Surrogate Parents = Modern Concubines?

[Chaotic Void]

In the "Polygyny" Thread, I posted a bit about Concubines and Surrogate Parenthood [I think its called In-Vetro Fertilization nowadays] being the same thing, minus the Sex. It was reccommended to me that I start a Thread to see what others Think. Here Goes Nothing:

Surrogate Parents could easily be considered Concubines as Both have the same Purpose [to let someone who cannot have kids become a parent]. It was a practice in the OT*, and God didn't Condemn it directly.

A Few Questions for everyone reading to ponder:

1) If a Christian considers Concubinism a Sin, yet is pro-Surrogate Parenthood, aren't they Hypocrites? [as I have pointed out, they are near identical, but the new technology eliminates sex from the factors]

2) If Concubinism is an Adulterous sin, would it be justifiable now that sexual contact is unnecessary?[No sex no Adultery, eh? However, It can also be argued that it Degrades Human Life. Frying Pan or the Fire.]

3) If there were to be sexual contact involved, and if the Wife were to consent to the surrogacy, wouldn't that annull the Adultery Part?

4) What if you were unable to have kids, due to Infertility/STD/Genetic Conditions? [In other words, what would you do if you had to cross this bridge?]

*Citations [theres more, but 3 is plenty for now]
Gen 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

2Sa 5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

1Ki 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

[Tlalynet]

Would it suffice to say your point is
"If adultery is concerned with children as much as sex then surrogacy presents many new ethical dilemas."
I think this might be at the heart of what your saying but Im not sure I have it clearly.

[Smokering]

Surrogate Parents could easily be considered Concubines as Both have the same Purpose [to let someone who cannot have kids become a parent].
I don't believe this is true. Concubinage may have occasionally been used for this purpose (as in Abram and Sarah's case), but not always. With Rachel and Leah, it was to 'boost the numbers' as part of a rather sick competition to win their husband's favour. Neither of them were permanently barren. With David and Solomon, we have no evidence that the concubines were there in order to assuage the barrenness of the wives (after all, having that many wives, all barren, would be spectacularly bad luck!). In general, I think concubines were as much about lust and prestige as anything; not specifically about children. So the analogy is not entirely accurate.

2) If Concubinism is an Adulterous sin, would it be justifiable now that sexual contact is unnecessary?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. If a man takes a concubine but does not have sex with her, instead using IVF to impregnate her (for example), is this justifiable... is that what you're saying? But concubinism is defined by sex. If he didn't have sex with her, she wouldn't be a concubine!

3) If there were to be sexual contact involved, and if the Wife were to consent to the surrogacy, wouldn't that annull the Adultery Part?
Er, that's called open marriage; and it's immoral. I don't cheat on my husband, not because he might get upset; but because it's commanded by God that I remain faithful to him, whether he cares or not.

4) What if you were unable to have kids, due to Infertility/STD/Genetic Conditions? [In other words, what would you do if you had to cross this bridge?]
If it was due to infertility, I'd seek medical aid to fix the problem. If I (or my husband) were completely unable, I imagine we'd look at foster care or adoption. I have moral problems with IVF, which surrogacy demands (unless my husband were to have sex with the surrogate, with which I would have more than moral problems!), so I wouldn't go that route. If it happened that foster care/adoption didn't work out, I guess we'd just have to accept that we weren't going to be blessed with children. It'd be hard, but it's happened to countless couples.

[Chaotic Void]

I don't believe this is true. Concubinage may have occasionally been used for this purpose (as in Abram and Sarah's case), but not always. With Rachel and Leah, it was to 'boost the numbers' as part of a rather sick competition to win their husband's favour. Neither of them were permanently barren. With David and Solomon, we have no evidence that the concubines were there in order to assuage the barrenness of the wives (after all, having that many wives, all barren, would be spectacularly bad luck!). In general, I think concubines were as much about lust and prestige as anything; not specifically about children. So the analogy is not entirely accurate.

You have to consider that there was and is no absolute way of telling if someone was/is Permanently barren/Infertile, so if they had 'tried' numerous times and no kid was conceived it was automatically assumed they were unable to bear children.

Rachel and Leah were Sisters, a la Sibling Rivalry [Believe me, I know how far this can go... Siblings will use everyone and everything to their advantage. Especially Sisters.... UGH]. Age of the wives could have played a part in Solomon/David's situation.


I'm not quite sure what you mean. If a man takes a concubine but does not have sex with her, instead using IVF to impregnate her (for example), is this justifiable... is that what you're saying? But concubinism is defined by sex. If he didn't have sex with her, she wouldn't be a concubine!


Surrogate parency is a Modernised Concubinism in the sense that sexual contact no longer has to play a part.


Er, that's called open marriage; and it's immoral. I don't cheat on my husband, not because he might get upset; but because it's commanded by God that I remain faithful to him, whether he cares or not.


How is it Immoral? David/Solomon/Abraham/Jacob were never condemned for taking concubines, and I'm sure that at least some of the wives consented to conceiving a child with someone else.


