Talk:Artificial insemination

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Reproductive Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Women's Health This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Artificial insemination. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackieelsokkary, Bschen12, Stevenvpham, Ksucsf19. Peer reviewers: Juliechaeoon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far too many of the medical pages don't inform us on the history of the procedure/diagnosis/discovery/etc. Doops 16:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) ok!!!! Bremen 06:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How could a 15th century Spanish queen have been artificially inseminated? I wonder if they even had the necessary instruments back then!

2007-03-11 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Dear Lena,

Artificial insemination is incredibly low-tech. You don't need any particular instruments. Just a little container for transportation will do the trick if the recipient is close at hand and the temperature is controlled.

2007-09-06 WH701, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WH701 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought some kind of syringe would be necessary. What do you mean with “close at hand”?

2007-12-08 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.19.152 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lena, all you need to do to AI a human is stick cum driping fingers into the pussy, though it may be safer to let a docter do it.

Oh, really? That sounds very inefficent!

2008-05-25 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

This seems to be right. I found these home artificial insemination kits, whose main components are semen sample containers and syringes. It doesn't take too much imagination to think that more old-fashioned techniques could accomplish the same thing - albeit with a lower success rate. The article should perhaps be altered so it doesn't seem like the process is something that could only ever be done in a laboratory. (Not that I necessarily want to encourage any ad-hoc techniques like this.) Open4D (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written from the standpoint that AI is a practise among humans; this is not strictly correct, as it was (and perhaps still is) used in agriculture and breeding, etc. to improve the bloodline of offspring. I would call for someone who knows a bit more about this to write a section at least within the article. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 01:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes the viewpoint of this article is entirely wrong. Artificial insemination is mostly used in reference to breeding livestock. This is where its main emphasis should lie. Human AI should be mostly de-emphasised. I'm certainly not an expert in this field, but I do know it's a very important topic for livestock breeders and a very unimportant topic for humans. --71.32.166.217 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with both of you 100%. I do, in fact have a lot of information on Artificial Insemination of Livestock Species, as I took a course in it over the summer. I am not confidient enough in my wikipedia skills to add this information. I wouldn't know where to start, nor how to format anything. Any suggestions?

Disagree - as a medicine student I've heard artificial insemination many times, but only related to human beings. Before I read this article, I hadn't spent a thought on that the main use for it is in animals. In fact, if I hadn't seen this discussion, I would have moved everything refering to animals to an own article, and kept the main article to human beings, because it is human beings that increasingly seek for artificial insemination. The technology improves, as more and more people understand that there is help out there, and these people aren't the least interested in how to perform it on cows! However, since I don't know how many breeders vs. people seeking personal help read this page, I don't think any major split of this article should be done in the present time. Mikael Häggström 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll have to agree with the first two and disagree with you. You're a medical student and I'm sure that you hear the term mostly in regards to humans. But in my part of the country, AI is used pretty much exclusively to mean AI in livestock. That's what the general population takes it to mean and how the technique is predominantly used.--64.238.49.65 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I'll have to disagree with all of you. I believe that humans are animals, at least from a biological standpoint, and this article should be written with this in mind, but this is only what I believe, and I'm not important so feel free to continue however you please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopfries (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Ummm....male partner? What about a sperm donor? Come on, it's 2008 already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.97.133.236 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a short story that includes an AI sequence, and was looking for a detailed description of how it's done, and how it has been done over the last century, particularly when the cow is impregnated within an hour or two of sperm collection (which would not require freezing). I was disappointed at the lack of details, such as what the semen is placed in before being inserted in the cow. (I assume the "impregnator" doesn't just "grab a glob" and shove it in." I didn't expect I'd have to wait until Dirty Jobs covers the topic (though Mike has covered pregnancy verification in cattle). WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for information about AI for humans but was not surprised to see information as it relates to animals. To say it is very unimportant to humans is a bit strong and perhaps naive. Regardless if it is something that is being considered by someone to bring a new child into their family, enahnce the quality of their herd, or simply learn about the subject why would you de-emphasis anything? All areas of AI should be included to properly educate everyone. To do otherwise would be tantamount to censorship or bias. Neither of which we need in a source people use to learn. Javoch (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should mostly be about AI in regards to animals. I think people are thinking of In Vitro, which is much more precise in an attempt at pregnancy. Many, many animals are breeded using AI and it's very common in the line of thoroughbred race horses and show horses. AI is not as controversial as people are trying to make it! It's a way of helping out nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eewalker3 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There had been an addition, that artificial insemination of cows also would favour the body of future cows. However, the function of cows are mainly to produce milk. Therefore, I don't think the looks, or whatever the editor meant, is that essential. Thus, the edit is undid.User:Mortsggah 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION!!! I live on a Farm/Ranch in Nebraska. We have about 1,300 head of cattle. We AI all of our first calf heifers, and some of our cows. MILK? NO! We do not produce milk cows, there are very few places anymore that have Dairy farms. As time has gone on Dairy farms have become more concentrated. In other words, less small farms all over the place, more large operations spread out. Im trying to correct all you nerdy city folk that dont get out much. I show calves all over, and AI plays a huge part in how my club calves will look. Also when you AI cattle just for general herd use, or to make a feedlot animal to butcher for the meat, it is important to make sure that the animal is short and stout. This way it eats less feed, costing the feeder less money, hoping to make a larger profit when the animal is sold for slaughter. AI is heavily used in cattle, and several other animals. That is where it was all started.

