How to articulate why artificial insemination is wrong


Looking for a way to clearly explain in layman’s terms, to someone who does not hold to Catholic teaching, why artificial insemination is immoral. Specifically, why would it be wrong for a married couple who is having difficulty conceiving, to turn to this option as long as they used the husband’s sperm? (I am not referring to third party sperm donors or to in-vitro fertilization.)

I trust the Church’s teaching, but would like to be able to better articulate why it is wrong to create or attempt to create a human life in this manner.

  1. Because it opens the way for eugenics. And you know what eugenics are associated with…

  2. Because parenthood is not about “breeding” a child. It is about raising the child, with all his(her) natural advantages and disadvantages.


People need to take small steps. For a person who you describe broadly as “not holding to Church teaching”, I would not think volunteering a view on this issue would be effective. Of course, if they ask you your opinion on the morality of the issue, you could answer briefly.


Of course, if a couple is unable to conceive a child without artificial insemination, they’re obviously not going to be able to raise one either unless they adopt. As for having disadvantages, since a child conceived through artificial insemination wouldn’t even exist otherwise, that’s a pretty big disadvantage. Surely existence is better than non-existence.


What evidence is there for that? Has non-existence ever been the basis for complaint by the one who does not exist?


But after such a person is born, would it make sense for them to say, “It’s wrong for me to exist because I was conceived through artificial insemination.”


That’s a different question. Personally, I don’t find the idea of never having been born troubling. Ceasing to exist is an entirely different consideration.


Well, I believe that everyone who exists, even those conceived through artificial insemination, were obviously meant to exist.


One might say that everything that happens was “meant to happen”. Do those words mean anything?


Salutations in Christ,
A Jesuit friend said, science is ahead of the church. If all fertilized eggs are a human life which we all agree on. Do not freeze fertilized eggs. Freeze sperm. The sperm is alive when defrosted. John is dead in the war. His sperm is placed in the vagina and travels the normal course as sperm do and hopefully, one takes. The turkey Baster is John. Every thing else is normal function. Now, IVF’s trickier.
Rember the McConnells who froze embryos. Believing as we do, she had all seven embryos implanted. GROAN. Some had problems but after seven years of following them 5 were ok., I think and 2 had cerebral palsy but got around pretty good and had normal brains, I think.
Now, if a defrosted sperm meets an egg in a petri dish and get married and is implanted in the mom, no life is lost. Usually they go for twins. But, the only thing frozen is sperm. I can’t see that breaking church laws or God’s creation laws.
I think some of this is a matter of individual conscience. But, I wouldn’t want to meet God if I threw away a life.
One day, I do believe the church will change on freezing sperm vs freezing embryos.
in Christ’s love,
Tweedlealice :shrug:


For me, one of the largest reasons why artificial insemination is wrong is that it turns the child into a commodity. Rather than turn to prayer, and prayerful consideration of what one should be doing with his life, thousands of dollars are spent to acquire a commodity.

Children are a gift from God, not a commodity.


Children ARE a gift from God. If aNY of the science works, It’s a miracle. My son in law was killed in Iraq and they didn’t think of freezing sperm. THey DIDNT THINK He’d die. He was 24yo. Do you kmow, if he had a car accident and died, they would ask for every other organ in his bofy. They would accept his wife’s signature. But, don’t ask for the testicles. In the chaos of such a horrible event, I the mother of the widow was placed on testicle duty.
I had to call our Senator to make sure they wouldn’t embalm him over there.
Jason was dead 5 days refrigerated and when we retrieved his testicles, 2% of sperm were still alive and thriving. A MIRACLE. When the time comes for my daughter to try and get pregnant, they will fertilize 2 in the dish and hope they get married. No waste of ermbryos. They will be written up in medical books.
I pray no one has to loose someone in combat or by any accident that cuts short young lives. But, there’s a part of us that want him here with us. Maybe God will allow it. Jason’s baby IS NOT a commodity. He or she would be a gift from God
and a miracle. A life is never a commodity.
in Christ’s love


Life is also a gift from God. So why spend thousands of dollars trying to extend your life by going to the hospital when you get sick? Modern medicine allows us to do lots of things that we couldn’t do otherwise including extending our lives and allowing some people to have children of their own who couldn’t otherwise do so.


We will lovingly disagree. One day we will all meet our Savior. Not chosen to have a baby is not a sin, unless married and both spouses refuse to have children. Wanting to have a child, is not a sin. Using science to guide you should not be a sin unless frozen embryos are discarded. At this time, the church is not on that page. But, because of AIDS, the church allows condom use under Benedict XVI. Yesterdsy, Pope Francis okayed birth control for people living with that mosquito.WOULD YOU BELIEVE!!!
May God give us wisdom in all matters. May He align our hearts and mind to His.
He promises to give us the desires of our hearts. That our answers to prayer are on the way before we ask. May all are decision be made with love in our hesrts.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice :slight_smile:



You have a hard road here because in the end refusal to acknowledge the wrongness of artificial insemination is a problem of the will, not the intellect.

Let’s summarize what makes it so difficult:

–The good intentions of the couple. Children are naturally and normally an outgrowth of true marriages and it is right that couples want and expect them.

–Modern sense of entitlement. The false doctrine of “reproductive freedom” as a two-edged sword. On the one hand used as a justification for reaching into a person’s womb with a pair of forceps and dismembering the innocent human within. On the other hand used to invent a “right to a child” with the implication of “by any means available”, which is part of:

–modern Man fully indoctrinated in consequentialism, or the belief that the ends justifies the means.

–The domination of Man by technology and a near obliviousness to how often it is actually enslaving us rather than helping us.

That’s a lot of jungle to cut through to Truth and clarity. But, for what it’s worth, I think one can put the Catechism into layman’s terms and hope and pray that those with ears hear:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170


It came up in discussion, and they specifically asked why it would be wrong, wondering why the Church teaches that it is immoral.


This is very good, although long. I will have to digest it a little more.

Perhaps what it really comes down to (and this would extend to all procedures designed to create a human life “in the lab”) is that use of such procedures tend to weaken the respect and dignity owed to human beings, as children become a product or commodity.


If they come to the topic with genuine enquiry, rather than in defence of a course already chosen, you may be able to influence them…gently.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit