Renting a Womb – Women Reduced to Baby Breeders says Professor (editorial from CP)

Renting a Womb – Women Reduced to Baby Breeders (editorial from CP)

I find this bashing of “womb renting” (parental surrogacy) hypocritical on two levels. I have observations below this link and excerpt, where I explain why I find this hypocritical.

I myself don’t know if I support surrogacy or not; that isn’t my point. My point is that I find some of this Christian man’s objections to it hypocritical.

(Link): Renting a Womb (Part 2): Women Reduced to Baby Breeders

    BY ALEX MURASHKO, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
    February 11, 2014|12:39 pm

    Editor’s Note: This is the second part in a series on surrogacy, titled “Renting a Womb.”

    Although not specifically mentioned in the Bible, the act of surrogacy in order to produce a baby should be considered unethical, says Scott B. Rae, professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Biola University.

    Surrogacy, Rae argued, diminishes a woman’s role in procreation. The woman, he said, is reduced to a “baby breeder.”

    Rae, who serves as dean of the faculty at the university’s Talbot School of Theology and chair for the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics board, told The Christian Post that the Bible “looks pretty skeptically at any kind of third party contributor who comes outside the matrix of marriage.”

    CP: What is the current social thought on surrogacy?

    Rae: I think the feminists who object to surrogacy because it reinforces a stereotype, that has some merit. The other thing that troubles me is that it separates procreation and responsibility. Scripture is pretty solid on the connection between marriage, procreation, and parenting. This is what troubles me about sperm donation – that you are involved in procreation but overtly disavowing a responsibility for that. Surrogates do the same.

    “It seems to me that procreation is intended to be done by stable, permanent, monogamous, heterosexual married couples,” he said. “The norm is laid out in Genesis 1 and 2 where you have the creation of Adam and Eve, the institution of marriage, and then the mandate to be fruitful and multiply. It sets procreation within that context.”

One reason I find it hypocritical:

Here you have a community – conservative Christians – who set marriage and having children up as idols that all should obtain, and if you don’t obtain one or either, you’re treated as a failure or weirdo.

So if you take actual steps towards either one (marriage or having a baby), such as using IVF, infertility treatments, or hiring a surrogate, you get told you are in sin or in error for it.

Secondly, conservative Christianity already treats ALL women like “baby breeders,” even the ones who do not pay for a surrogate. Case in point:

Gender complementarian Christians, who are present in what seems large numbers in many Protestant and Baptist churches and other conservative churches and denominations, regularly teach that a woman’s greatest or only role or calling in life is to marry and make babies.

See these links:

Conservative Christians already worship motherhood (see Link), and continually tell women their greatest or only God given or God approved role in life is to be a wife and mother.

Christians say this to each and every woman listening to a church sermon, not just women who are surrogates. So this professor has a lot of nerve referring to only surrogates as “baby breeders” when all women in Christianity are viewed as nothing but “baby breeders” (and ‘help meets’ to their spouses, if they are married).

Women who are infertile, childless, or childfree are not made to feel welcomed or accepted in most evangelical, fundamentalist, Baptist, or Reformed denominations. They are made to feel like outsiders, losers, weirdos, or freaks.

Lastly, and as someone in the comments pointed out, Mary acted as a surrogate mother, to carry the baby Jesus, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was not even married yet at the time. In light of the fact Mary acted as a surrogate, I’m not sure how a Christian university professor can object to other women doing so and not be holding a double standard.
————————————-
Related posts:

(Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

(Link): Is The Church Failing Childless Women? by Diane Paddison

(Link): Don’t Judge Me, I’m Childless (from Today’s Christian Woman)

(Link): Misuse of Terms Such As “Traditional Families” by Christians – Re: Kirk Cameron, Homosexual Marriage, and the 2014 Grammys

(Link): The Fruitful Callings of the Childless By Choice (editorial)

(Link): 23 Responses to 23 Awful Statements Made to Childfree People by TAURIQ MOOSA

(Link): How Not To Be A Dick To Your Childfree Friends (editorial)

(Link): My Secret Grief. Over 35, Single and Childless by Melanie Notkin

(Link): Widows and Childless and Childfree Have Better Well Being Than Married Couples and Parents says new study

(Link): In terms of childlessness, US ranks near the top worldwide

(Link): Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

(Link): Bearden: Staying childless right decision for many women

(Link): How American Christians Were Influenced by 1950s American Secular Propaganda to Idolize Marriage and Children and Against Singles and the Childless