Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Why does the LDS church hate on surrogacy?

Because it complicates things.

Care to elaborate? Certainly it would be complicated, but so are lots of other good things, like marriage and higher education and spending 18-24 months of your life in an unfamiliar part of the world teaching others about your religion.

I mean in terms of the theology. Motherhood is a divine role, so does the surrogate mother have a link to the child due to the spiritual bonding that takes place during gestation? Does an unmarried woman have the right to be a surrogate mother, when the church proscribes reproduction/parenthood outside of an officially sanctioned marriage? Then there's also the ethical issues with surrogacy more generally - to what degree should reproduction be commoditized, how much right does a woman have to the child growing inside of her, etc.

Yarjka wrote:how much right does a woman have to the child growing inside of her, etc.

Considering that I passed an LDS Family Services (adoption agency) location attached to a Deseret Industries secondhand store, I'd say, "it depends."

Anyone seen Philomena?

I suppose I don't understand why it's more complicated than adoption. Adopted children are sealed to their adoptive parents, and that's actively promoted by the church.

My take is that the LDS Church is very conservative on issues of sexuality and reproduction. (Not just "conservative" as in right-wing, but "conservative" as in "we don't embrace new stuff.") E.g., we were very anti-birth control throughout much of the 20th century, but now that's more or less officially gone (although it may be around culturally, in some circles). I think anti-vasectomy positions are still officially on the books, though.

Anyway, at this point, being a surrogate requires permission from Official Channels, which is a pain (although I have heard of at least one person getting permission to go through with it). I suspect that if surrogacy became more popular or more of an issue within LDS circles, the official position on it would become more nuanced.

Katya wrote: E.g., we were very anti-birth control throughout much of the 20th century, but now that's more or less officially gone (although it may be around culturally, in some circles). I think anti-vasectomy positions are still officially on the books, though.

Anti-"surgical sterilization" statements appear in the handbook found online. They're "strongly discouraged" But I still know good LDS people who have had their tubes tied or whose husbands have had vasectomies. I've never heard anyone mention it coming up or being questioned about their choice. Although I've heard you aren't eligible to adopt from LDS Family Services if either parent has had permanent birth control put in place. I told my husband awhile back that the handbook discouraged permanent birth control and he totally thought I was joking.

In my last ward there was a guy in his early 30's who mentioned in Sunday School about how terrible it was that people used birth control because the Church was against it. That was an awkward moment while the teacher explained that was not the official position anymore. The commenter came from a big family. I wonder if that was something he'd heard growing up and had just never taken the time to look into it further. Or if he believed it was the "higher law" to go by outdated statements, just because they were stricter.

My cousin was a surrogate, and I remember my grandma was trying to be supportive and said something like "well that's what one of the Romney kids ended up doing." I doubt my grandparents know that she was a surrogate for a gay couple though.

Whistler wrote:She was a surrogate for a gay couple.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the LDS position against surrogacy is influenced by what might be termed "animus" to gay parents having biologically-related children.

Whistler wrote:My cousin was a surrogate, and I remember my grandma was trying to be supportive and said something like "well that's what one of the Romney kids ended up doing." I doubt my grandparents know that she was a surrogate for a gay couple though.

Oh, I forgot about the Romney kids. Did they have to get permission to use a surrogate, I wonder? (If not, hello double standard!)

I don't know anything about the Romney kids' situation, and tend to doubt this would be true of them specifically (given Mitt Romney's list of church callings), but I wonder how many general church members are unaware the Church had any position on these types of things. So they use their own personal inspiration and agency to make choices that are best for their families. I can imagine there are people who don't follow the official process simply because they aren't aware there is one. Who would you even go to for "permission" in the case of wanting to use a surrogate?

The bishop or stake president. Presumably.

The vasectomy thing very few people know about. Plenty of people who have gotten vasectomies who never thought to bring the topic up with their bishop (because why would they?). I'd imagine the same is true of surrogacy.

I think the positions taken in the Church Handbook of Instruction on these issues are more to prevent activist leaders from arising in the church.

Yarjka wrote:Plenty of people who have gotten vasectomies who never thought to bring the topic up with their bishop (because why would they?).

This is how I feel about the masturbation debate. (And the recent question about a very, terrible, no good sin that surely is referencing masturbation. What else could it even be? Drinking green tea? Wearing garments of mixed fibers?

... Getting a vasectomy?

I had actually wondered if the reason surrogacy was discouraged was because it involves gathering sperm, which involves masturbation...

Emiliana wrote:I had actually wondered if the reason surrogacy was discouraged was because it involves gathering sperm, which involves masturbation...

I doubt it. IVF isn't discouraged.

Some friends in my ward are having a surrogate right now (although they would correct me and call her a gestational carrier. I have to admit I don't know the difference between the two.).

They said it was surprisingly easy to "get permission". (I don't think they were looking for permission as much as they were looking for support.) The bishop and stake president were both immediately supportive. The stake president sent a letter to the First Presidency and their answer back was basically that this was a matter between the couple and the Lord.