A Service for Friends?⤒🔗

The title raises questions. Not just because of the question mark. The expression “a child of another” is generally known. It refers to the sad fact that a woman is expecting or has a child that is not from her own husband. But what can be meant with: a child for another?

Behind this title lies a question that was presented to me some time ago. There are two couples who are friends with one another. One couple has children while the other is childless. The friendship makes them share in each other’s joys and sorrows. As a result, the plan has come about to artificially fertilize the one woman, who is already a mother, with the sperm (the semen) of the husband of the childless couple. The woman who is considering this wants to bring a child into the world in order to give it to the couple who are their friends. She wants to provide a friend’s service by making her motherly womb available for the conception and growth of this child. The fact that fertilization takes place with the sperm of the other makes it even clearer that the woman regards this act as making herself available. I was asked, “Is this allowed?” The question was asked by people who do not act lightly. They needed to consider whether they should not help each other as friends. It needs no further explanation that both couples stand fully behind this plan. Four people want to cooperate with the implementation of this plan.

The problem outlined above can also be told in a different version. Now I am thinking of the successful attempt to bring about fertilization in a test tube. That has been accomplished. It may be expected that in many more cases it will be tried successfully.

“Surrogate Motherhood”←⤒🔗

Imagine that fertilization takes place between sperm and egg cells from a married couple. Due to a physical defect, it is not possible for the woman herself to have the fertilized egg implanted in her body. However, it is quite possible that her sister (whether married or not) or her friend is willing to become pregnant for her from that fertilized egg. After the birth, this “maternity mother” will transfer the child to the woman for whom the child is destined.

There are two matters I want to point out that stand out as different compared to the first example. In the second case, the egg cell comes from a person other than the woman who becomes pregnant. In addition, fertilization takes place in a laboratory. One can say: there is some more distance. It is not about an egg cell that comes from the woman herself. Fertilization takes place outside this woman’s body. She only makes her womb available for an embryo. She lends herself to a pregnancy that she carries for the benefit of another.

One should not use the word “fantasy” for this last example. It is as real as the first example. I also derive the second example from a question that was submitted to me. In this case it was a woman doctor who asked me the question. I suspect that in the fertility departments (where it concerns fertility and becoming fertile) of the university hospitals, this question keeps them fully occupied. In both cases it concerns the question “A child for someone else?”

We are now looking for an answer. The Bible does not provide a straightforward text or solution. After all, these possibilities were not known in the time of the biblical writers, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament. That is why we search in vain for a direct answer. These questions are evoked by the expansion of medical knowledge. I have to say it even more precisely: through the expansion of medical technology. As long as the technique of artificial fertilization—whether in the body of the woman or in the laboratory—was unknown, this question did not have to be answered. It could be considered, but did not have to be answered. After all, the problem raised did not amount to a real possibility. Now all of this has become possible. That is why I can also formulate the question: “Is everything that is medically and technically possible also permitted?”

For many, one argument is decisive in answering this question. It is this argument: as long as the other person is helped with it. What objection can there be to this procedure when a woman, who would so dearly love to have a child, sees her wish fulfilled? Anyone who can help with this is of great service to her. This applies to the doctor as well as to the woman who acts as a surrogate mother in her pregnancy.

This argument comes down to this: if you can be of help to the other person, everything is permitted. As long as you can help the other person you don’t have to ask any further questions. Instead of “service” or “help” one could also use the word “love.” If you act in love toward the other party, everything is allowable. It is in particular the situational ethics that argues in this way.

Love is decisive. As long as people act out of a motivation of love, the deed is justified. However, we are not ready to justify our decisions that quickly.

Reproduction Apart from Marriage?←⤒🔗

What is the purpose of a mother’s womb? As the term indicates: to become a mother. Motherhood and marriage belong together, even though at this time some people think very differently about it. In the Bible, fertility and marriage are linked directly. The same applies to the sexual relationship between a husband and his wife. The expression “to be one flesh” refers to the experience of marriage. The relationship (Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5) is more comprehensive than only physical intercourse.

The question now is whether a woman can also make her body reproductive outside of the relationship with her husband. This formulation may not sound very sympathetic. I have chosen to put it this way in order to make it clear what is actually taking place in the cases described above. The matrimonial relationship is disabled. The unity of husband and wife (as marriage partners) for the merging of sperm and ovum is disabled. Fertilization by artificial means — whether inside or outside the body of the woman—is part of the reproductive process. Outside of the marriage relationship, the woman makes her body available for the reproduction of the human race. She does not consider the child that is going to be born as her child. She only provided her womb for the duration of her pregnancy.

Here the question needs to be asked, whether the mother’s womb also shares in the monogamy of the biblical marriage. With this question I mean the following: the biblical idea of marriage is that of the one husband who has his own wife — and vice-versa. There is no place for another, at least not in marriage the way the Lord Jesus speaks about it. In Matthew 19:4-8 he goes back to the ordination that God gave at creation.

Are marriage and offspring not so connected that the mother’s womb is there only for a child from this (monogamous) marriage? In our opinion this question must be answered in the affirmative. Marriage is between this one husband and this one wife! The mother’s womb is there with a view to fertility within this marriage. One should not separate procreation from marriage such that the wife lends her mother’s womb to bear and to give birth to a child for another woman. Where this does happen, one actually returns to the time of the patriarchs. At that time the slave gave birth to a child for her mistress. The names of Hagar, Zilpah and Bilhah say enough.

From what follows in the Bible it is clear that these practices are outdated. As the preaching of the covenant got through to the people of Israel, it became clear that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman! This means that situations such as in the marriages of Abraham and Jacob have become unthinkable.

In comparable circumstances one is actually returning to this situation when one gives up a mother’s womb for the child of another. An instrument is now replacing the aspect of physical communion. This tells us that we are living in the twentieth century, and no longer in the eighteenth century BC. But there is also a striking agreement.

We should not think lightly about the burden of childlessness. If there is a way to help in such situations, that should happen. However, not every means is permitted for this. A mother’s womb is not an instrument for propagation that can be used outside of the marriage as in whatever we want to do with it. A woman has not received her womb to serve another person! According to God’s ordination a mother’s womb and marriage are one. Therefore one is not free to use the mother’s womb outside of marriage. Not even if this happens to serve the happiness of another. The womb is not a neutral instrument for reproduction, but belongs as one to the notion of a monogamous marriage.

Technical possibilities continue to advance. We are rather at the beginning, more so than that we are already at the end. It is precisely for this reason that it is necessary now to maintain the unity of the marriage bond and the mother’s womb. Only from this unity will one be able to address the ethical questions concerning developments in medical technology. Without this unity, everything that is possible is also considered permissible. However, in this scenario the woman then returns to a new type of slavery. She is exposed to the question: “Don’t you also want a child for someone else?”