Artificial insemination and the church

[krebscout]

So, I have a friend. She's the only non-Board-related person that I've met on the internet and then met in real life. She's a temple-going Latter-Day Saint (converted in her later teen years, I think), she's somewhere shy of thirty years old, she's had big health problems of all varieties (including some serious depression issues), got a big soul and a good sense of humor.

She's also had an incredible maternal drive the whole time I've known her. A baby-obsessed type. Not married. This afternoon, she wrote to me to tell me that she's started seeing a fertility specialist, and she plans to get artificially inseminated in January.

We had a short, surprisingly level-headed discussion about it; she says she's been praying about "how to start a family" for years, and now is the right time (though she's open to getting pregnant "by more conventional means"). She says she read the Handbook of Instructions, and while this is strongly discouraged, it won't affect her standing in the church. She says she's not scared of the stigma, but it is a consideration.

So...I don't think I'm really looking for a, "What can I say to this friend to convince her to change her mind?" kind of discussion; I've made my feelings, positive and negative, known to her, and it's not my place to launch a campaign against her decision. But I'm still just...a little baffled. I mean, it's an uncomfortably foreign idea. Parenthood with a partnership is difficult enough, and I can't even imagine voluntarily going at it alone. But who am I to deny her a family of her own, or adult children as she ages? I don't have the same reaction with the idea of her adopting children as a single, older woman. A younger one? If she's not likely to marry, does that make a difference? Adopted/inseminated? Is there a difference? What do you think?

[Laser Jock]

There are several reasons I wouldn't do this myself (if I were female), and one of the strongest ones is that I couldn't then be sealed to my child. They would miss out on the possibility of being sealed to their parents. Some might suggest that this is one of those things that'll be worked out in the hereafter, but it makes me very uncomfortable that that may not be the case. (Note that LDS Family Services does not allow adoption by single members, nor to couples that aren't temple-worthy, and it seems like I've repeatedly heard talks that emphasize an adoptive child being sealed to their parents.)

Then there are all of the well-documented problems that afflict such a high percentage of children in single-parent homes. That would worry me considerably too. I'm not saying people can't come out of a single-parent situation just fine, but the risks of not doing so are much greater.

As far as adopting vs. artificial insemination, or older vs. younger, or how likely it is that she'll marry (though who can really judge that?), I don't think any of those affect my answer. I do think that adopting as a single woman wouldn't be as weird as artificial insemination as a single woman, but my main concerns would stand either way.

[krebscout]

At the risk of sounding heartless, a parent-to-child sealing is not a saving ordinance. So I don't know exactly how familial relationships work with or without sealings after death, but she wouldn't be putting the child's eternal salvation at any extra peril.

So why would adopting be "less weird"?

[Rifka]

At the risk of sounding heartless, a parent-to-child sealing is not a saving ordinance. So I don't know exactly how familial relationships work with or without sealings after death, but she wouldn't be putting the child's eternal salvation at any extra peril.

No, but she would be jeopardizing her chance to be with her child forever. While that may not be jeopardizing her or her child's eternal salvation, it would be heartbreaking to lose one's child for eternity, even though you know he/she has been saved. In that light, it seems like getting artificially inseminated would be giving up what you want most, for what you want now-- choosing to have a child for life only, instead of waiting to have a child, with a spouse, for eternity. I'm not saying that's for sure how it would work, but I think that's the idea Laser Jock was getting at (feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you, LJ).
Also, by having a child that is not sealed to her, the child would be born without the blessings of the sealing bond/ordinance. The church strongly emphasizes the importance of having the blessings of that sealing-- to the extent that couples who are sealed in the temple but later divorce are generally not allowed a cancellation of sealing unless at least one is remarrying. The sealing ordinance brings blessings to the whole family, including children born within a sealing.

So why would adopting be "less weird"?

