LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 352

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

352

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

CASE 2:
ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION BY DONOR

A happily married, childless couple is considering artificial insemina-
tion by donor because the husband has been diagnosed as sterile.

One of the simplest of the reproductive technologies is proposed as a
remedy for those cases of infertility that result from the husband's sterili-
ty. The proposal is that sperm from a donor be used artificially to insemi-
nate the wife.

DIscIPLINED CHAOS

As in the first case, so in this case many different questions come to
mind. Many of the questions are similar to those raised in our reasoning
about surrogacy. Certain insights that became central in our deliberations
on surrogacy also become central here, so we proceed directly to what
these insights would mean for this case.

CLOSURE

As mentioned in the discussion of the preceding case, the Commission
spoke directly to the practice of artificial insemination by donor in its 1981
report on Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective. In artificial insemina-
tion by a donor from outside the marriage “the process of fertilization is
removed from the personal context of the one-flesh union of husband and
wife in a way that not even their consent can allow.”" If this report has
read God's scriptural guidance correctly, a Christian who seeks to trust
God's guidance will refrain from this type of disturbance of the one-flesh
union of husband and wife. The significance of the one-flesh union of hus-
band and wife is also important for other matters we will be discussing,
and the biblical foundation for this understanding will be examined in fur-
ther detail in the next case.

We would further note that this simple technology raises troubling,
questions concerning the way it treats a man’s capability to procreate chil-

“Human Secuality: A Thevlogical Perspective, 39.

21

CASE 3:
CHOOSING FOR CHILDLESSNESS

Priscilla and Paul are a chikiless couple about 30 years in age. They
have been married for five years. They are active in the congregation and
both have satisfying, productive careers that they understand as part of
their Christian vocation. Their minds are mostly made up about achieving

t birth control through Paul's having a vasectomy. They want to
double check their perception that Christians can, in good conscience,
make such a decision. They say, “We know what we want to do with our
lives. We have been blessed with a good marriage, satisfying work, and are
happy to devote significant energies to the church. We are dissatisfied with
other methods of birth control, and do not want to nun the risk of getting,
pregnant. We don’t believe in abortions and want never to have even to
think about that problem.” They believe they know what is best for them,
but as a precaution against the unknown future Paul plans to have a sup-
ply of healthy sperm frozen and stored in a sperm bank

DISCIPLINED CHAOS

As in the first case, spend some time writing down and communicat-
ing to each other a list of steps that might be taken to help the group enrich
its thinking about this case. Perhaps people in your group have come to
decisions similar to that of Paul and Priscilla, either in deciding not to have
children or in deciding to limit family size. Group members will want to
be sensitive in discussing these matters with each other.

What did you come up with? Here are some of the steps we have
drawn up:
© Seeking to learn more about how and why Paul and Priscilla set-
tled on this choice.
Praying together for God's guidance.
Seeking biblical materials that may be relevant to the case.

Asking if other Lutheran congregations or our Synod or its theolo-
gians have offered any advice about intentional childlessness.

dren. This technology reduces the donor’s role simply to that of providing
the initial genetic material. Steps are taken to insulate the donor from any
further involvement and responsibilities. This proposal of “minimal pater-
nity” is troubling on scriptural grounds. Scriptural teachings concerning a
father’s leadership role in relation to his chikdren are ignored by men who
consent to participating in fatherhood in so minimal a way. The logical out-
working of this minimizing view of fatherhood is to be seen in the case of
unmarried women who, by choice and apart from a marital relationship
with a husband, bring a child into the world through artificial insemina-
tion by donor. Married couples considering use of this technology will
want to reflect carefully about these dimensions of artificial insemination
by donor.

In addition to our commitment to follow God's guidance concerning
marriage and family we also give thought to the practical implications for
family relationships when artificial insemination by donor is undertaken.
Psychological and emotional risks are taken by marital partners who accept
this kind of intimate intrusion into their relationship. Children born through
this technique are at risk for wondering what significance, if any, is to be
found in the hiddenness of their relationship to their biological father.”

The weight of considerations thus comes down against the practice of
artificial insemination by donor. Related proposals that have been given
more attention recently include egg donation for use in in vitro fertilization
and other related technologies, and donation of human embryos made
possible by in vitro technology.?! The considerations that lead to a rejection
of artificial insemination by donor apply equally to human egg and
embryo donation.

Disagreement?

Discussion of the preceding case led us to reflect on ways in which
faithful Christians might disagree with each other concerning the proper
guidance to be drawn from God’s Word and conceming practical judg-
ments about the likely outworking of a proposal. Similar reflections are re+
evant also to possible disagreements among us on the question of artificial
insemination by donor. What we are pledged to do is to keep God's scrip-
tural guidance central in our deliberations. We recognize that drawing out
that guidance is not always a simple matter that leads to ready consensus.
We again also give thanks that God enables us to live by grace through
faith.

* See, e.g.. Margaret Brown, “Whose Eyes Are These, Whose Nose?” Newsweek (March
7, 1994), 12.

” Gee Denise Grady, “How to Coax New Life,” Time (Special Issue, Fall 1996), 37-39.

22

¢ Looking for relevant discussions of this matter among Christians

in other confessional communities.

© Examining discussions of marriage and parenting found in other

literature.

¢ Asking about similarities and differences between this case and

the choices made by families that limit size to a certain number of
children, whether it be one, two, three, or more.

Now, jot down some of the insights you would expect to find by tak-
ing some of the first steps you and we have listed. What might come out of
listening in detail to Paul and Priscilla discuss their plan? (Role-play may
again be helpful here.) What biblical passages do you think may be rele-
vant? Someone from your group might research how the CTCR’s report on
Human Sexuality develops an evaluation of intentionally childless mar-
riages.” How is intentional childlessness viewed in our culture generally?

Much of the biblical materia) relevant to the issues of voluntary child-
lessness is discussed in detail in the next section. At this point we briefly
note two perspectives that may be of interest.

Surveying Possible Points of View

First, we have already had occasion to mention the work of Oliver
O'Donovan on procreative choices. He offers the following thoughts on
why the Christian church has traditionally kept marital sexual intimacy
and procreation closely related to each other. He argues that apart from
openness to children, sexual relationships “become simply a profound
form of play, undertaken for the joy of the thing alone, and depending,
upon the mutual satisfaction which each partner affords the other for their
continuing justification.”

Apart from sexual sharing, O Donovan claims, procreation is changed
into reproduction. He contrasts the language of “begetting children” with
“making” products:

The status of the child as ‘begotten, not made’ is assured by the fact that

she is not the primary object of attention in that embrace which gave her

her being. In that embrace the primary object of attention to each partner

is the other... [So] Christian thinkers in the West have argued that the pro-

creative and relational aspects of marriage strengthen one another, and

that each is threatened by the loss of the other. This is a knot tied by God,

which men should not untie.*

See Human Setuality: A Theological Perspective, 19-20.
* O'Donovan, 17.
“Tid