Thank you for your thoughtful answer.
I have trouble accepting that if we want to bring forth a child from our loving relationship, it is unethical for us to do IVF, or artificial insemination. It is still the sperm and the egg, joined together because we lovingly made a choice to try to procreate (even if we need help doing so). We are not supplanting the conjugal act with a petri dish (like a cloning factory would) -- because our conjugal bond remains. We would not be creating disposable biological material -- if we were ever blessed with precious embryos, I would treasure them with my life.
Logically speaking, elderly couples or wives who have had hysterectomies would also not be permitted to engage in conjugal acts, correct? That doesn't make sense to me.
I understand we're coming from different perspectives here -- I appreciate the dialog.
In order for an act to be ethical, it is not enough for the agent to have good motives. Good motives are a necessary but not sufficient condition for an act to be ethical. Therefore, good intentions of parents are not sufficient to make IVF ethical. So, what else (besides good motives) is necessary for an act to be ethical? Two things: the act has to be a good kind of act, and the right circumstances for the act must be present. The problem with IVF is that it is not a good kind of act. By its very nature it is deficient in the three ways that I mentioned in #147. If in act is not a good kind of act, then there are no motives or circumstances that can make it a good act.
Regarding whether it is ethical for elderly married couples or infertile married couples to have sex, the answer is yes. To be ethically justified, the conjugal act requires spiritual union and biological union. The latter occurs in a unifying reproductive act in which the two become one, for biologically, they are engaged in one biological function, i.e. the act of reproduction (which is a two-person act). Any *particular* conjugal act does not need to lead to conception in order to be a justified act. It has to be an act of the *type* that leads to conception (i.e. sexual intercourse). Hence, one need not be fertile in order to engage in the conjugal act ethically. However, it is unethical to separate purposely the conjugal act from the possibility of procreation (say, by self-sterilization) for the purpose of separating sex from the possibility of procreation. On the other hand, if a woman has ovarian cancer, and has a hysterectomy, she has sterilized herself, but not for the purpose of separating sex and procreation. Here, the principle of double effect applies. She sought to preserve her life, with the foreseen but unintended consequence of losing her fertility. Her conjugal acts are ethically justified because they are (1) spiritually unitive AND (2) biologically unitive in type, without intentional thwarting of the biological function.
-A8
Personally, I had zero problems with artificial insemination. But IVF was fraught with very upsetting moral questions for us. We opted for adoption, and are extremely grateful for our precious kids.
My years of infertility (and miscarriages) were the worst of my life. If it's that way for you too, hang in there. A better day is around the corner.
My best to you.