To me it would be less weird because adopting is saving an already born child from a less ideal situation. It's true that adopting a child as a single person would bring a lot of the difficulties of single parenting, but I could see how there could be situations when it might be acceptable (for example, if a single person adopting a child were the only way to get the child out of a terribly unhealthy family environment). Artificially inseminating a single woman, though, is deliberately bringing a child into less-than-ideal circumstances. I don't think I could bring a child into the world in good faith, as a single parent, knowing that I was intentionally bringing it into a more difficult family situation. The Proclamation on the Family states that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony." That's pretty strong language from the First Presidency and Apostles. If children are entitled to be born to married parents, I wouldn't feel comfortable denying them that privilege. I would feel comfortable adopting and raising a child as a single parent, though, if that were the only way to provide them a better, safer home. And that's my two cents.

[Katya]

While that may not be jeopardizing her or her child's eternal salvation, it would be heartbreaking to lose one's child for eternity, even though you know he/she has been saved.

What would this mean, exactly? What is it about the parent-child relationship that they would lose by not being sealed?

[Dragon Lady]

While that may not be jeopardizing her or her child's eternal salvation, it would be heartbreaking to lose one's child for eternity, even though you know he/she has been saved.

What would this mean, exactly? What is it about the parent-child relationship that they would lose by not being sealed?

What is it about the parent-child relationship that you gain by being sealed?

[Yarjka]

I sure hope God wouldn't eternally separate a mother from her child on a technicality or lack of paperwork. The temple is a house of order, but it shouldn't be a house of heartless bureaucracy.

I'd consider the wisdom of becoming a single mother on an individual level. Some people are more suited to being mothers and caregivers than others. There may be extended family nearby willing to help out. This child could very well have a terrific upbringing. But I do think it is a decision that should not be taken lightly--much like pregnancy in general, actually.

[Katya]

While that may not be jeopardizing her or her child's eternal salvation, it would be heartbreaking to lose one's child for eternity, even though you know he/she has been saved.

What would this mean, exactly? What is it about the parent-child relationship that they would lose by not being sealed?

What is it about the parent-child relationship that you gain by being sealed?

Right. That's what I'm asking.

[krebscout]

No, but she would be jeopardizing her chance to be with her child forever. While that may not be jeopardizing her or her child's eternal salvation, it would be heartbreaking to lose one's child for eternity, even though you know he/she has been saved. In that light, it seems like getting artificially inseminated would be giving up what you want most, for what you want now-- choosing to have a child for life only, instead of waiting to have a child, with a spouse, for eternity.

That's why I included, "At the risk of sounding heartless," and "I don't know exactly how familial relationships work with or without sealings after death." I think the organization of God IS, as Yarjka put it, "a heartless bureaucracy", more or less...it is just, it is strict.... but that the Atonement puts the heart back in it, and Christ takes care of the mercy part. I just don't know how it all works, and I honestly don't understand the nature of the blessing of being sealed to your children, how that compares to not being sealed to them, and so on. I can't make a judgment call when I don't understand what is or isn't at stake.

Being born into the covenant so the child can those blessings during life, yes, that is a big consideration, though I have ponderings about that, too.

And I don't see how getting artificially inseminated is a trade-off: "giving up what you want most, for what you want now-- choosing to have a child for life only, instead of waiting to have a child, with a spouse, for eternity." She could be married and sealed later on, then have the child sealed to the two of them, or she could have her work done by proxy after her death and still have the child sealed to her. Is that incorrect?

[Katya]

And I don't see how getting artificially inseminated is a trade-off: "giving up what you want most, for what you want now-- choosing to have a child for life only, instead of waiting to have a child, with a spouse, for eternity." She could be married and sealed later on, then have the child sealed to the two of them, or she could have her work done by proxy after her death and still have the child sealed to her. Is that incorrect?

I believe she can have the child sealed to her and her husband if she gets married later on but I don't think she can have the child sealed only to her if she dies unmarried. (Although now I'm wondering how they manage that with sketchy genealogical records. Like, what if you only know the name of someone's father but not their mother? But I suppose that in the past you would at least assume that there was a marriage that took place, even if you didn't know the name of the spouse.)

