Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 One publication I have implies that AI is acceptable when the semen has been obtained by licit means (perforated, non-lubricated, non-spermicidal condom during the regular act of intercourse). It is only implied, in that it says the “jury is still out” on whether this is acceptable if the sperm have been “washed” or otherwise technologically prepared (as if it is OK if the sperm have not been washed). On the other hand, why would a couple need to use AI if the sperm is not going to be prepared in some way? The regular act of intercourse IS the insemination. Kim RE: ART Church teachings As far as I understand, anything which separates conception from marital sexual intercourse is considered immoral. With this understanding, any kind of artificial insemination would be considered immoral. A child is considered the supreme gift of marriage, and is intended to be the fruit of the act of love between husband and wife, a sacramental union. Donum Vitae would be a good source for the details of this teaching. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM Pam in El Paso ART Church teachings To all: I’m in the process of putting together a pamphlet about the Church’s teachings on assisted reproductive technologies, and I have a couple questions I hope someone can answer! (These topics have probably been addressed before…) Is artificial insemination allowed if the semen is obtained and handled by licit means? The last I heard, ‘the jury was out’ (from a July 2004 publication) on GIFT and IUI with technologically prepared semen (“washed”, etc). They had been neither approved nor disapproved. Is this still true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 One thing that has always baffled me is the use of AI when a couple is perfectly capable of having sexual intercourse. Artificial insemination, basically, provides nothing more than a means of transport for the sperm. If the couple can have intercourse, this artificial means of insemination is not necessary. ART Church teachings To all: I’m in the process of putting together a pamphlet about the Church’s teachings on assisted reproductive technologies, and I have a couple questions I hope someone can answer! (These topics have probably been addressed before…) Is artificial insemination allowed if the semen is obtained and handled by licit means? The last I heard, ‘the jury was out’ (from a July 2004 publication) on GIFT and IUI with technologically prepared semen (“washed”, etc). They had been neither approved nor disapproved. Is this still true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Reference was made to a medical intervention that might facilitate rather than replace the conjugal act. In the past some physicians used a "cervical spoon" that they thought facilitated the passage of sperm into the cervix. As I understand it, the couple would engage in the marriage act, then the wife would hasten to the doctor's office, and he would attempt to facilitate matters in this manner. Back in the late 50s the wife of a friend followed this procedure. The dr was so uninformed that he had the couple engaging in the marriage act every weekday morning without any effort to monitor fertility and infertility, and this was years after Dr. Ed Keefe started to recommend mucus observations along with the temps. The couple eventually adopted children. There well may be other means used today, but this is at least one example of an effort to facilitate without resorting to artificial insemination. -- Kippley ART Church teachings To all: I’m in the process of putting together a pamphlet about the Church’s teachings on assisted reproductive technologies, and I have a couple questions I hope someone can answer! (These topics have probably been addressed before…) Is artificial insemination allowed if the semen is obtained and handled by licit means? The last I heard, ‘the jury was out’ (from a July 2004 publication) on GIFT and IUI with technologically prepared semen (“washed”, etc). They had been neither approved nor disapproved. Is this still true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 It is hard for me to imagine an AI proceedure that would not violate the underlying principle that life must be created as a result of a normal act of sexual intercourse. How can collection of sperm from one act (even the perforated condom violates the unitive meaning of the act in my opinion) and its processing and use in a second act by somehow mixing with the 2nd acts semen be viewed as a regular/normal/natural act? May God bless you. Steve Koob On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:07 -0600 " Guthmann " writes: > One publication I have implies that AI is acceptable when the semen > has been > obtained by licit means (perforated, non-lubricated, non-spermicidal > condom > during the regular act of intercourse). It is only implied, in that > it says > the " jury is still out " on whether this is acceptable if the sperm > have been > " washed " or otherwise technologically prepared (as if it is OK if > the sperm > have not been washed). On