I've read your column for several years, and I love it! Please continue your great educational work. I do have an issue regarding your response to a question about artificial insemination. You say: "Another man's sperm (apart from her husband) has no business being in a woman's body." But what about blood transfusions? Is it wrong for another man's blood to be in a woman's body? Why would I be wrong since there is no lust involved and no relationship with the man. I'm willing to be convinced either way on this issue, and it does not affect my personal situation. -- Aurelio Sablone (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
You raise a very good point. Blood transfusions -- and organ donations, for that matter -- are instances of part of one person's body becoming part of another person. Surely it is right to preserve life, and self-sacrifice sounds like a very Christ-like thing to do. As I admitted in Q&A 0409 - Artificial Insemination Parts I and II (at this website), I was treading in a "grayer" area of the Scripture. I spoke too strongly to a difficult and highly problematic issue. And yet I still believe that AI is in at least one important way not the same as a blood transfusion.
AI is not a life-saving measure. No one is going to die without it. Moreover, there is the example of patient faith on the part of couples who were unable to have children (Abraham and Sarah, Elkanah and Hannah, Zechariah and Elizabeth -- to name just a few couples). Since barrenness / fruitfulness is such a pervasive biblical theme, I would encourage everyone to study it carefully before making any decision about AI.
All of us need to think theologically about such issues. Even if we may arrive at different conclusions, certainly we can agree about the need to reflect carefully and biblically -- theologically, in other words.
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2003. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.
