Religion, Technology and Bioethics Summer 2018:1

In the readings assigned for this module, we see two varying approaches to reproductive technologies. Bhattacharya’s approach to reproductive technology in the academy, the clinical setting, and in public policy includes a reliance on the six elements of Hinduism. Bhattacharya’s ideas about the fluidity of Hindu thought and the notion that are people are interconnected translate into ideas about bioethics. Broyde’s approach to reproductive technology, then, provides an emphasis on law, which is noted with the inclusion of “Jewish Law” in the title.

As we discussed in class, there are two sides to the coin of bioethics. Modern bioethics serves as a way to make a decision, regardless of the character of the person(s) involved. Virtue ethics, then, is centered around character building to better equip the person to make those decisions instinctively. Based on the two readings, Bhattacharya’s text is reminiscent of virtue ethics, and Broyde of that of modern bioethics. Bhattacharya quotes Jonsen and Toulmin saying, “moral knowledge is essentially particular, so that sound resolutions of moral problems must always be rooted in a concrete understanding of specific cases and circumstances” (104), which leads me to associate her ideology with that of virtue ethics. Broyde’s emphasis on evaluations on a case-by-case basis stressed on the first page of his chapter (295) associates him with that of modern bioethics present today.

In terms of the differences between the approaches, many things contribute to the specific values held by a person of a particular religion or sect. Perspective is shaped by various environmental factors and obstacles faced over time. I am hesitant to state that these differences can be attributed solely to differences between religion, as variance in opinion and interpretation are present even in the same religion or sect. Even so, religion is a large part of culture, which I think does a better job of accounting for these differences in ideology. To quote Bhattacharya, “This ability to hold and be comfortable with differing accounts and interpretations of God, of Brahman, translates into different accounts and interpretations of particular situations” (102). Because of this, my belief is that the specific methodology of each author definitely plays a big role in the differences present. For example, Michael Broyde’s area of interest is law, with some religion mixed in as well. Swasti Bhattacharya, on the other hand, is a Gender and Woman Studies professor, and works with the American Academy of Religion. While these backgrounds can overlap on some concepts, such as religious law and reproductive technology, the responses will be as varied as the backgrounds of the authors.

If presented with the ethical dilemmas from last module, I believe that Broyde would stress the importance of analyzation on a case by case bias, based on his comment on the first page of his chapter (295). From a previous bioethics class, I know that this is the main methodology of many bioethicists, who are hesitant to make generalizations. For example, if a family already has a child with a genetic disorder that can be screened for and does not feel that they would be able to properly care for another, I feel that Broyde would be in favor of genetic testing, in this scenario. His answer could change, however, in others. In his section entitled “The Slippery Slope and the Denigration of Human Beings”, Broyde emphasizes the importance of each human person created “in the image of God” (312). In the conclusion section, Broyde presents the idea that a person must fully understand the consequences before committing an act, but also admits that the avoid said act “permanently” is also not ideal (316). Based on these statements, I would imagine that the author Broyde would want a couple considering genetic testing to fully educate themselves on the topic. As we watched in the film The Burden of Knowledge, many couples were not fully educated about the topic or held some misconception about the procedure and results.

Battacharya, on the other hand, might have a different response. When we discussed the Hindu value of ahimsa in class, I immediately thought of the bioethical terms beneficence and non-maleficence. Non-maleficence, specifically, means to do no harm, which can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Is the physical process of genetic testing considered doing harm, because of the increased risk of miscarriage? Is bringing a child into this world with a disorder unknown before giving birth considered doing harm? Both of these questions depend on the interpretation of the value of ahimsa. Along with ahimsa, there are five other values that Battacharya stresses in the beginning of chapter four (63). Similar to Broyde, I also think that Battachrya would feel it necessary to examine the situation from all vantage points, based on this line from the conclusion section, “We gain a richer understanding of moral questions and a better grasp on answers when we examine bioethical issues from the vantage point of several different perspectives” (99). Because of her emphasis on the six elements of Hindu thoughts, I believe that Battacharya would emphasize the importance of the second element, or the underlying unity of all life. While these are only speculations, moral dilemmas such as these are difficult to predict.

 

Sources:

Michael J. Broyde, “Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law,” In Michael J. Broyde and Michael Ausubel editors, Marriage, Sex and the Family in Judaism. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp. 295-328.

