[Please tell me how it (surrogate pregnancy) is a sin, and back it up with relevant scripture.]
The Bible says one man for one woman. Having someone else's child is just as much a sin as if you actually had sex with them. They can choose adoption.
[...]
It's someone other than your husbands sperm. Would it be fine if they didn't have intercourse, and some guy just ejaculated into someone who wasn't his wife?
Disgusting.
33 comments
It´s funny because, following your logic, adoption should be illegal too. They can choose adoption, but remember that ADOPTION IS HAVING SOMEONE ELSE´S CHILD, from the point of view of the adoptees. Non contradiction award? And for that matter, what on earth were Agar, Zippla and all those slaves in the Bible who bore kids if the lawfull wife was barren?. Indeed, not only the Bible is PRO-SURROGATE MOTHERS, indeed, it´s in favour of what Jesus calls adultery.
Uh, raven55, genius... an adopted baby has *zero* genetic material in common with the adopting parents, and thus is even *less* of a biological connection than surrogate motherhood.
Not that I think you're really into science.
Well, raven55 "almost" became a doctor, according to his post about male gynocologiests.
Disgusting.
Yes, that's precisely what I think about your beliefs.
Genesis 38:8
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother. 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."
Please, would someone tell me raven55 why 'evil atheists' know more about your bible then you do? You are calling god disgusting. Yoor gunna gow ta hey-ll!
Of course, this Raven(see his statement on gynecology)has a very weird idea of sex. I mean, he defends adoption and the facts that Abraham did with Agar, NOT REALISING THAT CONTRADICTS HIS STATEMENTS.
Dude, look. I'm a show ya the Bible is all wrong.
One man for one woman? If that were true, then the world would have men and women in exactly the same proportion.
You fail.
"Did you see what I did just there?" (Ben)
Answer the question, moron.
Oh, you can't. Because the sheep shaggers who wrote your infallible holy book had no notion of surrogate pregnancy. Tut tut. Not much good then, is it, this crap book of yours.
"Would it be fine if they didn't have intercourse, and some guy just ejaculated into someone who wasn't his wife? "
Uh...that's called intercourse.
"The Bible says one man for one woman."
No, it does not. Bible heroes have multiple wives, concubines, slaves. They can sleep with their wife's slave. They can buy women and take women as spoils of war.
Lot had a wife AND both of his daughters. If a man dies, his brother MUST impregnate his widow.
Do NOT use the Bible as a morality outline. You can justify anything.
If that were true, it would imply that Joseph, in choosing to raise Jesus with Mary, was acting sinfully. This is because Jesus is not his biological kid-- Jesus is God and Mary's kid. However, he is Jesus's adoptive father who works alongside his biological father (ha, Jesus has two daddies. Take that, fundie traditionalists) to raise and love his child to the best of his ability and shows his capabilities as a parent are beyond sufficient. In the end, that's what counts. A high quality parent is more important than the situation that caused the to pregnancy.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.