Low sperm count

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jamz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jamz

Guest
A friend of mine was going to the doctor yesterday to find out if he had a low sperm count and thus find the reason for he and his wife’s difficulty in conceiving a child.

This brought to mind the means of obtaining the sperm (at the doctors office) might be morally wrong.

Anyone fill me in on this?
 
The standard means for obtaining a sperm sample is through masturbation, which is of course, morally wrong. There is however a morally tolerant way of getting a sperm sample, such as poking holes into a condom and using what is contained to have analyzed. This would be done within the marriage act and would be left “open to life” so it is permissible.
 
Wouldn’t there be a tight time restraint in taking this condom to a doctors office?
 
The standard is that you have safely one hour to get a sample to the facility. This can be pronlonged slightly by keeping it a stable warm (not hot) temperature.
 
I believe there is a medical organization out of Colorado called Napro that deals quite successfully with these type of problems. I think a Doctor Hilgers is the head of it. Check the internet.
 
The standard means for obtaining a sperm sample is through masturbation, which is of course, morally wrong. There is however a morally tolerant way of getting a sperm sample, such as poking holes into a condom and using what is contained to have analyzed. This would be done within the marriage act and would be left “open to life” so it is permissible.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. Doesn’t this conflict with no ABC teaching?
 
40.png
demolitionman65:
Wait a minute. Doesn’t this conflict with no ABC teaching?
Click to expand...
Nope. The holes are big enough where a significant amount of sperm can get through, so you ostensibly can get pregnant from the act (I say ostensibly, since most of the time this action is taken is because of an inability to conceive). Enough is retained, though, to be able to give the doctors the sample size they need.
 
So, this is a one-time use of a condom for medical purposes?
 
Demoman, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using condoms as long as it’s not contraceptive. the sin is contraception not the material used in the process. one is not sinning even if he uses “condoms” like that 1000 times. condoms can also be put at the muzzle of firearms to prevent them from jamming by sand in desert.

some veterinarians use electricity to obtain sperm. I don’t know if this is practised on human patients.
 
I worked in a medical laboratory and you are not supposed to take a sample in a condom for a sperm count because a lot of them have spermicides in them
 
40.png
abcdefg:
condoms can also be put at the muzzle of firearms to prevent them from jamming by sand in desert.
Click to expand...
Wow. I hope the condoms are empty at that point.
 
40.png
NFPfamily:
There is however a morally tolerant way of getting a sperm sample, such as poking holes into a condom and using what is contained to have analyzed. This would be done within the marriage act and would be left “open to life” so it is permissible.
Click to expand...
The acceptability of a perforated condom to collect sperm raises questions for me. Okay, first, there is no general contraceptive intent because the couple wants to get pregnant, and they would be thrilled to get pregnant during the collection action. But that is not enough to make it okay to use a condom, because otherwise there would not be this perforated business. So, it does not seem to be strictly in the intent that makes it okay.

Thus it must really lie in the perforation. But the couple’s purpose would not be achieved if all the sperm went through the perforation. So they have to be specifically intending to hold some of the sperm back. Reducing sperm count delivered will reduce fertility rates. So is the deal with the perforation that it reduces the fertility rate somewhat, but not as much as a regular condom does? Remember, a condom by itself is not a 100% reduction in fertility rates. So this makes it look like a sliding scale of fertility rate reduction is determining if the action is okay or not, which doesn’t quite ring true.

It almost seems like saying that a condom is tolerable, so long as it is shoddy.
 
Pug, your post has caused me to have the same doubts when I didn’t have any until I read your post. So, good post 🙂 You must be smart.
 
40.png
demolitionman65:
So, this is a one-time use of a condom for medical purposes?
Click to expand...
No, because the condom is not being used as a contraceptive device, but rather as a method to collect a sample without engaging in morally illicit behavior. The device is damaged in a way that disables its contraceptive function, but has the capacity to collect a sample for analysis.
 
40.png
Pug:
The acceptability of a perforated condom to collect sperm raises questions for me. Okay, first, there is no general contraceptive intent because the couple wants to get pregnant, and they would be thrilled to get pregnant during the collection action. But that is not enough to make it okay to use a condom, because otherwise there would not be this perforated business. So, it does not seem to be strictly in the intent that makes it okay.

Thus it must really lie in the perforation. But the couple’s purpose would not be achieved if all the sperm went through the perforation. So they have to be specifically intending to hold some of the sperm back. Reducing sperm count delivered will reduce fertility rates. So is the deal with the perforation that it reduces the fertility rate somewhat, but not as much as a regular condom does? Remember, a condom by itself is not a 100% reduction in fertility rates. So this makes it look like a sliding scale of fertility rate reduction is determining if the action is okay or not, which doesn’t quite ring true.

It almost seems like saying that a condom is tolerable, so long as it is shoddy.
Click to expand...
Isn’t one of the 3 qualifiers for a sin to be mortal intent? Since the intent is not contraception, but actually conception, then this could not be a mortal sin, right?
 
40.png
Pug:
So, it does not seem to be strictly in the intent that makes it okay.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that contraception is not intrinsically wrong?

Recall that “intrinsically” means that the circumstances do not affect the morality of an act. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is never, under any circumstances, morally acceptable.

Could a couple use a perforated condom any time they wanted to?
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
No, because the condom is not being used as a contraceptive device, but rather as a method to collect a sample without engaging in morally illicit behavior.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the “double effect” argument, similar to using the pill for medical reasons instead of contraceptive reasons. If so, the argument would justify using a non-perforated condom as well.

If a perforated condom is 60% effective, while a non-perforated condom is 80% effective, I don’t see a lot of difference from the standpoint of morality.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
This seems to be the “double effect” argument, similar to using the pill for medical reasons instead of contraceptive reasons. If so, the argument would justify using a non-perforated condom as well.

If a perforated condom is 60% effective, while a non-perforated condom is 80% effective, I don’t see a lot of difference from the standpoint of morality.
Click to expand...
And what about a woman who has a historectomy as the only viable recourse to treat fibroid tumors, or worse, cancer. Is this act illicit, because it will effectively render her sterile?
 
40.png
NFPfamily:
The standard means for obtaining a sperm sample is through masturbation, which is of course, morally wrong. There is however a morally tolerant way of getting a sperm sample, such as poking holes into a condom and using what is contained to have analyzed. This would be done within the marriage act and would be left “open to life” so it is permissible.
Click to expand...
Ewww! That’s gross!
 
40.png
Sylvia22:
Ewww! That’s gross!
Click to expand...
Personally, I agree with your sentiment. I prefer to do it the old fashioned way, and not rely on technology to help me procreate. I just feel deep down in my soul that if God wants me to have my own child, He’ll make it happen, as long as my wife and I live chastely and keep our “habits” open to life. What troubles me is that there seems to be a contigent of people out there who insist on having their OWN children, even taking part in activities that have been deemed unsuitable for Catholics, like IVF and artificial insemination. What about adopting? Isn’t that a bigger mark of love but to take a child that is not your own and make her your own child? Isn’t that what God does for us? When we submit ourselves to the will of God, we become adopted sons and daughters, brothers and sisters of Jesus?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top