Swasti Bhattacharya, Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology (Suny University Press, 2006).

Much of the culture we enjoy today in a great number of countries around the world is based on Christianity and Judaism. Though both religions derive their history and ideologies from the same text, we can see some stark differences between their interpretations of it. This simply shows how critical ethnography is in the development of cultures. The first two chapters of the book of Genesis offer a historical account of the creation of mankind as well as a moral one. Within the text, these two qualities are intertwined rather than dichotomous, as we typically see them as today. Biblically, the creation of man is perceived as a morally righteous act. Thus, any creation of man, reproduction included, is considered a moral good. This is one reason why so much value is placed on reproductive ability within our society.

In Genesis 1 verse 26, it is written: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’” (Bible.com). Both Christianity and Judaism interpret this verse as having some responsibility for furthering mankind and caring for other creatures we find on earth. The verse 28 reads: “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it…’” (Bible.com). Here, it is clear that God specifically asks of man to continue the species through reproduction. This process then becomes not only a biological need but a commandment from God. The Lord gave man the ability to make the moral choice of whether or not to have children in hopes that he will do the right thing. It is also stated in Genesis 1:27 that God created man in his own image. The word image could refer to God’s physical form or the his ideological and moral image. Either way, both religions in question acknowledge that reproduction is a critical part of our duties as humans.

Christianity and Judaism as religions have developed different understandings of human reproduction. Each line of scripture has been heavily debated for centuries, causing slight changes in interpretations. Genesis 1:28 may be the most important verse in determining where the differences in Christian and Jewish views lie. The Christian reading of the verse emphasizes the word blessing, and sees it as a suggestion or a piece of advice. In this case, God tells man that it is in man’s best interest to procreate and further the human race. And so, reproduction is seen as a strong urging rather than a command. By the Jewish faith, the use of the word “be” indicates a command, thus heightening the importance of reproduction. Having children is an order, so achieving this through other means is much more accepted.

The family unit is another point of debate and perhaps another instance where Christianity and Judaism differ. A Christian family consists of a husband and wife, bound together by marriage as it is written in the Bible. Children are related to the parents by blood, so the acceptance of IVF and usage of other reproductive technologies within the religion is rare. Marriage and procreation within the Christian faith is limited to monogamous and hetereosexual ones. On the other hand, the emphasis placed on procreation in Judaism changes the structure of the family unit and kinship ties. It is believed that the Jewish faith is passed down through the womb rather than blood. A Jewish womb will undoubtedly produce a Jewish child, regardless of whose sperm is used. Because of this belief, the use of IVF and such is accepted if not encouraged for women who have not yet had children.

Throughout time, the importance of reproduction and kinship has been viewed in the light of religion. For Jews and Christians, the Genesis serves as a basis by which God directly tells them how and who to consider as their kin. The way they interpret what is said, especially in the first two chapters of the Genesis, significantly affects their views on who is kin and how that person is kin. The first chapter of the Genesis talks about how God created mankind in his likeness (1:26) so that they could, essentially, rule over the Earth in place of him. After God had created everything, he gave man a “helper suitable for him” (2:18). Eventually, this helper literally came from man himself, to show the inseparable union between man and woman. The man and woman now have this bond through which there were able to fulfill God’s blessing of being “fruitful and increasing in number” (1:28).  This has been interpreted to mean that mankind was given the gift of reproduction, and one way or another, had to fulfill this purpose. Human reproduction is seen as something that God directly told man had to be done in order to increase their presence in this world. And this reproduction had to be done between a man and woman that were fortified together by a very strong bond, which is usually seen as marriage.

This interpretation of reproduction and kinship in the Genesis, as mentioned earlier, differs between Jews and Christians. As mentioned in Dr. Seeman’s article on “Reproductive Technologies among Jewish Israelis”, Jews use both the Genesis and the Leviticus. The Genesis is used for their idea of marriage, the traditional marriage that is typically seen. The Leviticus, on the other hand, is used to focus on “claims about permitted and forbidden reproductive practices” (Seeman 346). Based on this, the Leviticus is seen to be what is referred to for the legality of reproduction. Christians, on the other hand, use the Genesis to understand both marriage and reproducing. As later described in Seeman’s text, Catholics use the text to “focus on what can be derived from narrative rather than legal portion of the biblical text” (Seeman 348). Thus, one of the reasons behind the differences in interpretation is through how the Genesis itself is used by religions: legality versus narrative. In general, the Genesis gives us the idea of creating a family, however, what to do with that information is up to interpretation by the two religions. This is why there is a major difference in the understanding of a fundamental life concept between Jews and Catholics.