the other hand, why would a couple need > to use AI > if the sperm is not going to be prepared in some way? The regular > act of > intercourse IS the insemination. > > > > Kim > > > > > > RE: ART Church teachings > > > > As far as I understand, anything which separates conception from > marital > sexual intercourse is considered immoral. With this understanding, > any kind > of artificial insemination would be considered immoral. A child is > considered the supreme gift of marriage, and is intended to be the > fruit of > the act of love between husband and wife, a sacramental union. > > > > Donum Vitae would be a good source for the details of this > teaching. > > http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM > > > > Pam in El Paso > > > > ART Church teachings > > > > To all: > > > > I'm in the process of putting together a pamphlet about the Church's > teachings on assisted reproductive technologies, and I have a couple > questions I hope someone can answer! (These topics have probably > been > addressed before.) > > > > Is artificial insemination allowed if the semen is obtained and > handled by > licit means? > > The last I heard, 'the jury was out' (from a July 2004 publication) > on GIFT > and IUI with technologically prepared semen ( " washed " , etc). They > had been > neither approved nor disapproved. Is this still true? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 : I think you are brining up an interesting point. However, I think we have to somehow avoid falling into the "trap" in reproductive arguments (and others as well) that the religious zealots (I'm not talking to you personally I could just as well be referring to myself) are somehow falling short, i.e., "this is what you cannot do." Ironically, it is, rather, the technological shortcuts (such as InVitro you name it) that are giving anyone who is interested in good care the short end of the stick. If anyone is offering "less" it is the technologically driven system of cafeteria-style medicinal options (driven by an agenda) that is telling doctors, patients, hospitals, etc., what they can and can't do--and it has nothing to do with morality! It is a myth that anyone, secular or religious, is offering the complete "menu" of options. Religious folks are always on the defensive for excluding certain items from the menu for "moral" reasons, but the secular crowd is never called on the carpet for what is on their menu and why. We both have them. F. Kippley wrote: Reference was made to a medical intervention that might facilitate rather than replace the conjugal act. In the past some physicians used a "cervical spoon" that they thought facilitated the passage of sperm into the cervix. As I understand it, the couple would engage in the marriage act, then the wife would hasten to the doctor's office, and he would attempt to facilitate matters in this manner. Back in the late 50s the wife of a friend followed this procedure. The dr was so uninformed that he had the couple engaging in the marriage act every weekday morning without any effort to monitor fertility and infertility, and this was years after Dr. Ed Keefe started to recommend mucus observations along with the temps. The couple eventually adopted children. There well may be other means used today, but this is at least one example of an effort to facilitate without resorting to artificial insemination. -- Kippley ART Church teachings To all: I’m in the process of putting together a pamphlet about the Church’s teachings on assisted reproductive technologies, and I have a couple questions I hope someone can answer! (These topics have probably been addressed before…) Is artificial insemination allowed if the semen is obtained and handled by licit means? The last I heard, ‘the jury was out’ (from a July 2004 publication) on GIFT and IUI with technologically prepared semen (“washed”, etc). They had been neither approved nor disapproved. Is this still true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Hanna: I’d love to look at that sheet…but I’m having trouble finding it on their website. Could you please send a direct link? Thanks! Kim Re: ART Church teachings Kim, have a look at the sheet I did for the DDP/NFP some time ago. It is on the USCCB web page, under NFP. There have been no pronouncements since then, so the " gray areas " are still gray. Hanna Klaus, M.D> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 http://www.usccb.org/prolife/treatment.htm RE: ART Church teachings Hanna: I’d love to look at that sheet…but I’m having trouble finding it on their website. Could you please send a direct link? Thanks! Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Hanna: I just realized the publication I am referencing is a reprint of your article for the USCCB. I found it in the July 2004 issue of the CCL Family Foundations. Kim Re: ART Church teachings Kim, have a look at the sheet I did for the DDP/NFP some time ago. It is on the USCCB web page, under NFP. There have been no pronouncements since then, so the " gray areas " are still gray. Hanna Klaus, M.D> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.