mfbukowski 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?If she is single by no choice or fault of her own, why is it "immoral"? Who is harmed? What commandment does it violate? She can continue to seek a faithful man to marry. I honestly don't see the problem- please explain it.
Calm Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 is there any part to any of it that is morally correct?So the desire to have children in a woman is immoral and not God inspired (and strongly too in order to overcome the memory of pain and extreme inconvenience)? We sure have a church full of sinners then. It would probably be a good idea for you to write lds.org and tell them to correct all their articles about the "righteous desire to have children".
strappinglad Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Is there a moral difference between a turkey baster AI and the ' natural ' method? We have quite a few examples in scripture where the woman was barren and had strong desires to have a child. What was done about it? I think about the teenage girls who intentionally get pregnant in order to have someone to love them. Messing with the procreative power is dangerous and not something to be done just because one has 'strong desires'. Today's medical establishment has the ability to create an embryo in a test tube, implant it in a surrogate and abort it in time to harvest the organs. Anyone have a problem with that? Science fiction has already outlined many scenarios way more repulsive but humanity has a way of making fiction become fact.
EllenMaksoud Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 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 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. Why ask?
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Is there a moral difference between a turkey baster AI and the ' natural ' method? We have quite a few examples in scripture where the woman was barren and had strong desires to have a child. What was done about it? I think about the teenage girls who intentionally get pregnant in order to have someone to love them. Messing with the procreative power is dangerous and not something to be done just because one has 'strong desires'. Today's medical establishment has the ability to create an embryo in a test tube, implant it in a surrogate and abort it in time to harvest the organs. Anyone have a problem with that? Science fiction has already outlined many scenarios way more repulsive but humanity has a way of making fiction become fact.Perhaps let's just say that harvesting the sperm may require an immoral act. That's about all I can think of.
Scott Lloyd 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 submit that in a good many cases it's a matter of not being able to find a worthy man who will marry them who is suitable to them.I'm all for allowing everyone -- women and men -- to be selective in the choice of a mate. But you are talking about entitlement here, and no one is entitled to be excused from the consequences of his or her choices, including the choice to be selective. One potential consequence is the indefinite postponement of bearing and rearing children until such children, who have no choice in the matter, can be blessed with the optimal condition of having both a father and mother who are present and devoted to their care. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 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 casesAre you certain it's a matter of one parent vs. none? I've long heard how difficult it is for many couples who yearn to adopt a child yet are prevented from doing so by cumbersome, unaffordable or impossible regulations. Maybe the more urgent need is for reform in adoption laws and regulation. For example, I think the regulations discriminate unduly against older couples who wish to adopt. You say one parent is better than none; I say a stable and committed older couple are a far more promising candidate as adoptive parents than is a single woman -- or a single man, for that matter. 1
Tsuzuki Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Perhaps let's just say that harvesting the sperm may require an immoral act. That's about all I can think of.http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/01/308737968/provocative-research-turns-skin-cells-into-sperm "Scientists reported Thursday they had figured out a way to make primitive human sperm out of skin cells, an advance that could someday help infertile men have children." How about sperm made from a woman's skin cells used to fertilize her own egg?
thesometimesaint Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Is there a moral difference between a turkey baster AI and the ' natural ' method? We have quite a few examples in scripture where the woman was barren and had strong desires to have a child. What was done about it? I think about the teenage girls who intentionally get pregnant in order to have someone to love them. Messing with the procreative power is dangerous and not something to be done just because one has 'strong desires'.Today's medical establishment has the ability to create an embryo in a test tube, implant it in a surrogate and abort it in time to harvest the organs. Anyone have a problem with that? Science fiction has already outlined many scenarios way more repulsive but humanity has a way of making fiction become fact. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. IE; The AMA has a Code of Ethics which bars such actions.
stemelbow Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I'll go out on a limb here and wager that in time this talk of disciplining single ladies who have children using medical methods will be settled and the Church will insert some sort of caveat which will enable the decision to be made prayerfully and with appropriate counsel from leaders, or something. If I were a single woman and felt strongly I needed to do this, I'd say, forget Church policy I'm receiving personal revelation on this matter. I was single for quite a while (married when I was 31) and was friends with many single sisters. many went on to successful careers but did not get married. A trend started among them and a few of them adopted. They had the means and the ability to do it, so they did. I don't know how that went over with their Church leaders, what they had to work out. But they did.
BlueDreams 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. The process is likely to differ based on who is being adopted/what child the couple is looking to adopt. Demand is highest for a specific demographic of children....specifically white, healthy infants....so it'll often take more work to do so. Older Children, children of different races (especially black children), or children with special medical needs are often "easier" to adopt. I would agree with the idea of working to find a home with a mother/father. But where a home is less likely to be accomplished, any stable family household is better the an unstable or temporary place to call home. With luv,BD
MorningStar Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/01/308737968/provocative-research-turns-skin-cells-into-sperm "Scientists reported Thursday they had figured out a way to make primitive human sperm out of skin cells, an advance that could someday help infertile men have children." How about sperm made from a woman's skin cells used to fertilize her own egg?That's just wrong.