Nevertheless, these differences also come from the importance of how one determines what kinship means. Does kinship come from genetics? Or is everything passed down matrilineally? How does one define a child that meets the religion’s requirements, as well as the reproductive needs of the parents? From the “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation”, it is clear that the view of the Catholic Church on kinship comes strictly from marriage. A child must come from the egg of the wife and the sperm of the husband. If the couple is having reproductive issues, like infertility, then the only option that is acceptable to the Catholic Church is homologous artificial insemination or IVF with the husband’s sperm. They understand that some couples do not have the ability to procreate and would like to, but the main point they emphasize is that having a child is not “an object to which one has a right…. rather, a child is a gift, ‘the supreme gift’ and the most gratuitous gift of marriage” (Shannon and Cahill, 168). Basically, even though it seems like one must have children in marriage, they don’t necessarily have to. For Catholics, the emphasis on procreation isn’t on creating children; it’s more on valuing the life they are about to bring into the universe, from the moment of conception. Thus, the Church is looking at reproduction and kinship from a moralistic/ ethical view. For this reason, they have very stringent regulations on reproductive biotechnology. Homologous IVF is seen as the only viable option because it uses the egg and sperm from both parents, so the child will be genetically related to both. The other options are either not morally righteous or the child will be related to only one of the parents, which brings about its own problems. So, from the view of the Catholics, kinship emphasizes and depends on genetics and being able to trace your lineage from both parents.

Jews, on the other hand, seem more open-minded to the idea of using reproductive biotechnology. One reason is because they don’t focus as much on the Book of Genesisfor reproduction, like Christians do. However, it is mainly due to how they interpret kinship. For them, family comes matrilineally. Likewise, there is a huge pressure placed on women to have children, even if they are not married. In Susan Kahn’s book Reproducing Jews, we saw this emphasis on creating a family, and the support the country of Israel gave these women. Kahn looked at reproduction from the viewpoint of single, older-aged women who were not married to show how the laws of religion played a role in their reproduction. Overall, though, the rabbis say that it is okay for women to bear a child if done through artificial insemination. How strict the rabbi is on whether the sperm comes from the father, or a Jewish sperm-donor or from a non-Jewish sperm-donor, depended on the women and how strictly of a Jew she was. Ideally, married couples who were having reproductive issues could get IVF done. However, Susan Kahn was looking at this from a non-ideal perspective of unmarried women who needed to fulfill their duty of producing another Jew. Compared to the Catholics, the Jews placed an emphasis on having children, whether or not they were completely genetically related to both parents or completely Jew. This was because the way a Jew was defined differed from the way Christians or Euro-Americans see kin. Hence why it seems that the Jews were more lenient towards reproductive biotechnology. Something important to note, however, is that Jewish women and couples didn’t prioritize using artificial insemination or other reproductive technologies for having kids; instead, they used as a last resort after having flushed out all other options.

After comparing the views on this topic between Judaism and Christianity, one could see how there are multiple factors at play here besides the interpretation of the Genesis. How strict one is in their faith, how progressive they are with their religion, the emphasis on carrying on one’s lineage versus the importance of life, the importance of culture along with many other factors played an important role in the views of the religious priests and followers of both these religions. Looking at these topics through an ethnographic perspective allowed for a more humanized understanding of the problems these people were going through and why (or why not) using these reproductive technologies would be important. By just reading religious texts, it is up to interpretation of the individual. But through analyzed understandings of the culture, religion and people, it allows for various perspectives to be shown that emphasize different factors important for one religious group versus another. Additionally, it allows for comparisons to be drawn between varying groups to show how practices in one may or may not be the same as in another. It is through these ethnographic approaches that some of the religious decisions can be brought about, in regards to a heavy topic like reproduction and kinship.

 

Citations:

Don Seeman, “Ethnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel.” In Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli and Yoram S. Carmeli editors, Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies Among Jewish Israelis(Berghahn Books, 2010), pp. 340-362.