If it was due to infertility, I'd seek medical aid to fix the problem. If I (or my husband) were completely unable, I imagine we'd look at foster care or adoption. I have moral problems with IVF, which surrogacy demands (unless my husband were to have sex with the surrogate, with which I would have more than moral problems!), so I wouldn't go that route. If it happened that foster care/adoption didn't work out, I guess we'd just have to accept that we weren't going to be blessed with children. It'd be hard, but it's happened to countless couples.
[/QUOTE]

[Smokering]

Surrogate parency is a Modernised Concubinism in the sense that sexual contact no longer has to play a part.
My point is that concubinism is very largely about sex. So a desexualised practice such as surrogate parency cannot be compared. Apples and oranges.

How is it Immoral? David/Solomon/Abraham/Jacob were never condemned for taking concubines, and I'm sure that at least some of the wives consented to conceiving a child with someone else.
Not exactly condemned, but the results speak for themselves. By breaking the Eden-established pattern and resorting to concubinage due to lust/lust/lack of faith/sibling rivalry, the patriarchs opened up countless cans of worms. Solomon's wives and/or concubines turned him away from God; David's bore warring sons and started a dynasty of evil and infighting; the result of Abraham's faithlessness to God's promises was centuries, even millenia of conflict between Isaac's and Esau's descendants, and Jacob's sons didn't turn out too good either (not to mention that the concubine thing made his marriage... marriages... filled with conflict). The OT doesn't always explicitly state 'and it was evil' for every questionable act; but it does leave the reader to mull over the consequences and realise what went wrong.

I do have moral problems with surrogacy/IVF, but I don't think they're comparable to concubinage, simply because of the sexual aspect.

[Bib Lit Major]

You have to consider that there was and is no absolute way of telling if someone was/is Permanently barren/Infertile, so if they had 'tried' numerous times and no kid was conceived it was automatically assumed they were unable to bear children.

Rachel and Leah were Sisters, a la Sibling Rivalry [Believe me, I know how far this can go... Siblings will use everyone and everything to their advantage. Especially Sisters.... UGH]. Age of the wives could have played a part in Solomon/David's situation.

If I recall correctly the biblical reason given for the conflict was not sibling rivalry but because Jacob prefered and loved Leah more than Rachel. As such Leah tried to win Jacob's love by bearing him children. This is one of the problems of polygyny. I don't think that multiple people can really fell secure in their position as wife/husband, if they share the same spouse. There's almost always going to be a favorite, there are always going to be the tripwires of "I wonder if he/she loves me less than her/him."

As for Solomon, I doubt he married 300 old women. Most of the time, the men were much older. Women were married off as soon as possible so that alliances could be established and so that (unforunately) the woman's family no longer had to worry about supporting her. After marriage, it was the groom and his family who were required to provide.

Surrogate parency is a Modernised Concubinism in the sense that sexual contact no longer has to play a part.
'
If Western culture is in anyway associated with your view of "Modernised," sexuality should explode all over the surrogacy parency.

How is it Immoral? David/Solomon/Abraham/Jacob were never condemned for taking concubines, and I'm sure that at least some of the wives consented to conceiving a child with someone else.

In the Ancient Near East, royal concubines rarely had repeat sexual experiences with the King, so childbearing was probably not what concubinage was primarily for. Many times, concubines were women set apart to be like a selection pool of potential queens or wives. How well they performed sexually often determined whether they stayed concubines or moved up in position to that of a wife of the king or even the queen. Many times, concubines never got to be with King again, and were not allowed to rejoin society (and thus, marry) since they had slept with the King. In Solomon's case, for example, he would have to have sex with three or four different wives/concubines a day just so each would get a single night in a year! I'm sure as great as this might seem for him at first, it probably would've gotten very old.

Those concubines who were taken for childbearing purposes were often taken regardless of the wife's consent, since it was a patriarchal society. Those examples were the wife gives permission are probably the exception. However, even then, there was probably regret in the decision like Sarah.

[Chaotic Void]

My point is that concubinism is very largely about sex. So a desexualised practice such as surrogate parency cannot be compared. Apples and oranges.

But in the end they are both Fruit, no?

Not exactly condemned, but the results speak for themselves. By breaking the Eden-established pattern and resorting to concubinage due to lust/lust/lack of faith/sibling rivalry, the patriarchs opened up countless cans of worms. Solomon's wives and/or concubines turned him away from God; David's bore warring sons and started a dynasty of evil and infighting; the result of Abraham's faithlessness to God's promises was centuries, even millenia of conflict between Isaac's and Esau's descendants, and Jacob's sons didn't turn out too good either (not to mention that the concubine thing made his marriage... marriages... filled with conflict). The OT doesn't always explicitly state 'and it was evil' for every questionable act; but it does leave the reader to mull over the consequences and realise what went wrong.