[krebscout]

Well, I was working under the idea that she would be sealed to a man after death as well, as one of the women who had the desire but not the opportunity to marry in this life, and would not be denied the blessings...I don't know. This is all really sticky stuff.

[Katya]

Well, I was working under the idea that she would be sealed to a man after death as well, as one of the women who had the desire but not the opportunity to marry in this life, and would not be denied the blessings...I don't know.

Right. I think that the opportunity to be sealed to someone you didn't find in this life is one of those things we believe in, doctrinally, but can't really do anything about on this end. Like one of those blessings that will maybe be taken care of in the Millennium?

This is all really sticky stuff.

Indeed. And, as has been mentioned previously in this thread, we don't even know what it means, concretely, to be sealed to a family member for eternity.

[Rifka]

While that may not be jeopardizing her or her child's eternal salvation, it would be heartbreaking to lose one's child for eternity, even though you know he/she has been saved.

What would this mean, exactly? What is it about the parent-child relationship that they would lose by not being sealed?

Um, THE relationship. We have been clearly taught that we will not be with our families in the eternities if we have not been sealed. Current church doctrine does not allow a single parent to be sealed to their child. Like I said, I don't know how God works with sticky situations like the one we're discussing, but I personally wouldn't take the chance.

I believe she can have the child sealed to her and her husband if she gets married later on but I don't think she can have the child sealed only to her if she dies unmarried. (Although now I'm wondering how they manage that with sketchy genealogical records. Like, what if you only know the name of someone's father but not their mother? But I suppose that in the past you would at least assume that there was a marriage that took place, even if you didn't know the name of the spouse.)

That's correct. Current church policy is that a person who was never married during their lifetime may not be sealed to someone to whom they were not married, and children may not be sealed to them. As for the sketchy situations where you only know the name of the father and not the mother-- the assumption is still there that a marriage existed. In that case the parents would be sealed and listed in church records like this "Robert Smith and Mrs. Smith." There must be at least a supposition of marriage, though, preferrably proof of one. In a situation like an illegitimate child, we do not seal the child to the mother because there was no marriage. Sealing of spouses must precede sealings of parents to children. However, A Member's Guide to Temple and Family History states that "You may have a deceased couple sealed to each other if they lived together as husband and wife, even if the marriage cannot be documented. You can use the FamilySearch Internet site to prepare these names for temple ordinances without any other approval process." (pg 31). Intereresting. I'm assuming, though, that this circumstance refers to couples who lived together for an extended period of time and bore children together, not couples that had an illegitimate child as a result of a one-time fling.

And I don't see how getting artificially inseminated is a trade-off: "giving up what you want most, for what you want now-- choosing to have a child for life only, instead of waiting to have a child, with a spouse, for eternity." She could be married and sealed later on, then have the child sealed to the two of them, or she could have her work done by proxy after her death and still have the child sealed to her. Is that incorrect?

That's still taking a gamble-- a gamble that she will actually meet someone, marry him, and be sealed to him in this life. Although, as I'm reading through everyone's responses to my statement, it occurs to me that I wrote it under the assumption that if a mother is artificially inseminated and raises a child, because she cannot be sealed to the child in this life, she will never be sealed to the child. That may not be true. Some of you pointed out that if the woman lived a faithful life, she will be blessed with a husband and children in the next life. I suppose it's entirely possible that she could receive that blessing and then be sealed to the child she bore during her mortal lifetime. I suppose my biggest problem with that line of thought is that we've been taught that this life is the time to receive ordinances. We would be concerned if a couple chose not to be sealed in this life because they could always receive the sealing in the next life. I think most members would view that scenario as "procrastinating the day of their repentance." How, then, does intentionally chosing to have a child in a way that prevents them from being sealed to you fit in? I'm not sure. All I know is it makes me uncomfortable in the same way it does to think about someone chosing not to be sealed in this life because they can always do it later? Why take the chance?

