ELF1024 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 I also think the Church doesn't want women choosing surrogacy for Aesthetic purposes. As in, "I want a baby, but I don't want baby weight, scars, etc"*gasp* on my, I hadn't even thought about it from that side of the house. I figured it was the moral dilemma that was being considered. I had no idea that fertile couple would choose to have a baby by a surrogate just for vanity sake. That's... wow.... I'm speechless.
Calm Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Quite clearly surrogates are not procreating, any more than foster parents are procreating when they accept kids for money.I am talking about the possibility of surrogates and those who 'manage' them who do so for a business with the intention of forsaking all responsibility and concern for the child after it is born and do so to make money . IOW, the child is merely a means to an end, a matter of convenience to them. Besides the increase labour and risk involved, I don't see much difference between that and breeding puppies.If on the other hand, a surrogate acts because she wants to help couples who are desperate, then I don't see an issue with them paying her for her time and trouble and long term wear and tear on her body. It is when money is the primary issue that I think there becomes a moral issue involved.If a foster parent acts for the sole purpose of making money and not out of actual concern for the child, I would say there is a problem there as well.I do not see how one can claim that a surrogate mother is not part of the procreation process as while the 'blueprints' are provided her, she is the one supplying the environment and materials to create the child. A foster parent on the other hand is part of the parenting process and should be morally committed on the level of a parent to the children they bring into their home, but like an adoptive (nonbiological) parent is not physically involved in the bringing of a child into the world.
katherine the great Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 How so?Are you joking? Have you ever carried a baby inside your body? Being a surrogate mother is something that nature never intended, and there are emotions attached to it that simply don't occur in every day business transactions. Our bodies don't know the difference between a fetus that resulted from our own egg or another woman's, and all of the attachment that nature intends is going to happen on the part of the surrogate. I think it proper for the church to discourage it, but certainly not forbid it. It is an arrangement that deserves the utmost thoughtfulness on all parts before entering into.
katherine the great Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 I also think the Church doesn't want women choosing surrogacy for Aesthetic purposes. As in, "I want a baby, but I don't want baby weight, scars, etc"I'm sure that happens sometimes, but seriously, most committed LDS people who have progressed spiritually enough to desire temple marriage and have disciplined themselves enough to hold a temple recommend probably are not going to think that way. I'm sure that there are exceptions, but for the vast majority, I think that is a non issue.
David T Posted June 24, 2011 Author Posted June 24, 2011 I'm sure that happens sometimes, but seriously, most committed LDS people who have progressed spiritually enough to desire temple marriage and have disciplined themselves enough to hold a temple recommend probably are not going to think that way. I'm sure that there are exceptions, but for the vast majority, I think that is a non issue.All it takes is "a few exceptions", and you get a rule in the CHI, or the Missionary Handbook.
Recommended Posts