Dead people having kids

[Fiannan]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... vf/583588/

Over the past two decades, posthumous reproduction has occurred throughout the world in modest but growing numbers. In this version of assisted reproduction, men donate their genetic material in life, or have it extracted after death, so that they may continue their genetic lineage. Experts predict that the number of these procedures is likely to increase as reproductive technology gains prevalence and as “alternative families,” composed of combinations beyond the traditional heterosexual, two-parent setup gradually gain acceptance. Israel, an exceptionally pro-natalist country with the highest usage of IVF per capita, is a thriving laboratory for this novel way of family-making.

Interesting. Making babies is not limited to living people after all.

[Thinker]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

[Fiannan]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Yes, a perfect world. However, there are couples where men are sterile or have a serious genetic disorder. And since we have strict monogamist system (monogamy was condemned by leaders in the Church in the 19th Century) there will be lots of women who have no other alternative than sperm banks.

No, a man who donates through a clinic, or privately, should not be held financially liable for any children he creates. In that event no man would donate, and in a sense no woman would donate eggs. Tens of thousands of American children would never have had the chance to be born.

PS, even the Holy Handbook states that it is okay for men to donate sperm and women to donate eggs. It is slightly discouraged, but no penalties at all. Kind of like buying a Mountain Dew on a Sunday.

[MMbelieve]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Yes, a perfect world. However, there are couples where men are sterile or have a serious genetic disorder. And since we have strict monogamist system (monogamy was condemned by leaders in the Church in the 19th Century) there will be lots of women who have no other alternative than sperm banks.

No, a man who donates through a clinic, or privately, should not be held financially liable for any children he creates. In that event no man would donate, and in a sense no woman would donate eggs. Tens of thousands of American children would never have had the chance to be born.

PS, even the Holy Handbook states that it is okay for men to donate sperm and women to donate eggs. It is slightly discouraged, but no penalties at all. Kind of like buying a Mountain Dew on a Sunday.

You going to have to back up the PS statement. Also, why do you call it a Holy Handbook?

[Fiannan]

You going to have to back up the PS statement. Also, why do you call it a Holy Handbook?

What does PS stand for, political science? If you mean the statement in general, look it up. It is discouraged but no penalties. A woman could, theoretically, sell eggs and pay for her mission. Also, if an LDS couple have a child that is biologically someone's donation, that child is sealed to them. Not sure what the policy is if an LDS woman were to sell eggs, and produce a child who later discovered her identity and then converted to the Church. Could the child then get sealed to the biological parent if neither of her parents wanted to become members?

As for some people paying more attention to the handbook than previous prophetic statements or even scripture then that is why it should be called "The Holy Handbook."

[LadyT]

I joked about it with my husband. That if he died before I had my kids, I would have them harvest sperm and have my kids anyway.

I wanted to be a mom. I wanted several kids. I wanted them all with the same dad. I would never remarry if my husband died. It was mostly a joke. But in that moment, I may have done it.
We are done having kids now. So we will never know....

[nvr]

You going to have to back up the PS statement. Also, why do you call it a Holy Handbook?

What does PS stand for, political science? If you mean the statement in general, look it up. It is discouraged but no penalties. A woman could, theoretically, sell eggs and pay for her mission. Also, if an LDS couple have a child that is biologically someone's donation, that child is sealed to them. Not sure what the policy is if an LDS woman were to sell eggs, and produce a child who later discovered her identity and then converted to the Church. Could the child then get sealed to the biological parent if neither of her parents wanted to become members?

As for some people paying more attention to the handbook than previous prophetic statements or even scripture then that is why it should be called "The Holy Handbook."

Just curious what your opinion is on the Proclamation on the Family document. It seems like there's an unbalanced focus from many of your posts on any and all scenarios and topics outside of the monogamous husband and wife setup. Are you bringing up such topics perhaps to seed them in the minds of people in the church and have them draw the conclusions your after? Is this all just part of your push to reopen the door for sanctioned adultery, or polygamy?

[kirtland r.m.]

I know a fifteen year old girl, in my son's high school, she is a friend of his, who's mother has been a confirmed lesbian. Her mother wanted a child, went to sperm bank evidently, and the rest is history. Execpt for this poor girl who is very depressed and doesn't know who her father is.

[MMbelieve]

I know a fifteen year old girl, in my son's high school, she is a friend of his, who's mother has been a confirmed lesbian. Her mother wanted a child, went to sperm bank evidently, and the rest is history. Execpt for this poor girl who is very depressed and doesn't know who her father is.

