Is donor insemination a moral act?

[Apex]

Definition from American Pregnancy Association:
Donor insemination is a simple procedure that uses a syringe to place sperm into a woman's vagina to assist her in getting pregnant. The sperm is normally obtained from someone other than the woman's husband or partner.

Secondary questions for all those who would say this is a moral act.

1. Does the woman need to be married?
2. Does the woman's husband need to be infertile?

 

[Apex]

Well, so far everyone who voted thinks it is a moral act...but no one attempted to answer the secondary questions. I thought of another one for those who find it a moral act.

3. Does the donor insemination have to be done artificially for it to be moral?

This other donor method is called natural insemination - Wikipedia link

 

[Aino]

Well some people have a calling to become parents despite of infertility. Getting a donor insemination is in my opinion just a means of treating a medical problem, just like getting a blood or organ transplant.

As to your other questions. I think it were best for everyone, if only couples got children. Parenting is hard, financially, physically, mentally and emotionally. It's always best ifyou can share the load of work and costs etc. Also, if the other gets sick or something else unexpected happens, then there's someone to take charge. It's a responsible act to only have children in a stable relationship / marriage. As to whether it were immoral to do it while single, I don't want to take a stance. Only Gid sees hearts and circumstances.

Why would a couple take expensive infertility treatments if the husband was not infertile? Sounds like a very bizarre way of wadting money.

Well your question number 3 is also something that has no direct answer. If everyone involved knows and agrees to what happens and why then why not? It's obviously more personal for everyone and could be potentially more difficult emotionwise. But nothing wrong with it either as long as everyone involved knows exactly what the deal is

 

[Wolfe]

No, it is not.

Children should be born into a marriage, between a man and a woman.
Not a woman and an unknown donor.

 

[Apex]

Why would a couple take expensive infertility treatments if the husband was not infertile? Sounds like a very bizarre way of wadting money.

I have heard of this happening. In one of the cases, the husband had a genetic disorder he didn't want to pass down.

Well your question number 3 is also something that has no direct answer. If everyone involved knows and agrees to what happens and why then why not? It's obviously more personal for everyone and could be potentially more difficult emotionwise. But nothing wrong with it either as long as everyone involved knows exactly what the deal is

You mentioned above that infertility treatment is ridiculously expensive. I read that many people who cannot afford this cost consider natural "donor" insemination. Their intention is to have a child, not to have a relationship with the donor. However, many Christians would consider this adultery (even if the husband approves). It is questions like this that really probe the depths of our theology.

Thanks for taking the time to answer the questions honestly.

 

[Apex]

No, it is not.

Children should be born into a marriage, between a man and a woman.
Not a woman and an unknown donor.

What if the donor was not unknown?

A financially stable Christian couple finds out that the husband is not fertile. The husband's brother is asked to donate his sperm to help assist in donor insemination. It is done prayerfully, in a medical environment, and with everyone's consent. You'd still find this immoral?

We see situations similar to this is Scripture. Levirite marriage is one example.

 

[Wolfe]

A financially stable Christian couple finds out that the husband is not fertile. The husband's brother is asked to donate his sperm to help assist in donor insemination. It is done prayerfully, in a medical environment, and with everyone's consent. You'd still find this immoral?

I would.

I think the only biblical instance would be when a wifes husband died, the husbands brother would take the place to foster an heir.

 

[Apex]

I would.

Would you be willing to talk about why you believe this and which biblical references you use to defend that position?

 

[Wolfe]

Would you be willing to talk about why you believe this and which biblical references you use to defend that position?

Yeah, would you?

 

[Apex]

Yeah, would you?

Absolutely, that's why I started this thread. Many of the questions I asked I had struggled with in the past.

 

[Wolfe]

Absolutely, that's why I started this thread. Many of the questions I asked I had struggled with in the past.

Alright, you can go first, as I must tend to something real quick.

Defend whatever side of this situation you're on, then when I return, I shall defend mine.

 

[ubicaritas]

traditionally , most Christian churches would say no because it separates sex from reproduction. I also think children should be ideally the product of two biological parents who will live with them and raise them as a family.

 

[Apex]

Alright, you can go first, as I must tend to something real quick.