Donum Vitae In Shanon, Thomas A. and Lisa Sowle Cahill, Religion and Artificial Reproduction: AnInquiry into the Vatican “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction.”(Crossroad, 1988).

Susan Martha Kahn, Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel(Duke University Press, 2000).

 

The first two chapters of Genesis recalls a biblical event that explains the origins of man and is usually used as the standard to familial relations for those who go by this biblical text. The second chapter specifies that a woman was made for a man as companionship. This establishes the belief that heterosexual relationships are the ideal. It also states that a man leaves their mother and father for a woman so that they could be “one”. Again, this asserts that men and women couples were created by God and were the only types of couples recognized by the bible. This passage also already assumes that a man and a woman together (“mother and father”) creates a child, establishing reproductive norms as well. Christian’s have an alternative way of reading the book of Genesis compared to the Jewish community. Christians, especially the Catholics, use the book of Genesis to support their negative opinions on technology that assists with reproduction, pointing out sections that provide examples through stories on how issues arise when women are burdened with the inability to conceive and therefore find alternatives. To Christians, these narratives may warn about moral issues that may arrive as natural human conflict, because of the deviation from Genesis reproductive and kinship traditions. The Jews, on the other hand, refer to the book of Leviticus when dealing with questions about alternative, biomedical reproductive strategies. Leviticus lacks these complicated, elaborate stories of other people’s lives and focus more on family rules that dictate Jewish laws, such as sanctification. Therefore, because this is more of a focus, the state of Israel has more toleration towards using technology to combat infertility, such as in vitro fertilization. This then translates to more support, money, and relaxed social views for single women going through procedures to become a mother within Israel. IVF is high in the state of Israel compared to other countries. Their religious beliefs do not specifically ban reproduction that does not follow the norms of copulation between a man and a woman. However, other researchers suggest that there are additional reasons to why Israel is comfortable with supporting these technologies. These reasons include the want for a larger Jewish demographic, state security, and the immense support from extended family.

Susan Kahn did a wonderful job of trying to interpret the point of view of Jewish single woman wanting to go through a process of assisted conception. Kahn was able to involve herself in the lives of these other women and was able to make a real connection with this specific population of Israel. Unlike religious texts, this allowed her to know the actualities of opinions and beliefs of the people within a medium that seems more honest. Not every person abides by or follows every part of their religion. Religious commands and suggestions could be interpreted to mean certain things. They could also be taken more lightly by some people or not followed at all. You would not know this just by reading religious text, nor would you know it by only listening to religious leaders and political figures. An ethnographic approach to answering questions about technology that have raised concerns globally as we advance in our ways to manipulate the human body is a very insightful solution. This method gets to the core of what is actually happening within specific groups of people. The production of a culture is not solely through its religion. There are other variables that influence how a culture makes decisions about certain phenomena’s such as reproductive technologies. An anthropologist like Kahn could learn about these other variables through deep discussions with people. We learn that the doctors and nurses had an influence on the sperm choice for the women and that family members cause pressure to conceive a child which could lead to the want of faster reproductive alternative choices. We also learn that copulation outside of marriage just to have a child was considered “dirty” while reproduction through a sperm donor was considered “clean”. You could not find all this information within religious texts, nor a rabbi. Overall, differences between religions on their viewpoint of certain scientific discoveries, as well as, important principles like kinship and reproduction can be analyzed through many strategies which has shown to be crucial to fully understanding.

Citation:

Kahn, Susan Martha. Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Durham: Duke University Press, 2000.

The first two chapters of Genesis have sparked much conversation and debate among different religions since their creation. While these chapters tell a cosmology of how God created the universe, they also introduce ideas of kinship, marriage, and reproduction. When these same ideas are applied to analyzing and understanding the place of medical technologies in today’s society, different religions take different stances on the issue, only contributing to the larger conversation about such biblical interpretations. Through Genesis, I will explore the beliefs and moral values of Jewish and Christian faith with respect to reproduction and more specifically, in vitro fertilization.

