Let My Sperm Go !

Ah yes… isn’t it great to live in an age when reproductive technology has solved so many of the age-old problems of humankind, and significantly increased our control and decision-making power over this most balky of organic processes, i.e. the process of creating more humans out of existing human material? It can truly be said, from enlightenment came science, and from science came technology, and from technology came control, and… well, isn’t “wisdom” in there anywhere? Oh, who cares. The point is that the Technological Imperative – “what can be done, will be done” – has once again been shown to be the all-powerful, overarching law of our age. Or has it?

Now a woman in California (wow – didn’t see that coming) is suing a “fertility medical center” (the one housed in the actual set for the original “Frankenstein” movie) (just kidding) in order to obtain her deceased husband’s preserved sperm in order to become pregnant. This is in direct contradiction to her husband’s known opposition to the idea of having children, and his wish that the sperm should be destroyed in the event of his death. (Then why’d you have it frozen in the first place, dummy? And don't say, "I was drunk".) Her argument is that he was, indeed, willing to have a child with her, besides which he didn’t leave a will. But he did check a box marked, “discard”. So the “dead hand” – if that is the word – seems to have spoken. The court’s decision not to turn the sperm over to the widow was based on the finding that the sperm was the “sole property” of the husband, unlike the case if “a preembryo” had been in contention, a “preembryo” supposedly being the object of joint custody.

Not surprisingly, a lawyer for the deceased husband’s parents, who opposed the request, said “there is little related case law”. “This is one of a handful [yes, he really said that], and it is likely to have some effect in future cases.”

Well – the Church has been saying for decades that once you separate the procreative from the unitive aspects of human sexuality, all sorts of chaos and confusion results, and this case is a perfect example. An entire industry has grown up around a set of false premises concerning human sexuality and reproduction, and the results – far from liberating – have entangled the people involved in an ever-deepening morass of moral, ethical, and legal ambiguities. At least it didn’t take so long that a clear line can’t still be drawn – but the reproductive industry itself isn’t drawing it, and its victims – er, “clientele” – are typically too desperate, deluded, or stressed out to do so. So it devolves to those who must watch the sorry proceedings from the sidelines – with amazement, pity, and regret.