I sure hope God wouldn't eternally separate a mother from her child on a technicality or lack of paperwork. The temple is a house of order, but it shouldn't be a house of heartless bureaucracy.

I'd certainly hope not either, Yarjka. I believe that God is merciful and that his house is not just a heartless bureacracy. However, on the other hand, isn't your argument strikingly similar to that used by individuals to justify circumstances such as living together without marriage? i.e. "I can't believe that a loving God would separate me from my husband just because we didn't have a signed paper with our names on it." God certainly isn't a heartless bureaucrat, but he still maintains a house of order. He is still bound by certain laws, including laws requiring certain ordinances by certain times. How artificially inseminating a single woman fits into that, I don't know. I'd like to think he would be merciful in that circumstance, but if it were me personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

I still think that the biggest problem with the idea of a single woman using artificial insemination to get pregnant is the fact that we've been taught that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony." Again, that seems like a pretty blunt, straightforward statement to me. I wouldn't feel comfortable chosing to deny my child that basic right. It surprised me that none of you commented on that part of my argument. I'm curious-- is that because you don't consider the Proclamation on the Family to be doctrine, or because you were too busy examining my first argument, or for some other reason?

BTW, I would like to make a disclaimer here that the things I am posting about this topic are in no way intended to pass judgment on krebscout's friend. I understand that it is not my place to judge here. The things I have said about artificial insemination are my thoughts about the idea in general, not krebscout's specific case, and are based on the feelings I would have if I were in the situation, myself.

[Rifka]

Krebscout, how closely has your friend read the handbook?

I just looked through Handbook 2 online and found the following statement in section 21.4.3 (sorry, the online version doesn't give page numbers-- one of my pet peeves):

"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."

So, it's pretty clear that artificially inseminating a single woman is not appropriate for a church member. That seals the deal for me. Knowing that, there's no way I could personally feel okay about choosing to be artificially inseminated as a single woman. Krebscout, I'd encourage your friend to read the handbook more carefully and consider discussing the issue with her bishop.

The handbook (handbook 2, at least-- that's the only one I have access to) doesn't say anything about single individuals adopting, though. I guess that one is left to individual discretion.

[krebscout]

Oh, I think you've been entirely respectful and reasonable, and I'm not necessarily trying to argue FOR artificial insemination, just trying to understand it better. I wanted a good discussion, so thanks for providing it.

As for "entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony," I'm just not sure I have a comment on it. In my mind, that statement basically means two things: it's generally better for the kid to be born into a two-parent home, and it's better for the kid to be born into the covenant. Both of which have already been covered to some degree.

[krebscout]

Krebscout, how closely has your friend read the handbook?

I just looked through Handbook 2 online and found the following statement in section 21.4.3 (sorry, the online version doesn't give page numbers-- one of my pet peeves):

"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."

So, it's pretty clear that artificially inseminating a single woman is not appropriate for a church member. That seals the deal for me. Knowing that, there's no way I could personally feel okay about choosing to be artificially inseminated as a single woman. Krebscout, I'd encourage your friend to read the handbook more carefully and consider discussing the issue with her bishop.

The handbook (handbook 2, at least-- that's the only one I have access to) doesn't say anything about single individuals adopting, though. I guess that one is left to individual discretion.

Oh. Hm. Maybe I should ask her to take a look at this.

[mic0]

Maybe I shouldn't be friends with people I'm not sealed to since I might become emotionally attached to them, love them deeply, maybe more than my own family, but eternally I can't be with them.

Obviously that was sarcasm. I understand the reasoning that if you won't be sealed to your adopted child then you are missing out on something eternally (arguably), but does that mean you can't help someone in this life? Seems like a strange reason not to adopt a child and give them a better life as well as make your own life more meaningful.