Speech plays an important role when reading and interpreting the chapters of Genesis. Although the Jewish and Christian communities use the same lines from the biblical text, their interpretations sharply contrast one another. In line 28, Genesis reads, “God blessed [male and female] and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). It is clear that the text supports God’s idea that humankind should reproduce. The Christian community interprets this textual line as God encouraging mankind to reproduce, and to do so in a fashion that respects the child, treating the child as a blessing or “gift” (Vitae 147). The Catholic church views the reproduction and creation of children as God’s gift to man, something to be treasured and enjoyed if it is God’s plan for a woman to bear that child. By contrast, the Jewish faith subscribes more to the idea that it is a woman’s moral right, and perhaps even obligation, to follow God’s words in Genesis line 28 to “be fruitful” and reproduce.  

These two interpretations of a single line in the Old Testament have served as the foundation for the vastly different beliefs regarding assisted reproductive technologies in both Christian and Jewish moral values and laws. Donum Vitae’s “Instruction for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction” presents an official position, speaking on behalf of the Catholic church; he ultimately argues that the Church does not permit any form of assisted reproductive technology apart from homologous IVF, or IVF taking place between that of a married man and woman. The Catholic church’s beliefs regarding IVF closely align with its interpretations of the first two chapters of Genesis. The Church believes anything “unnatural” (such as IVF, or more specifically heterologous artificial fertilization ) “violates the rights of the child; it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personal identity” (Vitae 159). The Church also deeply subscribes to the investment and sacred bond that forms between man and woman through marriage, a belief that most likely stems from a second chapter in Genesis where “God made a woman from [man’s] rib” (Gen. 2:23). This coveted bond between man and woman further illustrates the reasoning behind the lack of support the Catholic church expresses toward any assisting reproductive technology that may comprise such a sacred bond. 

In sharp contrast, Susan Kahn takes an enthnographic approach to the very same subject regarding in vitro fertilization. Kahn presents a reflective and comprehensive look at women’s experience with IVF in Israel, especially in Jerusalem, the Holy city. With the presentation of a myriad of stories from women and their medical and social experience with IVF in Israel, it becomes increasingly clear that the Jewish community views reproduction as an integral fabric to its society. Kahn notes that the Israeli government plays an extremely unique role in the lives of potential mothers– there is no separation of Church and state. The Israeli state encourages women to partake in the unlimited and subsidized IVF offerings, especially if they are left with no other option for reproduction. Providing these reproductive technologies consequently contributes to removing the stigma of such practices and alleviates the pressure of having a nuclear family (unlike the Catholic church that seeks to preserve the foundation and values of the nuclear family). Because Jewish faith believes that chapter one in Genesis makes it clear that God commands His people to reproduce, this support for reproductive practices despite marital status is found throughout Israel.

Although the first two chapters of Genesis ostensibly seem to describe the creation of the universe, earth, and beings that walk among it, these chapters have paved the way for many different religious interpretations and understandings. Most importantly, it is crucial to understand the different beliefs and moral stances various religions take on these biblical chapters in order to gain better insight into their views of modern medical technological advances.

Book of Genesis, chapters 1-2 <www.webpages.uidaho.edu/PDF/166/20Genesis.pdf)>.

Donum Vitae In Shanon, Thomas A. and Lisa Sowle Cahill, Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry into the Vatican “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction.” (Crossroad, 1988).

Susan Martha Kahn, Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel (Duke University Press, 2000).

In the first two chapters of Genesis, God puts the world in motion. In verse (1:22) God tells the creatures to “be fruitful and multiply”. The way he says this is still open to debate today – Is this a command? A request? A blessing? And how do these all differ? This sets the natural world in motion in accordance to natural law. What this tells up about reproduction and kinship is that the cultural pattern provided is one that men and women are mode to procreate and populate the earth, not only humans but all of animal kind.

When comparing the Jewish and Christian uses of genesis Professor Seeman’s article is very helpful. Historically, the central idea of childbearing in Jewish faith is that becoming married and given children is a command. It is expected. Like we talked about in class on Tuesday, Hebrew has command forms of verbs, and this is how it is understood. It is a command to “be fruitful and multiply”. In the Christian faith being married and bearing children is considered a blessing, not a command. Most languages that have practicing Christians do not have this command form of verbs and interpret the verse “be fruitful and multiply” as a request of sorts, and not a command. The Bible can be subjective at times and open for interoperation. This open interpretation leads to another interesting point of “dominion”. While all humans have this authority over other forms of life, there is bound to be different sects and subsections among these humans leaving to more and more divisions.

