GIFT? No!

The Unitive Meaning of the Conjugal Act in Evaluating Assisted Reproductive Technologies

“…Sperm are collected 2–1/2 h prior to the procedure, through masturbation or from a silastic sheath used during intercourse, “washed” to remove antibodies and prostaglandins, and concentrated. The eggs and treated sperm are placed in a catheter, separated by an air space to avoid fertilization occurring in vitro, then inserted via incision high in a Fallopian tube where fertilization hopefully occurs (Haas 1993, 1–2).…”

“…The ethicists who endorse these methods claim to preserve the procreative meaning of the conjugal act but, in my opinion, fail to give adequate consideration to the unitive meaning. They acknowledge that even a perforated condom “compromises sexual union” (DeMarco 1991, 229–233) and the marital act is principally the means to gather sperm (Haas 1993, 2). Nevertheless, they uphold the use of a perforated condom as moral.…”

“…For judgments against GIFT and TOTS, see De Marco 1991, 223–234; Doerfler 2000, 56. For judgments against GIFT only, see Haas 1993, 1–3 and May 2008, 93; and Tonti-Filippini 1990, 74–77. For judgments in favor of GIFT see Cataldo 1996, 2 and McCarthy 1993, 4.…”

“…17.Cataldo 2009, 107; Haas 1993, 2. Note that May and others cited by him oppose the use of any kind of condom to collect sperm for subsequent intervention by a technician (May 2008, 93–94).…”