I wonder how much money guys make donating. I dont understand how guys can do that and not know how many potential children they have and not want to even be part of the kids life.

Poor girl, she will never know who her father is unless she finds him through a DNA service but then he may not want any contact anyways. Every girl needs a dad that loves her so she has a better chance at marrying a good guy.

[MMbelieve]

You going to have to back up the PS statement. Also, why do you call it a Holy Handbook?

What does PS stand for, political science? If you mean the statement in general, look it up. It is discouraged but no penalties. A woman could, theoretically, sell eggs and pay for her mission. Also, if an LDS couple have a child that is biologically someone's donation, that child is sealed to them. Not sure what the policy is if an LDS woman were to sell eggs, and produce a child who later discovered her identity and then converted to the Church. Could the child then get sealed to the biological parent if neither of her parents wanted to become members?

As for some people paying more attention to the handbook than previous prophetic statements or even scripture then that is why it should be called "The Holy Handbook."

Common, your the one who used PS at the end of your post and thats what I referred to to be clear. And it means post scriptum.

Another question for you, is something okay if theres no formal “punishment” attatched?

[Fiannan]

Just curious what your opinion is on the Proclamation on the Family document. It seems like there's an unbalanced focus from many of your posts on any and all scenarios and topics outside of the monogamous husband and wife setup. Are you bringing up such topics perhaps to seed them in the minds of people in the church and have them draw the conclusions your after? Is this all just part of your push to reopen the door for sanctioned adultery, or polygamy?

Do you consider polygamy as adultery? If you do then there is this one book that has the opposite view. In fact the author, so to speak, appears to require it at times. The book is known as "The Bible."

Oh please, you realize how many people have asked me if I have connections to the Illuminati? No, I just happen to have read into these topics, and what the future is being designed as by the powers-that-be. We can either blissfully go along like some young girl walking barefoot in a field and wondering why she is getting stuck in the foot so much, or be aware of what is taking place, and how we, as a culture are contributing to it. Yes, Mormon culture is just 20 years behind....in 20 years we will be where the blue state urban areas are now. We love glitz, glamour, Hollywood and the like. Just wait.

The Proclamation on the Family will probably wind up in the same boat as the US Constitution in coming years, something that will not be mentioned all that much in Church for fear of offending people, particularly the leaders in Relief Society. Just wait, you will see.

As for new techniques to help people get pregnant, again, is it not ironic that when the birth control pill became available, and the death sentence for western society was made certain, that God inspired new forms of reproductive sciences to be developed? A couple decades later Mormon women even jumped on the birth control bandwagon (not all, but a lot). God needs spirits to come down to earth and methods will come about to insure that.

[MMbelieve]

Just curious what your opinion is on the Proclamation on the Family document. It seems like there's an unbalanced focus from many of your posts on any and all scenarios and topics outside of the monogamous husband and wife setup. Are you bringing up such topics perhaps to seed them in the minds of people in the church and have them draw the conclusions your after? Is this all just part of your push to reopen the door for sanctioned adultery, or polygamy?

Do you consider polygamy as adultery? If you do then there is this one book that has the opposite view. In fact the author, so to speak, appears to require it at times. The book is known as "The Bible."

Oh please, you realize how many people have asked me if I have connections to the Illuminati? No, I just happen to have read into these topics, and what the future is being designed as by the powers-that-be. We can either blissfully go along like some young girl walking barefoot in a field and wondering why she is getting stuck in the foot so much, or be aware of what is taking place, and how we, as a culture are contributing to it. Yes, Mormon culture is just 20 years behind....in 20 years we will be where the blue state urban areas are now. We love glitz, glamour, Hollywood and the like. Just wait.

The Proclamation on the Family will probably wind up in the same boat as the US Constitution in coming years, something that will not be mentioned all that much in Church for fear of offending people, particularly the leaders in Relief Society. Just wait, you will see.

As for new techniques to help people get pregnant, again, is it not ironic that when the birth control pill became available, and the death sentence for western society was made certain, that God inspired new forms of reproductive sciences to be developed? A couple decades later Mormon women even jumped on the birth control bandwagon (not all, but a lot). God needs spirits to come down to earth and methods will come about to insure that.

The proclamation to the family will only ever go away because we dont live it anymore and at that point, we will have nothing.
Persecutions will come because we will be hated for standing against where the world is going, I dont see the church backing out of a belief in two genders and their god given responsibilities or advocating for a man/woman marriage for eternity. Sure plenty, if not a majority of members will fall trap and join the world. Christ’s kingdom is coming and there will be a church when he comes again.

