Thinking Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Most of us know a single LDS woman who would like to be married and have children. I have two questions. 1. Is it against LDS Church policy for that woman to use medical methods to become pregnant? 2. Do YOU think it should be OK for that woman to use medical methods to become pregnant?
smac97 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Most of us know a single LDS woman who would like to be married and have children. I have two questions. 1. Is it against LDS Church policy for that woman to use medical methods to become pregnant?As a single woman, yes. I believe that's in the CHI. 2. Do YOU think it should be OK for that woman to use medical methods to become pregnant?A single LDS woman? No. A single non-LDS woman? Probably not. Having children is very difficult with two parents. While many single parents can succeed in that role, a person who chooses to deprive a child of a two-parent home and all of the sociological / emotional / financial, etc. benefits that go with it is, I think, generally not acting with the child's best interests at heart.Thanks,-Smac EDIT TO ADD: Here is the section from the CHI on this subject: 21.4.3 Artificial Insemination The Church strongly discourages artificial insemination using semen from anyone but the husband. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsibility for the decision rests solely upon them. Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline. Edited June 22, 2014 by smac97
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) It's nobody's business but hers. Edit: I don't know if it's in the CHI or not, but if it is I would like to see the rationale. Edited June 22, 2014 by mfbukowski
Rob Osborn Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Only within marriage is the conception of children encouraged. the Church is against the conception of children outside of marriage between a man and woman.
Rob Osborn Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 "Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline." (Church handbook of instructions) 1
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 As a single woman, yes. I believe that's in the CHI. A single LDS woman? No. A single non-LDS woman? Probably not. Having children is very difficult with two parents. While many single parents can succeed in that role, a person who chooses to deprive a child of a two-parent home and all of the sociological / emotional / financial, etc. benefits that go with it is, I think, generally not acting with the child's best interests at heart. Thanks, -Smac EDIT TO ADD: Here is the section from the CHI on this subject: 21.4.3 Artificial InseminationThe Church strongly discourages artificial insemination using semen from anyone but the husband. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsibility for the decision rests solely upon them.Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline.What about adoption then? One parent is clearly better than none.
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 "Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline." (Church handbook of instructions)I never had to look that one up. Ok, I stand corrected.
Calm Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 What about adoption then?One parent is clearly better than none.Given that lds adoption services only do married couples, I suspect the Church still discourages single men and women from adopting. (I know they did decades ago)
eddie Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 What about adoption then?One parent is clearly better than none.Discouraged, but not forbidden.
smac97 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 What about adoption then?One parent is clearly better than none. Adoption is covered in section 21.4.12 of the CHI. It does not specifically address single-parent adoptions, except perhaps here:Birth parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of a sense of obligation to care for one’s own. Additionally, grandparents and other family members should not feel obligated to facilitate parenting by unmarried parents, since the child would not generally be able to receive the blessings of the sealing covenant. Further, unmarried parents are generally unable to provide the stability and the nurturing environment that a married mother and father can provide. Unmarried parents should give prayerful consideration to the best interests of the child and the blessings that can come to an infant who is sealed to a mother and father (see First Presidency letter, June 26, 2002).I think there are some compelling sociological reasons for wanting to allow single-parent adoptions, but I think the Church has more than sociology in mind. Thanks, -Smac
MorningStar Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 According to the Family Proclamation, children are entitled to a mother and father. 1
Hillel2 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 There are a number of organizations which obtain fertilized embryos to implant in willing carriers. What might be the position of the Church vis-a-vis a single woman who would be willing to act as a carrier and future mother for these embryos which would otherwise expire or be destoyed?
Calm Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 But when they have neither and adoption by a married couple is unlikely, is it better for them to stay in foster care or have a long term commitment made from a single parent?I am guessing each situation is different.
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) According to the Family Proclamation, children are entitled to a mother and father.Yet women are not entitled to husbands. Interesting. Edited June 23, 2014 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 There are a number of organizations which obtain fertilized embryos to implant in willing carriers. What might be the position of the Church vis-a-vis a single woman who would be willing to act as a carrier and future mother for these embryos which would otherwise expire or be destoyed?Surrogate mother is discouraged as well. The Church doesn't have doctrine on when the spirit enters the foetus so it may be viewed as unfortunate, but not necessarily wrong to allow the embryos to expire.
Calm Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Yet women are not entitled to husbands.Interesting.Lost me on that one.... 1
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Lost me on that one....I was just commenting that we have many unmarried sisters who would love to have children and yet, they cannot find a worthy man who will marry them. It would seem one might want to allow them to adopt, or have artificial insemination. It's not like I am about to start a movement, I am just wondering what is so wrong with the idea. I am just asking the question.
eddie Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Surrogate mother is discouraged as well. The Church doesn't have doctrine on when the spirit enters the foetus so it may be viewed as unfortunate, but not necessarily wrong to allow the embryos to expire.Surrogate motherhood is discouraged, as is in vitro fertilization when material (eggs, sperm) is from another individual other than the spouse.However, neither is prohibited when a couple is married, and "the consequences of the decision rest with the couple." (Paraphrasing.)
MorningStar Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Yet women are not entitled to husbands.Interesting.Yes, it's very hard when a woman wants to get married and hasn't found anyone yet, but it doesn't excuse intentionally robbing a child of having a mother and a father.
rpn Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Although I would not adopt an infant as a single person, I surely would a child who is at the age or in the category of might not get a family if not this one. Children do need two parents. But sometimes that just isn't possible and one good forever parent is much better than any temporary arrangement. 1
Rob Osborn Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I cant speak for everyone but I do know that my brother went through LDS church services to adopt a child and went through many ups and downs to finally adopt the beautiful daughter they now have and love. Its not as easy as some might assume and its not as if good parents are in short supply. I strongly believe that every effort should be made for children to be adopted into homes where both a mother and father exist who are legally married and committed to each other. 1
ERayR Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I was just commenting that we have many unmarried sisters who would love to have children and yet, they cannot find a worthy man who will marry them.It would seem one might want to allow them to adopt, or have artificial insemination. It's not like I am about to start a movement, I am just wondering what is so wrong with the idea.I am just asking the question. Or reinstate polygamy.
Sleeper Cell Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I was just commenting that we have many unmarried sisters who would love to have children and yet, they cannot find a worthy man who will marry them.It would seem one might want to allow them to adopt, or have artificial insemination. It's not like I am about to start a movement, I am just wondering what is so wrong with the idea.I am just asking the question. I think that the church should allow a single sister to adopt. In fact, I would consider it a praiseworthy desire on her part.. However, I believe that, generally speaking, an unmarried sister should only adopt a child if no suitable married couple is available. One obvious exception would be a situation where the single sister and child already have established a close relationship. An adoptive mother is at least giving an existing child one parent (much better for the child to have one loving parent than to have none). But to deliberately conceive a child when you know it will not have both a father and a mother is quite another thing. Frankly, it strikes me as a rather selfish act. Should the church allow a single brother to adopt? If so, should a single sister be given priority over a single brother? If it is OK for a single sister to use AI, would it be OK for a single brother?
Rob Osborn Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 It just shows how lowly degraded we are as a society when we discuss whether or not single females should be allowed to artificially get pregenant. Tell me- is there any part to any of it that is morally correct?
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Yes, it's very hard when a woman wants to get married and hasn't found anyone yet, but it doesn't excuse intentionally robbing a child of having a mother and a father.I would agree if it was the case that every single child was instantly adopted by a married couple. Unfortunately that is not the case. I am suggesting that one parent is better than none in these cases
Recommended Posts