Artificial insemination vs medical advances?

[whatevergirl]

I have always pondered this…why is it in the Catholic faith, that it’s ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ to be artifically inseminated (as a married person) and it is not morally wrong to receive chemotherapy for example? I know the reasons, but when you think about it…on the one hand, we say…it’s not God’s plan for us to bring life into the world except through natural means…but is it ok to sustain life, with artificial means? Can artifical insemination never be looked at as a medical advance or medicine, in some senses?

I do understand the reasoning, but sometimes, I get tripped up. Your clear thoughts on the matter would be most helpful. Thanks!

 

[1ke]

The Church doesn’t teach that artificial insemination is wrong because “it’s not God’s plan for us to bring life into the world except through natural means…”.

The Church teaches that each act of sexual intercourse must be **both **unitive and procreative or we are using our sexual faculties in a disordered way.

Artificial insemination violates the unitive element of the marital embrace, just as contraception violates the procreative element.

Neither the unitive nor the procreative may be removed from the act. The natural act of intercourse may be assisted but not replaced.

I see no parallel to chemotherapy to kill cancer cells.

 

[whatevergirl]

The Church doesn’t teach that artificial insemination is wrong because “it’s not God’s plan for us to bring life into the world except through natural means…”.

The Church teaches that each act of sexual intercourse must be **both **unitive and procreative or we are using our sexual faculties in a disordered way.

Artificial insemination violates the unitive element of the marital embrace, just as contraception violates the procreative element.

Neither the unitive nor the procreative may be removed from the act. The natural act of intercourse may be assisted but not replaced.

I see no parallel to chemotherapy to kill cancer cells.

Ok…I needed someone to explain this, and you did. I appreciate your reply…I obviously was a bit off in my understanding. I make the parallel, because a woman who cannot bear children, can be seen as having a ‘problem to solve’ in the medical world, similiar to solving (curing) cancer. In one sense, no one is being ‘cured’ through artificial insemination, but it can be viewed as a problem to be solved. There are many women who look at this as a blessing…and is it wrong for them to do so, if it brought life into this world? Does this make sense?

 

[Sure]

Ok…I needed someone to explain this, and you did. I appreciate your reply…I obviously was a bit off in my understanding. I make the parallel, because a woman who cannot bear children, can be seen as having a ‘problem to solve’ in the medical world, similiar to solving (curing) cancer. In one sense, no one is being ‘cured’ through artificial insemination, but it can be viewed as a problem to be solved. There are many women who look at this as a blessing…and is it wrong for them to do so, if it brought life into this world? Does this make sense?

Just to clarify, the Church DOES allow for homologous (between a married couple) artificial insemination as long as it assists the natural act of intercourse and does not replace it. Please note also that artificial insemination is not the same as in vitro fertilization.

God bless!

 

[Seatuck]

Just to clarify, the Church DOES allow for homologous (between a married couple) artificial insemination as long as it assists the natural act of intercourse and does not replace it. Please note also that artificial insemination is not the same as in vitro fertilization.

God bless!

No, I don’t believe this is allowed. The US Bishop’s have it listed as up for discussion but that doesn’t give us carte blanche to use it.

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

 

[Seatuck]

From the CCC-

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2377.htm

**

**2377 **

Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”**

There seems to be a difference of opinion between the US Bishop’s and the CCC. Here’s an article-

catholicexchange.com/node/64255

catholicexchange.com/node/64255

 

[Sure]

Seatuck,

It’s a common confusion because the Catechism doesn’t go into all the details on this subject.

Here is the relevant passage from Donum Vitae by Cardinal ratzinger:

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose…If the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit. (6)

I hope this helps!

 

[1ke]

Seatuck,

It’s a common confusion because the Catechism doesn’t go into all the details on this subject.

Please explain how you can have homologous artificial insemination that does not replace the marital act. By definition, homologous artificial insemination is the injection of the husband’s sperm into the uterus by the doctor via a catheter.

 

[Seatuck]

Seatuck,

It’s a common confusion because the Catechism doesn’t go into all the details on this subject.

Here is the relevant passage from Donum Vitae by Cardinal ratzinger:

I hope this helps!

Artificial Insemination is not what is referred to in that passage. That passage refers to treatments that make the husband and/or wife’s bodies healthy or well enough to procreate.Or medicines that make the body work correctly like one that causes ovulation. It doesn’t allow for introducing sperm inside the wife from a catheter. How is that facillitating the conjugal act?

Yet remain morally unacceptable is strongly phrased. How are you getting around that? Morally unacceptable seems clear to me.

 

[Seatuck]

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/begetting.htm

This is a good article by a very well respected moral theologian.

 

[Seatuck]

Another good article for the OP explaining why artificial insemination is not acceptable and offering some hope with a new technology.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7810

 

[whatevergirl]

Just to clarify, the Church DOES allow for homologous (between a married couple) artificial insemination as long as it assists the natural act of intercourse and does not replace it. Please note also that artificial insemination is not the same as in vitro fertilization.

God bless!

I knew I could count on you people! I didn’t know this, and I hate to admit this, but because I don’t deal with this aspect in my life, I guess I just learn half truths…but so glad you shared this with me. Thank you!