An ethnographic approach, as seen in Kahn’s work explores how religion plays driving forces in both cultural and even political sectors. Many things can be learned by reading text, but what is more important is how these texts, ideas, and concepts and integrated into daily life. The general gist of this this post is the open interpretation of texts. While everyone has different thoughts, it’s not expected for people to understand passages in the same way. That is why Kahn’s work sheds such an important light on how these interoperations are put into practice.

Book of Genesis, chapters 1-2

Susan Martha Kahn, Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel(Duke University Press, 2000).

Don Seeman, “Ethnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel.” In Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli and Yoram S. Carmeli editors, Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies Among Jewish Israelis(Berghahn Books, 2010), pp. 340-362.

In the first two chapters of Genesis, God puts the world in motion. In verse (1:22) God tells the creatures to “be fruitful and multiply”. The way he says this is still open to debate today – Is this a command? A request? A blessing? And how do these all differ? This sets the natural world in motion in accordance to natural law. What this tells up about reproduction and kinship is that the cultural pattern provided is one that men and women are mode to procreate and populate the earth, not only humans but all of animal kind.

When comparing the Jewish and Christian uses of genesis Professor Seeman’s article is very helpful. Historically, the central idea of childbearing in Jewish faith is that becoming married and given children is a command. It is expected. Like we talked about in class on Tuesday, Hebrew has command forms of verbs, and this is how it is understood. It is a command to “be fruitful and multiply”. In the Christian faith being married and bearing children is considered a blessing, not a command. Most languages that have practicing Christians do not have this command form of verbs and interpret the verse “be fruitful and multiply” as a request of sorts, and not a command. The Bible can be subjective at times and open for interoperation. This open interpretation leads to another interesting point of “dominion”. While all humans have this authority over other forms of life, there is bound to be different sects and subsections among these humans leaving to more and more divisions.

An ethnographic approach, as seen in Kahn’s work explores how religion plays driving forces in both cultural and even political sectors. Many things can be learned by reading text, but what is more important is how these texts, ideas, and concepts and integrated into daily life. The general gist of this this post is the open interpretation of texts. While everyone has different thoughts, it’s not expected for people to understand passages in the same way. That is why Kahn’s work sheds such an important light on how these interoperations are put into practice.

 

 Book of Genesis, chapters 1-2

Susan Martha Kahn, Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel(Duke University Press, 2000).

 

Don Seeman, “Ethnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel.” In Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli and Yoram S. Carmeli editors, Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies Among Jewish Israelis(Berghahn Books, 2010), pp. 340-362.

 

The overlap of Judaism and Christianity begin from their sharing of the same holy text: the Old Testament. Interestingly, while the two religions use the same scribe as the basis of their respective faiths, they differ vastly in their understandings and analyses of the book. While the Jews claim significance in the disparate, explicitly written commandments of the Bible, the Christians extrapolate from their interpretations of the narratives in the text. This contrast leads to two distinct belief systems that monitor modern biomedicine and assisted reproductive technology (ART) in starkly dissimilar ways. I will explore Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, to display the different interpretations from both religions and their definitions of kinship and human reproduction.

Genesis 1 tells the story of the beginning of life – as God created the world, He made man and woman, blessing them to “be fruitful and multiply.” The Jewish take this commandment literally – they believe that this is an obligation given to males, and, with the new opportunities provided by reproductive technology, even infertile couples have a chance at fulfilling this mandate. Thus, Israelis have eagerly accepted IVF as a method of procreation, and in fact, every Israeli is allowed unlimited trials at IVF before the birth of two children. The clinics, in which IVF takes place, are rampant in Israel, the most concentrated per capita than any other country, and they are described to be very personal settings, with transparency between the donors and acceptors. Homosexual couples are also accepted to perform IVF because marital status is unquestioned, which leads to their status of being parents to trump that of their sexualities.

This has led to a new definition for a Jewish family – not one consisting merely of heterosexual birth parents and children, but a term called fictive kinship, or the lack of association with genetic relationship and kin. According to Kahn, however, a Jewish child can only be born from a Jewish womb, which permits sperm donations but not eggs. In fact, it is considered Hebrew thought that the birth parents should be those who raise the child; but Jewish law and Hebrew thought are discrete entities. This distinction between Hebrew thought and Jewish law grant Jews the liberty to rely on assisted reproductive technology when necessary. Kahn describes a Jewish baby’s IVF birth from a virgin woman as “remarkable” – a clear indication of the support for ART within the Jewish community.

