CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
7
Yes No
Debate Score:20
Arguments:40
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (11)
 
 No (5)

Debate Creator

Micmacmoc(2259) pic



Is 'Artificial Insemination by Donor' Morally Acceptable?

"Sperm donation is the provision by a man of his sperm for the purpose of inseminating or impregnating a woman who is not necessarily his sexual partner"

Yes

Side Score: 13
VS.

No

Side Score: 7

Of course it's morally acceptable; if it's artifical insemination then does it really matter who performs the procedure, so long as they are qualified?

Now, if we're talking natural insemination by donor, that would likely be morally unacceptable in most circles, though certainly not all. Is that what you were going for?

Side: Yes
Jace(5187) Clarified
1 point

Now, if we're talking natural insemination by donor, that would likely be morally unacceptable in most circles, though certainly not all.

Really? I mean that sincerely. Sometimes I am really surprised by what people find immoral. Most people seriously object to that? Why? o.O

Side: Yes
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Natural insemination by donor, natural as opposed to artificial, donor as opposed to partner; eg. the donor has sex with the woman in order to impregnate her.

Most people would consider that adultery, no? Even if her husband/partner was totally okay with it, most people would even now take an issue with it and be judgemental. In the case of an unmarried woman, not so much, so I probably should have specified that.

Side: Yes
2 points

Maybe that's how Mary became pregnant with Jesus. He thought his father was God... but really it was Bob... the dirty hobo that walked around jizzing on everything.

Side: Yes

I don't see why not. If a woman's husband is infertile but she wants to bear a child it seems like a perfectly acceptable decision. I don't think it would be moral for a woman to do it if she's single and cannot support the child though. A child shouldn't be born into those situations if it can be helped

Side: Yes

I agree. Fortunately, artificial insemination isn't cheap, so it seems likely that someone who could afford it, would also be able to afford the child.

Side: Yes

I didn't think of that that's true. .

Side: Yes
Jace(5187) Clarified
1 point

Interesting that you feel the need to qualify the situation for a poor single mother but not a poor couple.

And by extension do you consider it generally immoral for all poor people to have children? Is their decision to procreate actually immoral, given that it is a highly primal biological drive, or is the condition of poverty itself a reflection of social and collective immorality?

Side: Yes
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

I believe that intentionally bringing a child into poverty is immoral.

It's true that it is a highly primal biological drive, but that doesn't mean it is moral to act on it without discretion. It's also entirely normal for men of all ages to be attracted to girls in their late teens, but that doesn't make it morally or socially acceptable for a 40 year old to sleep with a 16 year old. Some may not object morally, but it's still something that wouldn't be socially acceptable.

I also don't believe that it's a dichotomy; I maintain that it is immoral to intentionally bring a child into poverty, but poverty itself can certainly be a reflection of social/collective morality as you suggest; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Side: Yes
sweetspice16(255) Clarified
1 point

Again though, artificial insemination isn't cheap, so it seems unlikely that someone who would be unable to afford raising the child would be able to afford it in the first place. That goes for single mothers, couples, anyone.

Side: Yes

Why would it not be ?

Side: Yes
Micmacmoc(2259) Clarified
1 point

There are many reasons why it could be perceived to be so. One of the leading opinions is the view of the Roman Catholic Church, who see that it as an unnatural practice

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
3 points

"Unnatural" is not synonymous with immoral .

Side: No
1 point

How would this be considered immoral? Both parties are consenting to this exchange. He's giving up a small portion of his dna, that otherwise would have been useless and probably would have died if it had not been given for artificial insemination.

Side: Yes

How would it be immoral? It is not wronging anybody, nor does it have a negative effect (assuming the process and legal procedures are done correctly and the motives are decent).

Side: Yes

It sounds very painful and no one should be doing that.

Side: No

No because I feel that people have the right to know where they come from.

Side: No
Jace(5187) Disputed
1 point

Artificial insemination by donor does not inherently preclude that knowledge. There are anonymous donors, but not all of them are and that anonymity would be a factor for the parent(s) to consider in their decision making process on which artificial insemination program to use.

Presumably, by natural extension of your argument, you find it immoral under any circumstances should a child not know the identities of both of their parents. Therefore, you would find closed adoptions and non-disclosed adoption immoral. You would also find it immoral for parents to raise children in single or multi-parent households where the child did not know their other parent, for whatever reason. If this is true then your argument at least does not suffer from logical inconsistency. That being true, however, your real objection has less to do with artificial insemination and more to do with lack of transparency with respect to personal biological lineage. That you conflate this with opposition against artificial insemination indicates either a lack of awareness of the process, or an underlying prejudice against the practice.

Side: Yes
1 point

I do find any situation where the child does not know his or her anscestery to be wrong, including adoption. You made a very valid point. If the donor's name at least would be known to the child, I might think differently.

Side: No