Defend whatever side of this situation you're on, then when I return, I shall defend mine.

I started this thread and asked the questions because I am still formulating my position on this topic. You seemed absolutely sure about your answer though. I just figured this was more then a gut feeling for you.

As for me, I no longer believe we are under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law. I filter all behavior instead through the Law of Christ: love God and love others. I believe loving acts are moral acts. If you want, we can start here. Is donor insemination always an unloving act?

 

[Wolfe]

Is donor insemination always an unloving act?

Well when you say this, you automatically define a term, as loving, and unloving.
I must remind you, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

If the tag line, everything loving is a moral act, then we have to define what a loving act is.
A homosexual man would obviously tell you that having sex with another man is a loving act, but is it a moral act?
No, it's a sin.

So then, what is loving? Christ was no hippie, he was clear that sexual immorality, and other sin that are seemingly loving, are still sin.
You may steal food for your child, and while it is a "loving act" no matter how you spin it, it's theft. It's a sin.
A sin that I have no doubt God would forgive, of course, but it's a sin nonetheless.

It's in the same category, putting your sperm inside someone, would be a sexual act.
Putting your sperm inside someone you're not married to, is by that definition, adulterous.
Whether you're the one doing it or not, it still stands to reason that you'd be held responsible for the insemination.
Just as if you sold a gun to a killer, whether or not the killer was going to find a way to kill the person anyway, you still knowingly supplied the weapon to commit the murder.

Whether the sperm is extracted via needle or, ahem, the normal way, I still see it as a sexual act.
It involves sexual organs between two people, to do the thing sex was designed to do, make people.

So by my belief, it is an adulterous act. I don't figure I need to supply scripture that says adultery is a sin. But alas, there is no scripture to support that inseminating people, regardless of actual sexual interaction is consider sexual or not, I find it to be common sense.

Not all loving acts are moral, our definition of love differs from Gods obviously.
As where God would view 2 men having sex as an abomination, the 2 men view it as loving.

 

[Apex]

Not all loving acts are moral, our definition of love differs from Gods obviously.

I'll have to tread lightly here. We certainly disagree about some actions you apparently deem innately sinful. I don't believe any action is innately moral or immoral, in and of itself. I believe intentions matter. However, I would agree that the term "love" needs to be defined.

Interestingly enough, I was asked to define love in another thread not too long ago. I hope you don't mind if I simply copy and paste.

-----
Love, as set forth by Jesus, is the keynote of the new kingdom. With the exception of the word 'life' - 'love' is the most important abstract term in the whole of Scripture. God's love, the basis for His dealing with humans in the OT, climaxes in the NT in the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ. It is the key word in the Christian summary of biblical revelation (Matthew 22:37; John 3:16; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8;1 John 3:23).

Love is selfless. Jesus is the premier example of how to love. Paul's description of love in action includes liberality, acts of mercy, hospitality, avoidance of revenge, sympathy, rejoicing with others, sharing of need, and edifying others; the list is almost endless. More generally, love is revealed as a quality of activity and of thinking. In brief, love does no harm.

Love is, for Paul, "the law of Christ," supreme and sufficient (Galatians 5:14; 6:2), and Paul neatly defines what alone avails in Christianity as "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6). He insists that the supreme manifestation of the Spirit that Christians should covet is "the more excellent way" of love (1 Corinthians 12:27 - 13:13; Romans 5:5; Galatians 5:22). Here, too, he contrasts love with five other expressions of religious zeal much prized at Corinth in order to show that each is profitless without love (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). He ends the chapter by comparing love with faith and hope, the other enduring elements of religious experience, and declares love to be the greatest.
------

When we use the definition above for "love", I stand by my original statement that all loving acts are moral acts. I like to ask the question, will this action harm my relationship with either God or my neighbor?

Do you have any biblical references to support your position? I would like to discuss those.

 

[Wolfe]

When we use the definition above for "love", I stand by my original statement that all loving acts are moral acts. I like to ask the question, will this action harm my relationship with either God or my neighbor?

Do you have any biblical references to support your position? I would like to discuss those.

You didn't address the point I made about loving acts are not always moral.
No doubt, people who love, in a sexually impure relationship, do love.
They experience love as me or you, but they do so immorally, and therefor sinfully.