These standards of Judaism are vastly different from those of Christianity, which promotes continuity through blood. This belief of kinship stems from the relationship of Adam and Eve in Genesis, a monogamous, heterosexual, procreative marriage. As Christians tend to interpret the Bible with what is stated from the narratives, the bond between Adam and Eve is a reflection of what a marriage is defined as – leading to the creation of a family unit with procreation in the same way that was performed by the two. However, the same line in Genesis 1:28, “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” is not taken literally within the Christian community as it is for the Jewish. In fact, the Pope and the figures of the Catholic Church all practice abstinence, which is directly against the commandment of procreation. Even in Genesis 2, God states, “It is not good for the man to be alone” – yet the heads of the Catholic Church are unmarried. There is a clear difference in how the Catholics interpret Genesis from the Jews.

Likewise to the first couple, human procreation is believed to be the highest gift from God; children, like Adam, should be created in the “image” of their parents, as God created Adam in his “image” (Genesis 1:27 New International Version). Due to the honor associated with a child, human life should be respected from conception, and anything that disrupts this process, such as frozen embryos, is condemned. In addition, children are granted the respect to be raised with their birth parents, which prevents the church’s approval of surrogacy and heterologous IVF, which involves a third party’s donation of sperm or egg. In fact, out of all of the reproductive technologies, the only one that is allowed is homologous IVF, in which the gametes come from the parents who are to raise the child.

These Christian ideologies stem from the significance of the conjugal act that initiates conception; because assisted reproduction is withdrawing of this performance, children born this way are viewed as deprived of the value of body language. This body language stems from the story of how Eve as created: “that is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This act of becoming “one flesh” is the equivalent as a prerequisite of marriage, kinship, and reproduction. ART also grants power to biology, doctors, and researchers in the creation of life – this strays from the principles that destiny is left to God, who, according to Genesis, created everything. Thus, based on the interpretations of the cosmology of this religion, kinship must be through consanguine relations or through marriage, and children should be raised by their birth parents that must be in the same type of relationship as of Adam and Eve.

Another example of a disparity in interpretation of the same Biblical text lies in the story of Sarah and Abraham: Sarah, the wife of Abraham, asked her servant to be the surrogate of her child. This relationship resulted with Sarah growing jealous of her servant and the attention her husband gave her. While Christians interpret this narrative as an implication that surrogacy is against God’s will, Jews see the surrogacy as an opportunity, a blessing that Sarah gave to her servant to fulfill the prophecy of fruitfulness.

However, there are some sources for the contrasting ideals of Christianity and Judaism besides the first two chapters of Genesis. In a sociological context, the Jewish seek to increase their birth rates, stemming from “pro-natalism” by the post-Holocaust Jews or the increase in that of Arabs (Seeman, 2010, p. 350). In addition, as the Jews believe in their right to the “holy land” promised to Abraham, they further promote their beliefs in reproduction. In the Bible, Abraham gifted as many children as the stars in the sky, and this grant supplements their ideas. Thus, through a combination of both social and religious factors, the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament may naturally favor the reproductive technologies that aid them to fulfill their obligation to procreate.

In addition, it is possible that the reason for IVF acceptance in Judaism is due to the purity that can be associated with it. For a female to carry a child yet remain a virgin is exactly how Jesus, the figurehead of Christianity, came to be – this is also where Christianity and Judaism diverge. Because Christianity believes that Jesus was conceived as a gift from God through Virgin Mary, it is possible that their strict discipline against a potential for this form of reproduction stems from the similarity it holds to the story of Virgin Mary. It would be contradictory to promote this form of conception for any Christian female when it holds such parallel to the story that is the basis of their religion.

From an objective viewpoint, Genesis may simply be a story of how the world came to be. It tells the tale of how God created light and darkness, the heavens and the earth, the animals and first humans, and it displays a heterosexual marriage that was achieved by images of God. Yet from an ethnographic perspective, it can be further analyzed – as the Bible comes in various translations, each word holds a different connotation, an emphasis on different aspects of the cosmology, and an ethnographer can link how syntax plays a role in the foundation of an entire belief system. Thus, moral questions can be answered through the lenses of various religions because of how these faiths interpret the text, which can lead to differing outcomes, approvals, and prohibitions when technological advancements are made. Ultimately, the power is up to the individual to decide how they seek their values.