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Well I thank the OP for raising an issue which I have not thought much about before, and since I raised so many questions, I think I owe it to the community to correct myself after thinking it through again. Of course as always it was a discussion with my wife which set me straight- I am so blessed to be married to the best woman (for me) on the planet- if we were not "made for each other" on day one, after nearly 35 years together of bumping against each other, grinding off the friction points and enlarging the hollows, we are indeed now totally made for each other. We fit together perfectly. But I think that itself partially gave my my answer, and that is that I think the PLAN is that all children be created by loving couples. Part of it all is achieving "loving couple-hood", whatever process that takes in each individual to grind the friction points and puff up the hollows to "fit" with someone. Some cannot do that, through no fault of their own. That is part of life, unfortunately, and the way of the world. For some, they might not have the social skills, for others, there might be psychological issues, or physical issues and handicaps. We are all handicapped in some way. We all also are born with an innate desire and ability to overcome all these things- sometimes it can be done, sometimes it cannot. Some may just plain not want it or be interested. Some put career plans ahead of these issues. To each their own way. Obviously if it is a biological problem where the "loving couple-hood" already exists, adoption is the way to go, or even artificial insemination by whatever technique. The problem as I now see it is the idea of donating sperm or eggs, or treating those precious cells as a commodity. It objectifies the process and takes it completely out of the context of THE PLAN. It becomes an issue of taking the results of what Buber would call an "I-Thou" relationship, and objectifying those results. As I see it, that is the problem. If that doesn't ring a bell, read some Buber or Ostler, who borrows heavily from Buber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least for now. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Fighting over embryos because of a divorce? That is the ultimate objectification of what should have been an I-Thou relationship. Embryos weaponized. Not the PLAN 1
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/05/01/308737968/provocative-research-turns-skin-cells-into-sperm "Scientists reported Thursday they had figured out a way to make primitive human sperm out of skin cells, an advance that could someday help infertile men have children." How about sperm made from a woman's skin cells used to fertilize her own egg?Yeah, I gotta go with USU on that one. Not even "I-Thou" just pure I. 1
rockpond 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.We have a close family friend, a single sister, I think that she was probably in her late 30's when she decided to adopt a little girl from China. Seemed like a good thing to me and as far as I know, she never faced any church discipline.
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Yeah, I gotta go with USU on that one. Not even "I-Thou" just pure I. You're just being a whiny buber.
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Well I thank the OP for raising an issue which I have not thought much about before, and since I raised so many questions, I think I owe it to the community to correct myself after thinking it through again.Of course as always it was a discussion with my wife which set me straight- I am so blessed to be married to the best woman (for me) on the planet- if we were not "made for each other" on day one, after nearly 35 years together of bumping against each other, grinding off the friction points and enlarging the hollows, we are indeed now totally made for each other. We fit together perfectly.But I think that itself partially gave my my answer, and that is that I think the PLAN is that all children be created by loving couples. Part of it all is achieving "loving couple-hood", whatever process that takes in each individual to grind the friction points and puff up the hollows to "fit" with someone.Some cannot do that, through no fault of their own. That is part of life, unfortunately, and the way of the world. For some, they might not have the social skills, for others, there might be psychological issues, or physical issues and handicaps. We are all handicapped in some way. We all also are born with an innate desire and ability to overcome all these things- sometimes it can be done, sometimes it cannot.Some may just plain not want it or be interested. Some put career plans ahead of these issues. To each their own way.Obviously if it is a biological problem where the "loving couple-hood" already exists, adoption is the way to go, or even artificial insemination by whatever technique.The problem as I now see it is the idea of donating sperm or eggs, or treating those precious cells as a commodity. It objectifies the process and takes it completely out of the context of THE PLAN.It becomes an issue of taking the results of what Buber would call an "I-Thou" relationship, and objectifying those results. As I see it, that is the problem. If that doesn't ring a bell, read some Buber or Ostler, who borrows heavily from Buber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_ThouAnyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least for now. So glad you returned to the categorical imperative. Kant wins every time! 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 There are plenty of teens and preteens that would someone to adopt them.
seriously honestly Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 What kind of church discipline and would the discipline be any different than a single women got pregnant because they had pre-martial sex?
thesometimesaint Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Fornication, whether or not, it leads to pregnancy makes one subject to Church Discipline.
Rob Osborn Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 If she is single by no choice or fault of her own, why is it "immoral"? Who is harmed? What commandment does it violate? She can continue to seek a faithful man to marry. I honestly don't see the problem- please explain it.Are you really serious? God sanctions the conception of children only within the bonds of marriage.
Rob Osborn Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 So the desire to have children in a woman is immoral and not God inspired (and strongly too in order to overcome the memory of pain and extreme inconvenience)? We sure have a church full of sinners then. It would probably be a good idea for you to write lds.org and tell them to correct all their articles about the "righteous desire to have children".Please keep it in the proper context. This has nothing to do with "righteous desire to have children". A righteous desire to have children is defined by a someone who desires to be married to a person of the opposite sex in whom they love and from there have children within the bounds, sanctity and protection of the marriage relationship. A single woman who has no husband but still wants children is not a bad desire, she just needs to fulfill that desire through the marriage covenant. 1
Ahab Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 If she is single by no choice or fault of her own, why is it "immoral"? Who is harmed? What commandment does it violate? She can continue to seek a faithful man to marry. I honestly don't see the problem- please explain it.I think the key point in the CHI is that it should not be encouraged. So that's not necessarily saying that it is bad. Just not the best way to go about having a child. 1
Recommended Posts