@krebscout - I agree that adopted by a single person seems more acceptable than artificial insemination, but for me that is for two reasons. One, I have never understood the drive to pass on my own DNA. I probably will have children someday, and my opinion might change then, but I feel like it is the relationship more than the genetics that makes the parent-child relationship meaningful. Second, there are so many children who need families. It just... I don't know. But that is a personal choice. Just giving you more opinions.

[krebscout]

I thought about the "adoption = rescuing" idea, too, but I'm just not satisfied with that. I mean, maybe the kid was an orphan, and she could go to a single woman or to a two-parent family (with potential to be sealed). Maybe the kid would be "better off," by our criteria, by not being adopted by the single lady. It's not always a "rescue," and whether it is or it isn't, I'm not sure we're omniscient enough to tell. The woman wants a child. Either by insemination or by adoption she's still choosing to create an "unsealable" situation. Whether she wants the child to have her own DNA or not is her own business.

It feels like there's a difference, but I'm not sure I see one.

[NerdGirl]

Here is my issue with artificial insemination in general (about artificial insemination from an unknown donor, anyway). I think people have a right, whenever possible, to know who their biological parents were. Obviously sometimes this is in conflict with their right to life and safety, and that's different. If someone has to anonymously give their baby up for adoption because they're in a bad situation, well, then, unfortunately the child might not get to know who their parents were. If a teenage mom drops her baby off anonymously at the fire station because her and the baby's lives are in danger because she got pregnant and the baby never gets to know who its parents were, I don't have too much of a problem with that, because it's better than the alternatives. But I have a problem with artificially creating situations where someone doesn't get to know who one or both of their parents were. People deserve to know their genetic background if at all possible because it affects their life and health.

Also,

The temple is a house of order, but it shouldn't be a house of heartless bureaucracy.

I really hope you are right about that. I really do.

[Katya]

While that may not be jeopardizing her or her child's eternal salvation, it would be heartbreaking to lose one's child for eternity, even though you know he/she has been saved.

What would this mean, exactly? What is it about the parent-child relationship that they would lose by not being sealed?

Um, THE relationship. We have been clearly taught that we will not be with our families in the eternities if we have not been sealed.

Maybe I shouldn't be friends with people I'm not sealed to since I might become emotionally attached to them, love them deeply, maybe more than my own family, but eternally I can't be with them.

I think Mico's point is a great counterexample. After all, we're taught that we will have "that same sociality" in heaven that we have on earth, which would seem to include friends and others to whom we are not sealed. So we'll be able to be with them (assuming we're all in the same kingdom, I suppose), but not with our family members if we're not sealed to them? And if being sealed to someone is all about being with them for eternity, why don't couples have their sealing cancelled upon civil divorce? (One presumes they don't want to be together for eternity, any more.) And why are we taught that the family of someone who's excommunicated doesn't lose the blessings of being sealed to that person, even though that person is (presumably) not going to be with them in the eternities?

I'm not questioning the idea that being sealed to family members has value—it's clear that our church leaders think it's important. I am questioning the idea that we really know what the concrete implications are of being sealed to someone or not. (And this is all without getting into historical beliefs and practices regarding sealings, which are significantly different from those of the current era.)

Current church doctrine does not allow a single parent to be sealed to their child. Like I said, I don't know how God works with sticky situations like the one we're discussing, but I personally wouldn't take the chance.

This strikes me as an odd argument to make in a religious context, because isn't religious faith all about taking chances? Isn't faith "not to have a perfect knowledge of things"? Which is not to say that faith is a justification for general recklessness—I suppose I'd say that the difference between the two is that faith has to be driven by some sort of divine guidance. I would hope that krebscout's friend is making this choice prayerfully, but if she feels guided to adopt as a single person (since artificial insemination is apparently off the table), I would hope that not knowing for sure what would happen to her and her child in the eternities wouldn't stop her from doing what she feels is right.

(When I get time, I'll address your quote from the Proclamation on the Family, because I agree that it's a strong argument against adopting as a single parent.)