Infertility inspection

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartyLeo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that’s one of those gray areas, and I’d have to go look at the documents I have that rule on specific matters–that one may not actually be licit, or at least falls into the category of “hasn’t been ruled on but it probably isn’t a good idea.”
 
48.png
OddBird:
  1. HOW IS HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TO BE EVALUATED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW?
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.
There’s a distinction being made here between a technical means which substitutes for the conjugal act, and one which helps to facilitate the natural end of the act. In the former, the act isn’t done–again, sperm attained by masturbation is inserted into the woman artificially, usually after being washed and otherwise processed. In the latter, the act takes place as normal, but some outside means is employed to assist.
Artificial insemination, to my knowledge, simply refers to the sperm being inserted medically. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean the sperm was obtained by masturbation. The NCBC advised me that if obtained during the marital act with a perforated condom, and if the insemination was not too far removed from the act, it could be considered licit assistance.
 
Having been at least in part trained by them on my way to my degree in Bioethics, I trust their judgment. I know them well enough to know that they are one of the more solid voices in this field. As I said, that may be one of those methods that there isn’t really a judgment on yet from the magisterium, so you are free to form your conscience however you’d like.
 
As I said, that may be one of those methods that there isn’t really a judgment on yet from the magisterium, so you are free to form your conscience however you’d like.
This is pretty much what they said, and to prayerfully form our consciences on the matter. We ultimately did not end up trying the method, but the question was important to us at the time.
 
And that’s good, it’s better that you thought of the question as important and inquired about it. Too many people either don’t know that such things might or might not be questionable, and too many people just go ahead and do things that are morally illicit without even bothering to find out. So there’s a virtue in at least doing your due diligence. About 80% of the ethics consults I do are from people who are pretty sure they know what the right thing to do is (or the right thing to advise, in the case of priests who call me with questions from their parishioners), but who just want to make sure they’ve got the math right. Half the time, if it’s something I’ve not seen before, or at least only seen once or twice, I will call another ethicist to check my math. So it’s good that you did that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top