 

Citations

 

 

Kahn, S. M. (2000). Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Durham: Duke University Press.

 

Seeman, D. (2010). Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies among Jewish Israelis (Vol. 19). New York: Berghahn Books. Retrieved from https://reserves.library.emory.edu/Shib/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=447785.

 

Shannon, T. A., & Cahill, L. S. (1988). Religion and artificial reproduction: An inquiry into the Vatican “Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of human reproduction”. New York: Crossroad.

 

The first two chapters of Genesis focus a great deal on human reproduction and kinship. Foremost, the first chapter of Genesis emphasizes the idea than humankind was created from “His image” (1:27). Thus, all human reproduction is the replication of what God imagined it to be at the time of all creation. Moreover, God expects that humans be “fruitful”. They should reproduce and “have dominion” over all other forms of life (1:28). Through reproduction, it is expected the human population has a certain degree of dominance that will allow them to achieve legitimate leadership over other forms of life such as, but not limited to, fish and birds. With the use of the word ‘fruitful’, it is also implied that God believes humans would be beneficial, or helpful to society, if they reproduce. In other words, God focuses on human reproduction as a responsibility to the betterment of society. From the specific use of male and female throughout both chapters, I inferred that God imagined all people are born as either male or female. There are no other genders or sexualities that are reproduced. Additionally, I found it conflicting that chapter one implies male and female were created simultaneously as it states, “…male and female he created them” (1:27). On the other hand, chapter two implies that female came from male as the chapter cites, “…this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken” (2:23). Overall, while God emphasizes the value of reproduction, his view conflicts when considering the specifics of reproduction such as gender. In relation to kinship, chapter two specifically cites the relationship between both male and female: “And therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (2:24). I found this surprising in a cultural context because in most societies it is viewed that the wife is leaving her family to join her husband’s family. The idea that God inferred the opposite was an idea that I specifically noticed when reading the chapter.

The relationship between Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Genesis chapters is explained dominantly through the understanding of reproduction. As Dr. Seeman explained in his work, “Ethnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel”, a central idea of Genesis is emphasizing the need to “bring forth children from childlessness by almost any means” (Seeman 1998). That drive to no longer be childless for a man and a woman is one that is interpreted differently in Jewish and Christian cultures. In Judaism, the Genesis content is considered a command. By remaining childless, a couple is breaking the religious law. The interpretation of a command came from the fact that Hebrew has command forms for verbs. Because the original text was written in command form, it is interpreted that Jews must bear children. As a result, they must also get married as marriage is a prerequisite to children. On the contrary, the Catholic Church interprets the Genesis as describing children as a blessing. God allows people to enjoy blessings when he chooses to give them. But it is not mandatory in the eyes of Christianity; it is merely a suggestion. One of the most fundamental examples of this controversial interpretation of the same text is that religious folk, who identify as Jewish, tend to be married with multiple children while religious leaders, who identify as Christian, tend to remain unmarried and celibate.

While the translation of Genesis language most definitely plays a key role in differences between Jewish and Christian practices, it is also likely that cultural practices have enforced these differences. Ranging from kosher meals to church practices and international dominance of both cultures, it is important to understand that there are several variables at play. Regions of the world like Israel vary significantly from regions like Western Europe. The lifestyle of both nations is extremely different. As Dr. Seeman had explained in a prior lecture, in one trip to Israel he thought the family he was speaking to was referring to a blood-related brother but they were actually speaking of a non-relative. Who one identifies as family and how one chooses to interact with others is just one example of a cultural difference that influences religious differences. On a fundamental level, Jews and Christians view God differently. Jews see God as a commander and someone to abide by while Christians view God as a mentor and someone to take suggestions from. Ultimately, this difference in perspective explains the differences between both religions and how they are practiced.

The aforementioned incident that Dr. Seeman experienced is the perfect example of the value of ethnography. Understanding cultural contexts, that vary in each society and are not limited to just one religion, indicates the value of interpretation that ethnography-based experiences allow for. The implementation of each religious text in someones everyday life cannot be interpreted from just reading the text. Furthermore, modern-day application of all religious texts would be significantly different from the traditionally understood methods. As a whole, involvement and understanding of the meaning of religious texts can only come through ‘hands-on’ experience.