I do have moral problems with surrogacy/IVF, but I don't think they're comparable to concubinage, simply because of the sexual aspect.

Ummm.... There were other factors in each Situation, not just the 'breaking of the established pattern' [if we're supposed to base our marriage off of them, then we must be perfect and our kids must 'hill-billy' if you know what I mean]. in Abe's situation was doubt, Solomons case the Foreign wives were the trouble, and in David's case, it was lust. Its like saying someone ripped off a bank while wearing a Toque, so Toques are evil.

[Chaotic Void]

If I recall correctly the biblical reason given for the conflict was not sibling rivalry but because Jacob prefered and loved Leah more than Rachel. As such Leah tried to win Jacob's love by bearing him children. This is one of the problems of polygyny. I don't think that multiple people can really fell secure in their position as wife/husband, if they share the same spouse. There's almost always going to be a favorite, there are always going to be the tripwires of "I wonder if he/she loves me less than her/him."

As for Solomon, I doubt he married 300 old women. Most of the time, the men were much older. Women were married off as soon as possible so that alliances could be established and so that (unforunately) the woman's family no longer had to worry about supporting her. After marriage, it was the groom and his family who were required to provide.
'
If Western culture is in anyway associated with your view of "Modernised," sexuality should explode all over the surrogacy parency.

In the Ancient Near East, royal concubines rarely had repeat sexual experiences with the King, so childbearing was probably not what concubinage was primarily for. Many times, concubines were women set apart to be like a selection pool of potential queens or wives. How well they performed sexually often determined whether they stayed concubines or moved up in position to that of a wife of the king or even the queen. Many times, concubines never got to be with King again, and were not allowed to rejoin society (and thus, marry) since they had slept with the King. In Solomon's case, for example, he would have to have sex with three or four different wives/concubines a day just so each would get a single night in a year! I'm sure as great as this might seem for him at first, it probably would've gotten very old.

Those concubines who were taken for childbearing purposes were often taken regardless of the wife's consent, since it was a patriarchal society. Those examples were the wife gives permission are probably the exception. However, even then, there was probably regret in the decision like Sarah.

Yes, that was the Biblical reason provided, but it's very logical to conclude that Sibling Rivalry played a part as well.
Aside from multiple Mother-in-Laws, that is one of the bigger issues of Poly.

I was referring to the first 300-ish wives, who would be much older than the other 400-ish.

[Smokering]

Ummm.... There were other factors in each Situation, not just the 'breaking of the established pattern' [if we're supposed to base our marriage off of them, then we must be perfect and our kids must 'hill-billy' if you know what I mean]. in Abe's situation was doubt, Solomons case the Foreign wives were the trouble, and in David's case, it was lust. Its like saying someone ripped off a bank while wearing a Toque, so Toques are evil.
Except that Jesus reaffirmed monogamy in Matthew 19, and did not reaffirm incest (which was forbidden under Mosaic law in any case). Adam and Eve's perfection was clearly a one-time thing, unrepeatable in a fallen world; and their children's marriages were likewise clearly not an 'established pattern', because of the later laws forbidding such unions. You're saying, in essence, 'We can't take any principle from Adam and Eve's story because some of the specifics are not applicable to today', which is as silly as saying 'If we're going to be like Jesus, we have to walk on water and call people vipers; otherwise, we shouldn't bother emulating Him in any aspect'.

Paul also offers advice on marriage which clearly expects it to be between two people; and the deacon/elder specifications stipulate 'husband of one wife' along with many other requirements which are moral, not culturally situational, in nature (not a drunkard, holy etc).

But in the end they are both Fruit, no?
Do I even need to distinguish this with a '...'?

[Chaotic Void]

Except that Jesus reaffirmed monogamy in Matthew 19, and did not reaffirm incest (which was forbidden under Mosaic law in any case). Adam and Eve's perfection was clearly a one-time thing, unrepeatable in a fallen world; and their children's marriages were likewise clearly not an 'established pattern', because of the later laws forbidding such unions. You're saying, in essence, 'We can't take any principle from Adam and Eve's story because some of the specifics are not applicable to today', which is as silly as saying 'If we're going to be like Jesus, we have to walk on water and call people vipers; otherwise, we shouldn't bother emulating Him in any aspect'.

Paul also offers advice on marriage which clearly expects it to be between two people; and the deacon/elder specifications stipulate 'husband of one wife' along with many other requirements which are moral, not culturally situational, in nature (not a drunkard, holy etc).


Do I even need to distinguish this with a '...'?

none of the other things are an 'established pattern', yet marrying one wife is? I don't quite follow you there....

Jesus is a completely different issue. He's the Son of God. We are not. [btb, Jesus was just quoting Genesis in Mat 19.]

1 Timothy is for Bishops and Deacons, aka Church Leaders. Monogamy for Church leaders was so that both genders were of equal representation.

On a side note, Poly was made illegal by the Romans [since its pre-Catholic, it could be argued that Monogamy is a Pagan Law.]

The fruit comment was something to think about.