There will be tons of children born in the millenium.

[Thinker]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Yes, a perfect world. However, there are couples where men are sterile or have a serious genetic disorder. And since we have strict monogamist system (monogamy was condemned by leaders in the Church in the 19th Century) there will be lots of women who have no other alternative than sperm banks.

No, a man who donates through a clinic, or privately, should not be held financially liable for any children he creates. In that event no man would donate, and in a sense no woman would donate eggs. Tens of thousands of American children would never have had the chance to be born.

PS, even the Holy Handbook states that it is okay for men to donate sperm and women to donate eggs. It is slightly discouraged, but no penalties at all. Kind of like buying a Mountain Dew on a Sunday.

Singles who insist on denying a child a mother or father ought to care for the many Foster kids who need homes - rather than artificially create another child who is like an orphan - never knowing one of their parents. I know someone who is in this situation- she has health problems and wonders if it’s from her biological unknown sperm doner- “father.”

[Fiannan]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Yes, a perfect world. However, there are couples where men are sterile or have a serious genetic disorder. And since we have strict monogamist system (monogamy was condemned by leaders in the Church in the 19th Century) there will be lots of women who have no other alternative than sperm banks.

No, a man who donates through a clinic, or privately, should not be held financially liable for any children he creates. In that event no man would donate, and in a sense no woman would donate eggs. Tens of thousands of American children would never have had the chance to be born.

PS, even the Holy Handbook states that it is okay for men to donate sperm and women to donate eggs. It is slightly discouraged, but no penalties at all. Kind of like buying a Mountain Dew on a Sunday.

Singles who insist on denying a child a mother or father ought to care for the many Foster kids who need homes - rather than artificially create another child who is like an orphan - never knowing one of their parents. I know someone who is in this situation- she has health problems and wonders if it’s from her biological unknown sperm doner- “father.”

Women using fertility clinics in the USA are given detailed information about a donor's health and intelligence. Most kids from such reproductive services are healthier than regular kids.

And who says it is morally superior to adopt or to take in a foster kid? Seriously, I see nothing in the scriptures that say it is in any way being morally superior. We have just had a lot of brainwashing thrown at us by the population control movement to guilt people who do want to reproduce.

[Thinker]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Yes, a perfect world. However, there are couples where men are sterile or have a serious genetic disorder. And since we have strict monogamist system (monogamy was condemned by leaders in the Church in the 19th Century) there will be lots of women who have no other alternative than sperm banks.

No, a man who donates through a clinic, or privately, should not be held financially liable for any children he creates. In that event no man would donate, and in a sense no woman would donate eggs. Tens of thousands of American children would never have had the chance to be born.

PS, even the Holy Handbook states that it is okay for men to donate sperm and women to donate eggs. It is slightly discouraged, but no penalties at all. Kind of like buying a Mountain Dew on a Sunday.

Singles who insist on denying a child a mother or father ought to care for the many Foster kids who need homes - rather than artificially create another child who is like an orphan - never knowing one of their parents. I know someone who is in this situation- she has health problems and wonders if it’s from her biological unknown sperm doner- “father.”

Women using fertility clinics in the USA are given detailed information about a donor's health and intelligence. Most kids from such reproductive services are healthier than regular kids.

And who says it is morally superior to adopt or to take in a foster kid? Seriously, I see nothing in the scriptures that say it is in any way being morally superior. We have just had a lot of brainwashing thrown at us by the population control movement to guilt people who do want to reproduce.

Yeah, who said anything about that?
It’s not a question of morality in and of itself.
But compare the need:

Over 2,000,000!! children in foster care still need homes.
Meanwhile, adoption for newborns involves waiting lists.
It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see the need is greater for foster kids.
And those who are offering less-than-ideal adoption conditions ought to help those who have even less-than-ideal current conditions.

[Rose Garden]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Then those who want something else will have to resort to the old fashioned way to do sperm donation: turkey baster.

[Rose Garden]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Yes, a perfect world. However, there are couples where men are sterile or have a serious genetic disorder. And since we have strict monogamist system (monogamy was condemned by leaders in the Church in the 19th Century) there will be lots of women who have no other alternative than sperm banks.

No, a man who donates through a clinic, or privately, should not be held financially liable for any children he creates. In that event no man would donate, and in a sense no woman would donate eggs. Tens of thousands of American children would never have had the chance to be born.

