, produced via IVF, and now all they need is a womb.
 
Sarcelle said:
I can see it now, wealthy first world couples going to the third world to rent wombs. All they need is a fertilized egg, from the couple, produced via IVF, and now all they need is a womb.
Click to expand...
A nice little business. Of course, it needs to be sugar coated with compassionate language in order to be acceptable to the sensitivities of modern people. Why not make people happy? That’s what Jesus would do, right? :rolleyes:
 
prometheus1 said:
Please pardon my ignorance.
Surely carrying a child for a barren couple is a selfless act, if not done for profit.
To me it epitomises all that is good in Christianity.
Why is it against Catholic doctrine?
I do not mean to cause any offence saying this, and I hope someone will explain this to me, but wasn’t Mary used by God as a surrogate mother for Jesus?
Click to expand...
God does not have any need to “use” people and does not. Ever.
He could have sent Jesus to the world on his own, as an adult, but God preferred that the Messiah come just as we do, to experience everything that we do, so that none of us can ever say “God does not understand me (mankind)”.
The docs that 1ke recommends should be read for a fully understanding of the remainder of your question.
Peace.
 
Sarcelle said:
You could also make the case for women not being walking incubators.

I can see it now, wealthy first world couples going to the third world to rent wombs. All they need is a fertilized egg, from the couple, produced via IVF, and now all they need is a womb.
Click to expand...
They do it already, actually.

foxnews.com/world/2014/08/03/thai-surrogate-mother-says-not-angry-with-australian-couple-who-left-unhealthy/

The whole reproductive technology field is so shady, at least where donor eggs, sperm and surrogacy are involved.

Here are some examples:
  1. Imagine a situation where the customer provides the sperm, but not the egg or the womb. Who gets the baby?
  2. Imagine a situation where the customer provides the egg, but not the sperm or the womb. Who gets the baby?
  3. Imagine a situation where the customer provides the womb, but not the egg or the sperm, who gets the baby?
You’ll notice that in all of these cases, by some sort of odd coincidence, the person writing the checks gets the baby. That’s really terrible as a societal norm.
 
prometheus1 said:
Please pardon my ignorance.
Surely carrying a child for a barren couple is a selfless act, if not done for profit.
To me it epitomises all that is good in Christianity.
Why is it against Catholic doctrine?
I do not mean to cause any offence saying this, and I hope someone will explain this to me, but wasn’t Mary used by God as a surrogate mother for Jesus?
Click to expand...
Anything outside of the unitive act is taking God out if the equation. This is God’s intention and we are not to go against His will. The ethical,moral ramifications that occur when we play God are evidenced in selective reduction,surrogacy,IVF,etc. human life then becomes a commodity,rather than the gift that it is from God.
 
prometheus1 said:
Please pardon my ignorance.
Surely carrying a child for a barren couple is a selfless act, if not done for profit.
To me it epitomises all that is good in Christianity.
Why is it against Catholic doctrine?
I do not mean to cause any offence saying this, and I hope someone will explain this to me, but wasn’t Mary used by God as a surrogate mother for Jesus?
Click to expand...
Catholic teaching view children as a product of their parent’s love. New life is the result of that union. When we use technology to circumvent that, we devalue the meaning of both sex and human life. Before our modern technology, old fashioned way was having the man have sex with the other woman. We see how surrogacy worked for Abraham and Sarah, it introduced conflict which is carried out even today. Our fertility and children are exclusive gifts between married couples. When we start to borrow body parts like eggs and sperm and wombs, we are reducing this to a business transaction. This woman didn’t do this for free even if you are seeing this as selfless.
 
prometheus1 said:
Please pardon my ignorance.
Surely carrying a child for a barren couple is a selfless act, if not done for profit.
To me it epitomises all that is good in Christianity.
Why is it against Catholic doctrine?
I do not mean to cause any offence saying this, and I hope someone will explain this to me, but wasn’t Mary used by God as a surrogate mother for Jesus?
Click to expand...
It is not only a pregnancy outside of marriage, but also (usually) a pregnancy outside the marital act. On top of that, it is selling physical motherhood.

After all, if this woman had agreed to have a baby for the couple by having sex with the husband and then giving her child for the couple to raise as their own, would you consider this selfless? Why is it more selfless when the intimacy of the marital act is replaced by a medical procedure? It would be like saying it is selfless to be the mistress for a couple in which the husband can have sex and the wife can’t. While there may be women and couples who would be content with such an arrangement, that does not make it “selfless,” let alone moral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top