A Question on Sperm Counts

[CuriousInIL]

Because sexual pleasure must be sought in order to accomplish the desired result, it fits the full definition as defined in the catechism. Because sexual pleasure is inherently linked to the process, it is most definitely masturbation. Even if some good result is reached or obtained, such as a sample for collection, it in no way excludes that sexual pleasure is being sought.

If the idea is that “sexual pleasure is inherently linked to the process [btw, which process?],” then why does the CCC include the–apparently from this point of view duplicative–words “in order to derive sexual pleasure.” Seems like a rewrite of the definition to “the deliberate [or is deliberate also duplicative?] stimulation of the genital organs” period without regard to reason. That certainly could have been the definition, but it is not what is in the CCC.

Of course. If it were possible to separate the pleasure from the act, what would be the problem?

My point is that collection can/does separate the pleasure from the act, so I am unsure of your point.

 

[mapleoak]

If the idea is that “sexual pleasure is inherently linked to the process [btw, which process?],” then why does the CCC include the–apparently from this point of view duplicative–words “in order to derive sexual pleasure.” Seems like a rewrite of the definition to “the deliberate [or is deliberate also duplicative?] stimulation of the genital organs” period without regard to reason. That certainly could have been the definition, but it is not what is in the CCC.

Duplicative? Maybe. Some people question to find whatever loophole they can. One may fool themself, but cannot deceive God. Also don’t fall into the trap of thinking that if it isn’t listed in the catechism, all is well. This is no different then the approach taken by ‘sola scriptura’ folk. This applies to such instance as taking a particular CCC quote and reasoning that because it is a qualified quote (and calling it duplicative or some such) it works to the exclusion of what it specifically does not say.

My point is that collection can/does separate the pleasure from the act, so I am unsure of your point.

No it doesn’t, if masturbation is involved.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Duplicative? Maybe. Some people question to find whatever loophole they can. One may fool themself, but cannot deceive God. Also don’t fall into the trap of thinking that if it isn’t listed in the catechism, all is well. This is no different then the approach taken by ‘sola scriptura’ folk. This applies to such instance as taking a particular CCC quote and reasoning that because it is a qualified quote (and calling it duplicative or some such) it works to the exclusion of what it specifically does not say.

No it doesn’t, if masturbation is involved.

Huh?

The question is whether it is masturbation or not. You can’t assume the answer and then answer.

So, if you are not comfortable with the CCC definition i.e., all of the CCC definition, what is your definition of masturbation?

 

[Daniel_Kane]

According to the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops, it is licit to use a perforated condom as part of a medical assessment of infertility.

4. Appropriate evaluation and treatment of male factor deficiency. Seminal fluid samples can be obtained from a non-lubricated, perforated condom after normal intercourse.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

The Pontifical Academy for Life mentions the use of perforated condoms as well here, not for the purposes of analysis but for a particular type of assisted reproduction called GIFT where a harvested egg and sperm are injected in into the female. None the less, collection of semen in this manner is not considered illicit by the Pontifical Academy for Life:

I am thinking, in particular, of cases where the sperm is collected via intercourse using a perforated condom.

http://www.academiavita.org/templat...ni&pag=testo/dig_procr/watt/watt&lang=english

Noted Catholic Moral Theologian William May also has no problem with the use of perforated condoms for the intention of medical intervention or diagnosis.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/begetting.htm

In light of the above, it would seem that those who disagree are placing themselves at ethical odds with the official and public teaching of the American Bishops, the Pontifical Academy for Life and noted moral theologians known for their lifetime of study and loyalty to the Church.

I have never heard or could locate anything to the contrary of the above.

Except here.

Individuals may or may not be interested in this testing. But for a third party to condemn individuals who undergo this testing based on a private analysis of the moral issues at hand is objectively uncharitable to persons who suffer tremendous indignities in the quest to be open to life. Individuals who resort to the use of perforated condoms for the purposes of diagnosis commit no sin at least as far as the Pontifical Academy for Life and the American Bishops are concerned.

If one thinks that they have a unique angle on this moral issue, which seems largely settled, one should proffer a paper to the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly or some similar peer reviewed moral theology venue.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

ok—I assume that just putting sperm in the vagina is not the end-all be-all of whole proceedure–so why would removing some/all of it from the vagina be any better? A woman can’t get pregnant from what is removed if it is removed? I don’t see how this can be acceptable either. And it also seems to me that if this is done in the attempt to become pregnant–why wouldn’t it be considered a medical proceedure and be judged on the same merits as if a woman need some medical proceedure that left her as a side-effect infertile?
Ravyn

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Millions of sperm (normally) are released. Only one needs to find the egg to fertilize it. A couple using this technique already can not conceive, so removing a sample to analize does not contribute to their inability to conceive. Prior to seeking treatment, most have tried for years to conceive naturally.

Most moral theologians would suggest that ejaculation as a component of a normal marital act into a perforated condom maintains physically and symbolically the unitative and procreative nature of the act. This is the root of the OP’s question.

Common martial experience suggests that 100% of the ejaculate is not maintained within the woman coincident with the completion of the marital act.

In cases, where there is just reason (like the treatment of illness, injury or disease), it seems that the Church in her mercy allows a variation to occur within the usual marital actions to facilitate a diagnosis in the male.

This is not the norm, nor should it be construed to be some sort of loophole for condoms. It is the treatment of a disease or injury of the reproductive system(s) of the couple. Using reason, one can (a) fulfill the unitative aspect (no masturbation) (b) preserve the procreative aspect (right fluid, right space) and (c) collect a small sample for medical testing that hopefully result in a child.

 

[preyoflove]

Pardon me for revisiting my thread after almost three years, but I have to ask this question and I know it’s a long shot.

Anyway, does anybody know of a laboratory(ies) in the Philippines (and if by some miracle, Cebu City) that collect sample from the male for semen analysis in aid of treatment of infertility that does not involve means Holy Mother Church teaches to be wrong?

Thank you in advance.