PS, even the Holy Handbook states that it is okay for men to donate sperm and women to donate eggs. It is slightly discouraged, but no penalties at all. Kind of like buying a Mountain Dew on a Sunday.

Singles who insist on denying a child a mother or father ought to care for the many Foster kids who need homes - rather than artificially create another child who is like an orphan - never knowing one of their parents. I know someone who is in this situation- she has health problems and wonders if it’s from her biological unknown sperm doner- “father.”

I'm a single mom. My child is not like an orphan.

[Thinker]

I believe that sperm doners should only be allowed to donate if they promise to help raise the child, if need be - thus a serious background check required. And only heterosexual couples who are married ought to be able to get a sperm doner if the man is unable to have kids.

While I’m at it, I’d like world peace and no more poverty.

Yes, a perfect world. However, there are couples where men are sterile or have a serious genetic disorder. And since we have strict monogamist system (monogamy was condemned by leaders in the Church in the 19th Century) there will be lots of women who have no other alternative than sperm banks.

No, a man who donates through a clinic, or privately, should not be held financially liable for any children he creates. In that event no man would donate, and in a sense no woman would donate eggs. Tens of thousands of American children would never have had the chance to be born.

PS, even the Holy Handbook states that it is okay for men to donate sperm and women to donate eggs. It is slightly discouraged, but no penalties at all. Kind of like buying a Mountain Dew on a Sunday.

Singles who insist on denying a child a mother or father ought to care for the many Foster kids who need homes - rather than artificially create another child who is like an orphan - never knowing one of their parents. I know someone who is in this situation- she has health problems and wonders if it’s from her biological unknown sperm doner- “father.”

I'm a single mom. My child is not like an orphan.

That’s not what I wrote, but maybe I wasn’t clear.
Foster kids/orphans are those with no parents.
Single parenthood is not ideal, compared to a husband and wife.
Fiannan was suggesting single parents who had no children would be better to get sperm doners and have babies than to adopt foster kids.

I explained that the need for foster kids to have better homes is massive and urgent - so those single parents who want to bring kids in to a less-than-ideal situation ought to adopt one or more of the 2,000,000 foster kids who are currently in worse circumstances.

[Fiannan]

I explained that the need for foster kids to have better homes is massive and urgent - so those single parents who want to bring kids in to a less-than-ideal situation ought to adopt one or more of the 2,000,000 foster kids who are currently in worse circumstances.

So wait, you say being a single woman in her 30s (who is thinking about sperm donation) is bringing her child (children) into a "less -than-ideal situation" and should instead bring a troubled child she has no genetic connection to, and no real insights into what makes the child tick, into her home? I would think a troubled child needs a man and a woman in the home 24/7 way more than a child who was voluntarily conceived, from a good genetic background.

Again, a huge amount of propaganda has been aimed at young women to adopt rather than conceive their own children. It is all part of the war to decimate the birthrate of western cultures. I have no problem with infertile couples, or older couples, adopting or taking in foster kids. It should just not be something people do instead of having their own offspring.

[nvr]

Just curious what your opinion is on the Proclamation on the Family document. It seems like there's an unbalanced focus from many of your posts on any and all scenarios and topics outside of the monogamous husband and wife setup. Are you bringing up such topics perhaps to seed them in the minds of people in the church and have them draw the conclusions your after? Is this all just part of your push to reopen the door for sanctioned adultery, or polygamy?

Do you consider polygamy as adultery? If you do then there is this one book that has the opposite view. In fact the author, so to speak, appears to require it at times. The book is known as "The Bible."

Oh please, you realize how many people have asked me if I have connections to the Illuminati? No, I just happen to have read into these topics, and what the future is being designed as by the powers-that-be. We can either blissfully go along like some young girl walking barefoot in a field and wondering why she is getting stuck in the foot so much, or be aware of what is taking place, and how we, as a culture are contributing to it. Yes, Mormon culture is just 20 years behind....in 20 years we will be where the blue state urban areas are now. We love glitz, glamour, Hollywood and the like. Just wait.

The Proclamation on the Family will probably wind up in the same boat as the US Constitution in coming years, something that will not be mentioned all that much in Church for fear of offending people, particularly the leaders in Relief Society. Just wait, you will see.

As for new techniques to help people get pregnant, again, is it not ironic that when the birth control pill became available, and the death sentence for western society was made certain, that God inspired new forms of reproductive sciences to be developed? A couple decades later Mormon women even jumped on the birth control bandwagon (not all, but a lot). God needs spirits to come down to earth and methods will come about to insure that.