Involving someone in a sin, is not a loving thing to do.
Inseminating another mans wife, would be a sexual act, for all intents and purposes.
A sexual act preformed on someone you're not married to, or someone that you're not allowed to preform sexual acts on, is sexually impure.
Sexually impure acts are sinful.

I think you've got love wrong here, love is, by Godly definition, selfless, and condition less, no doubt.
However, sinful loving, is not loving.

If you say, all loving acts are moral, because all love is Jesus related, then it's false.
Christ in no way would condone many of the "loving" things we do, Christ was loving himself, of course.

In other words, what we define as loving is often not actually loving. And some things we consider unloving, are actually righteous.
Many liberals nowadays would say it's perfectly loving to endorse homosexuality, or abortion, because you're supporting people.
But it's the same as supporting a serial killer, it's not loving.

if you support someone in their sin, you do them no favors.
The wounds of a brother are preferable to the kisses of an enemy.

Always be loving is the goal, but telling people they're wrong, and sinning, is not unloving, it's incredibly loving.
And as I see it, inseminating someones wife would be an adulterous act.
I see it as a sexual act.

I concede that I cannot know Gods position, clearly, because as I said, there's no clear scriptural basis for insemination being a sexual act, not that I can find anyway.
But that is either because it's obvious that it is, or that it isn't a sexual act. I belong to the former ideology.

 

[1213]

Definition from American Pregnancy Association:
Donor insemination is a simple procedure that uses a syringe to place sperm into a woman's vagina to assist her in getting pregnant. The sperm is normally obtained from someone other than the woman's husband or partner.

In my opinion, it seems to be adultery, which is not good thing according to the Bible.

 

[Apex]

You didn't address the point I made about loving acts are not always moral.
No doubt, people who love, in a sexually impure relationship, do love.
They experience love as me or you, but they do so immorally, and therefor sinfully.

I did. I disagreed based on the definition of love that I provided.

However, I must avoid directly addressing your point about sex outside of marriage because I would be violating forum rules. My personal convictions on sex outside of marriage are in conflict with what is allowed to be discussed openly on this website.

I think you've got love wrong here, love is, by Godly definition, selfless, and condition less, no doubt.
However, sinful loving, is not loving.

I believe "sinful loving" is an oxymoron based on the definition I provided. Sin harms; love does not. I do not think it is possible to sin when your intention is to love the way Jesus loved.

If you say, all loving acts are moral, because all love is Jesus related, then it's false.
Christ in no way would condone many of the "loving" things we do, Christ was loving himself, of course.

In other words, what we define as loving is often not actually loving. And some things we consider unloving, are actually righteous.
Many liberals nowadays would say it's perfectly loving to endorse homosexuality, or abortion, because you're supporting people.
But it's the same as supporting a serial killer, it's not loving.

if you support someone in their sin, you do them no favors.
The wounds of a brother are preferable to the kisses of an enemy.

Always be loving is the goal, but telling people they're wrong, and sinning, is not unloving, it's incredibly loving.
And as I see it, inseminating someones wife would be an adulterous act.
I see it as a sexual act.

I concede that I cannot know Gods position, clearly, because as I said, there's no clear scriptural basis for insemination being a sexual act, not that I can find anyway.
But that is either because it's obvious that it is, or that it isn't a sexual act. I belong to the former ideology.

I don't think you have quoted one biblical reference yet. Can we take this discussion to the Bible? I would be better able to provide answers to your concerns.

 

[Apex]

In my opinion, it seems to be adultery, which is not good thing according to the Bible.

Can you define what biblical adultery is?

 

[Wolfe]

I don't think you have quoted one biblical reference yet. Can we take this discussion to the Bible? I would be better able to provide answers to your concerns.

I said that I see it as a sexual act, and that biblical doctrine would lead us to believe that sexual acts on married women are adulterous.
That's my position.

However, I must avoid directly addressing your point about sex outside of marriage because I would be violating forum rules. My personal convictions on sex outside of marriage are in conflict with what is allowed to be discussed openly on this website.

Well then, the people who run this forum are stupid, pm me if you wish and we can talk there without having arbitrary restrictions set on us.