What’s wrong with this picture? Why should anyone question the motives or ends of the entire process that leads some women to make anonymous donations of their ova, especially if it will help infertile women who deeply desire to bear and raise children? There are lots of reasons, really. The most obvious is the problem of selling ova or sperm. We are so accustomed to a capitalist approach to life that most of us no longer sense the demonic dynamic at work here: the commercialization, and consequent cheapening, of human reproductive material.

PRETTY SMILING FACES

The ad in the local paper shows two pretty, smiling faces. The young women are relaxed and happy. The message is that they are doing something both good and easy. And their smiles ask, “Won’t you help?”

It’s an ad for “egg” donations. “Being an egg donor,” the first line reads, “can be the nicest thing you’d ever do for someone you’ll never know.” It’s inviting, practically seductive--especially since donors are compensated $2,000 to $3,000 dollars “for their time and trouble.”

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

What’s wrong with this picture? Why should anyone question the motives or ends of the entire process that leads some women to make anonymous donations of their ova, especially if it will help infertile women who deeply desire to bear and raise children?

There are lots of reasons, really. The most obvious is the problem of selling ova or sperm. We are so accustomed to a capitalist approach to life in general that most of us no longer sense the demonic dynamic at work here: the commercialization, and consequent cheapening, of human reproductive material.

Then again, the question must be asked: Who determines the criteria by which prospective donors will be chosen? The ad (and most like it, for they are legion these days) declares that every effort will be made to appropriately match donors with recipients, and so the sponsors seek donors of “all aptitudes, interests, physical characteristics, and ethnicity.” On the surface the proposal seems eminently just, fair and, certainly, politically correct. But indeed, what’s wrong with this picture?

PROCREATION OR REPRODUCTION

When Orthodox ethicists get together to talk about matters like this, the consensus is unambiguous. A basic rule of thumb that all of us adhere to, as a matter of faith, is that there should be no “third party” in the work of procreation. When I mentioned this to one of our parishioners, she assumed it meant forgoing gynecologists, obstetricians and midwives. What it rejects, rather, are procedures that involve third-party genetic material—sperm or ova—donated anonymously or otherwise. (To some Orthodox theologians it also excludes such practices as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, but that’s another issue.)

The reasoning behind this position is the same that leads the Orthodox to reject surrogate mothering, whether the surrogate is impregnated by the man’s sperm or serves simply as an incubator for an embryo fertilized in a petri dish and transferred to her uterus. It has to do with the intimacy of the sexual act that leads to procreation.

This is not merely a semantic quibble. Procreation, whether recognized as such or not, involves participation in God’s ongoing work of creation. Just as He works out our salvation in part through our intercession for one another, so He relies on the loving relationship of husband and wife to bring forth new life. Husband and wife, and not just any couple—unmarried, homosexual, or other—because their loving union is essentially a spiritual reality. It is a relationship created within the framework of the Church, the community of faith, where the spouses receive God’s blessing according to accepted tradition.  They make a formal, public commitment that begins with the wedding ceremony and endures into eternity.

Does the Church, then, feel any compassion at all for women who for some unavoidable reason are unable to bear children without resorting to donor gametes? Of course it does; we all do. The point is, however, that the possibility of bearing children is a gift, one that involves sacrifice and pain as well as joy and fulfillment.

When a couple finds themselves in the difficult, often heartrending, circumstance of irreversible sterility, Orthodox spiritual guides will embrace the couple with full understanding and boundless compassion. But they will also urge the couple to accept the barrenness as an expression of God’s (often inscrutable) will. And more often than not they will counsel the couple to consider seriously the possibility of adoption.

A JOYFUL, BLESSED SOLUTION

A growing number of Orthodox Christians, with or without children of their own, are finding adoption to be a joyful and blessed solution to their very natural longing to have and raise a child. Many find their hearts’ answer here in the United States. Many others seek elsewhere: Russia, Romania, Korea, Guatemala, etc.  The possibilities are endless, and the needs are overwhelming.

“The nicest thing you’d ever do for someone you’ll never know” may not be to provide gametes, especially at a price. It may be, instead, to provide the material, emotional and other forms of support that will allow a woman who would otherwise abort her child to bring it to term and then place it for adoption. If this were done, there would be no need for “egg donors.” And we would be well on the way to bringing sanity to a social order that spends billions to develop new procreative technologies, yet every year destroys the life of 1.3 million unborn children.

The Very Rev. John Breck was professor of New Testament and Ethics at St. Vladimir’s Seminary from 1984-1996. He is presently professor of Biblical Interpretation and Ethics at St. Sergius Theological Institute, Paris, France, and with his wife Lyn directs the St. Silouan Retreat near Charleston, SC. His published works include The Sacred Gift of Life, The Power of the Word, and The Shape of Biblical Language (St Vladimir’s Press).