I do consider it adultery because the law is to cling to your wife and none else. Careful study reveals God's standard from Bible (not talking about customs of people at that time which was included to describe difficulties that arise from the practice) and in BoM is one man to one wife. Those people who were misled about it by their ignorance or by leaders, perhaps have less to answer for.

These new reproductive science methods which enable single women to have children via artificial insemination from sperm banks you mention sounds more like something inspired from Brave New World than it does from God. How is this different than a woman going out and getting pregnant from whatever random genetically-fit stranger they can find? It almost seems like you're just trolling to bring this suggestion up. I can't think of anyone who would say for a single woman to start a family from a sperm bank, or even couple having trouble conceiving to do the same is the right way to go. What message does this send about the importance of marriage and father's and mother's roles, if the church were to open up to the idea of single sisters having children in this way?
Individual women or individual men should not be encouraged to adopt children on their own, in my point of view: children need both a father and a mother figure, ideally. Single people still have plenty of opportunities to mentor and get involved in a good way in lives of children in their extended families, at church and other outreach programs.

[Fiannan]

I do consider it adultery because the law is to cling to your wife and none else. Careful study reveals God's standard from Bible (not talking about customs of people at that time which was included to describe difficulties that arise from the practice) and in BoM is one man to one wife. Those people who were misled about it by their ignorance or by leaders, perhaps have less to answer for.

Why do people continue to take the Book of Mormon scripture out of context?

In addition, to say that the ancient prophets were merely following the ideas of their society opens the door for people today to say that modern prophets too are misled by the customs of our present society.

These new reproductive science methods which enable single women to have children via artificial insemination from sperm banks you mention sounds more like something inspired from Brave New World than it does from God. How is this different than a woman going out and getting pregnant from whatever random genetically-fit stranger they can find?

No sex is involved in artificial insemination. That is why a worthy LDS man or woman can donate sperm or eggs and there is no penalty.

It almost seems like you're just trolling to bring this suggestion up. I can't think of anyone who would say for a single woman to start a family from a sperm bank, or even couple having trouble conceiving to do the same is the right way to go. What message does this send about the importance of marriage and father's and mother's roles, if the church were to open up to the idea of single sisters having children in this way?

According to the Holy Handbook a couple in which the man is sterile, who use donated sperm and create a child, are automatically sealed to that child once born.

Do you know of any LDS fertility doctors who do not treat female patients with donated sperm if their husbands are sterile?

Individual women or individual men should not be encouraged to adopt children on their own, in my point of view: children need both a father and a mother figure, ideally. Single people still have plenty of opportunities to mentor and get involved in a good way in lives of children in their extended families, at church and other outreach programs.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I would never say that a woman who is in her late 30s, is financially secure, and of high intelligence and health should feel bad at all for going to a sperm bank. And my understanding is that it is becoming more common for LDS women to do so.

[brianj]

No sex is involved in artificial insemination. That is why a worthy LDS man or woman can donate sperm or eggs and there is no penalty.

You can't donate sperm unless you spank the monkey, and the church leaders have been quite specific on that subject. How many times has Elder Ballard taught men to not beat the bishop?

According to the Holy Handbook a couple in which the man is sterile, who use donated sperm and create a child, are automatically sealed to that child once born.

Do you know of any LDS fertility doctors who do not treat female patients with donated sperm if their husbands are sterile?

Individual women or individual men should not be encouraged to adopt children on their own, in my point of view: children need both a father and a mother figure, ideally. Single people still have plenty of opportunities to mentor and get involved in a good way in lives of children in their extended families, at church and other outreach programs.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I would never say that a woman who is in her late 30s, is financially secure, and of high intelligence and health should feel bad at all for going to a sperm bank. And my understanding is that it is becoming more common for LDS women to do so.

You should be careful about saying that conclusions of peer reviewed research are just someone's opinion. It is very clear from the research that children raised by single mothers tend to have far worse outcomes than children raised in two parent heterosexual households. And the church is quite explicit about single women going to sperm banks. The last time I looked at Handbook 1 I recall: "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."

You are entitled to an opinion that there's nothing wrong with taking actions that will lead to church discipline, but if it leads to church discipline then I'm pretty confident that action is very wrong.

[righteousrepublic]

Dead people having kids? That's okay. I also heard that people can put their ear to the grave of Beethoven and hear him decompose.

[Elizabeth]

A woman would usually prefer to have her own children rather than adopt or foster anothers.

[simpleton]

This whole idea and everything tied to it is the result of the corrupted state we are in, or if you will, because of our wickedness.