 

[Sure]

Guys,

Read Question 6 from Donum Vitae. I’m not making this up and I’m not crazy. It is referring to act which ASSIST rather than REPLACE the marital act.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

You can see that Catholic Answers makes the same distinction. Where they state that there can be a moral use.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=74717
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=51417

Lastly, the USCCB has now started calling this type of artificial insemination by another name, intrauterine insemination. You can read about that here: usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

The point is that this type of artificial insemination (which is what the medical community and Donum Vitae call it) starts with a normal marital act, then the sperm is moved (sometimes processed slightly) to where conception can more readily occur.

I hope this helps. I assure I am not some type of dissenter looking for loopholes, but I have studied these life issues and documents for many years.

God bless!

 

[Sure]

**Artificial Insemination is not what is referred to in that passage. **That passage refers to treatments that make the husband and/or wife’s bodies healthy or well enough to procreate.Or medicines that make the body work correctly like one that causes ovulation. It doesn’t allow for introducing sperm inside the wife from a catheter. How is that facillitating the conjugal act?

Yet remain morally unacceptable is strongly phrased. How are you getting around that? Morally unacceptable seems clear to me.

What???

Here is the quote again:

**Homologous artificial insemination **within marriage cannot be admitted **except **for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

Sorry, but the subject of the sentence IS artificial insemination. The qualifier is that the “technical means” is not a “substitute.” If they were only speaking of treatments to make people healthy, they wouldn’t call those treatments artificial insemination as they do here.

 

[whatevergirl]

What???

Here is the quote again:

Sorry, but the subject of the sentence IS artificial insemination. The qualifier is that the “technical means” is not a “substitute.” If they were only speaking of treatments to make people healthy, they wouldn’t call those treatments artificial insemination as they do here.

That is a good point…‘artificial’ does stand out. I guess I never gave it much thought, and it is shown to couples as being a blessing for them.

 

[Sure]

That is a good point…‘artificial’ does stand out. I guess I never gave it much thought, and it is shown to couples as being a blessing for them.

But please understand, artificial insemination is allowed only in very narrow circumstances that are almost never done (to my knowledge) in the medical community. The standard in the medical community is to have the man masturbate and then use that to inseminate the woman apart from a marital act. This is NOT permitted. What is permitted is when a doctor attempts to “facilitate” conception immediately following a normal marital act.

And of course, ALL in vitro fertilization methods are totally immoral.

 

[Seatuck]

What???

Here is the quote again:

Sorry, but the subject of the sentence IS artificial insemination. The qualifier is that the “technical means” is not a “substitute.” If they were only speaking of treatments to make people healthy, they wouldn’t call those treatments artificial insemination as they do here.

Yes, sorry , I was confusing the passages.

However it remains that the process to put that sperm back in the womans body must be done in an artificial way and if you look on the Bishop’s website where I already gave you that link to it that you you put up you will see it is listed as not approved or disproved as of yet. This does not give the freedom to pursue it.

Catholic theologians and ethicists would agree that NaPro Technology is morally acceptable. Cataldo said. Cataldo pointed out that “certain drug therapies and egg-stimulating medications at doses that don’t have disproportionate risks for the children engendered or for the mother” also are acceptable. But other technologies, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) fall into a gray area. “Some moral theologians and ethicists see these techniques as assisting the conjugal act. Others see it as replacing it,” he said. “Until such time as the Vatican speaks, Catholics contemplating the use of IUI or GIFT should inform themselves of both sides of the moral and theological argument and then make a decision in good conscience.”

staycatholic.com/what_is_wrong_with_in-vitro_fertilization.htm

 

[Sr_Sally]

Ok…I needed someone to explain this, and you did. I appreciate your reply…I obviously was a bit off in my understanding. I make the parallel, because a woman who cannot bear children, can be seen as having a ‘problem to solve’ in the medical world, similiar to solving (curing) cancer. In one sense, no one is being ‘cured’ through artificial insemination, but it can be viewed as a problem to be solved. There are many women who look at this as a blessing…and is it wrong for them to do so, if it brought life into this world? Does this make sense?

There is such a morally positive alternative–adoption. I think we are so into ‘experiences’ we forget that the purpose of pregnancy is to have a child. No one really wants to be pregnant just for the sake of being pregnant. We may glamorize it as an “experience”, but the real end result is to have a child and build a FAMILY. Science likes to solve things, but not all medical conditions have to be solved. I’m very concerned that the big push for IVF and related procedures has displaced the idea of adoption (other than exotic hollywood adoptions) from the public square.

 

[Sure]

Yes, sorry , I was confusing the passages.

However it remains that the process to put that sperm back in the womans body must be done in an artificial way and if you look on the Bishop’s website where I already gave you that link to it that you you put up you will see it is listed as not approved or disproved as of yet. This does not give the freedom to pursue it.

staycatholic.com/what_is_wrong_with_in-vitro_fertilization.htm

Yes, it is a very narrow area. However, until the teaching on homologous artificial fertilization (specifically intrauterine fertilization) in Donum Vitae is revised, it would seem to be authoritative and the procedure should not be lumped in with other intrinsically evil acts.

God bless!

 

[whatevergirl]

There is such a morally positive alternative–adoption. I think we are so into ‘experiences’ we forget that the purpose of pregnancy is to have a child. No one really wants to be pregnant just for the sake of being pregnant. We may glamorize it as an “experience”, but the real end result is to have a child and build a FAMILY. Science likes to solve things, but not all medical conditions have to be solved. I’m very concerned that the big push for IVF and related procedures has displaced the idea of adoption (other than exotic hollywood adoptions) from the public square.

excellent and valid point