Reiss L. Bruning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.127.23.164 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have expertise on the subject. Better leave that section to you. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be a female. Males of any species, surgically engineered in the corect way are able to be artificially inseminated.- Thangfries

You have mixed up artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation. There are important differences between them. In vitro fertilisation means that you take ovum from a female and sperm from a male. You let the sperm fertilise the ovum in outside the body. Then you place the resulting embryo in the womb of a female. Artificial insemination only means taking sperm from a male and inject it into the womb of a female. Then the rest comes about the natural way. Theoretically, you could surgically place a womb inside the body of a male. But injecting sperm into it would have no effect since males don’t produce any ovum to fertilise. In order to make him pregnant you would have to take ovum from a female and fertilise it outside the body. Then you could place the embryo in the surgically altered male’s womb and let it grow there. Such a procedure would be considered in vitro fertilisation and not artificial insemination.

2008-06-18 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.19.130 (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but males can be naturally inseminated too (just like wymyn) - why not provide artificial for them too (just like wymyn)? Isn't this prejudiced and discriminatory? Just asking. Thangfries also brought up the subject of [hormonally and] surgically altered persons too. It didn't sound to me like Thangfries was mixing anything up. --76.200.150.125 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? are you serious? Obviously you can artificially inseminate a mailbox or any other inanimate object, in addition to a man or 'wymyn'. The article is about artificial insemination as a technique to induce pregnancy. Only women are capable of becoming pregnant. That's why they do it.. not just so a man can have some semen placed in his body. Jesus christ...

I guess that you could surgically implant an entire female reproductive and endocrine system inside a man, but that is not yet technologically feasible and is not something that should be brought up in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.149.63 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of repeated information in this article. In particular, I'm talking about the repeated mentioning and explanation of IUI, in sections 1, 2, and 4.2. Can somebody clean it up?Gyndanya (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not. --76.200.150.125 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because... bestiality is illegal and "harmful" wouldn't that make A.I. illegal and harmful too? I think people (me included) would be interested to see evidence that A.I. is harmful or is not harmful for animal.
Alusky (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's to do with the motivation and circumstances: AI is a technical task, not one done for enjoyment or exploitation. In the same way gynaecological examination is not sexual assault, and surgery is not grievious bodily harm. There is some scope for squeamishness though: I remember once hearing a bull semen "harvester" on the radio saying that people rarely wanted to shake his hand after he'd told them what his job was... Richard New Forest (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, but what I want to see is 'evidence' moving the harm balance to one side or the other. Some thing like a document saying "if you are aroused from doing A.I. is harmful to the animal" or "A.I. are not harmful to animals because, this and that" or should it be common sense that A.I. is not harmful to animals?
Alusky (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if anyone has bothered, but you never know what might have been used as a subject for a sociology doctorate... Richard New Forest (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does 'prewashed' redirect here? -Brndtnlsn (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is increasingly used as an authoritative work and is often a link from other websites. There is an obvious and necessary line to draw between trying to be be a basic reference work used as a starting point, and attempting to be an over-detailed work which carries a lot of information which is not required by the average reader.

This article contains both basic and more detailed descriptions of artificial insemination. I have noted that it is often used as a link from other websites which imply that a full and detailed description is available. This is potentially dangerous because artificial insemination must be performed safely and correctly.

I have therefore added some detail to the procedural aspects which are designed to assist those seeking it. I justify this by my comments above, and also because Wikipedia carries an authority and frequently makes available information which is not available elsewhere.

I hope that there will be agreement on this point and that the additional material will prove useful to those interested or intending to attempt insemination by artificial means.

ALEXEIS (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-pollination I was searching for this article, but ended up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.224.169 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artificial insemination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107151459/http://dk.cryosinternational.com:80/clinics/questions-answers.aspx to http://dk.cryosinternational.com/clinics/questions-answers.aspx#5351
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ilga-europe.org/media_library/ilga_europe/publications/reports_and_other_publications/rainbow_map_2013/index
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920004757/http://www.darleyflyingstart.com:80/2006/work/july07_sun_pathak.shtml to http://www.darleyflyingstart.com/2006/work/july07_sun_pathak.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620072355/http://www.hfea.gov.uk:80/39.html to http://www.hfea.gov.uk/39.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artificial insemination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104131213/http://www.figo.org/news/female-bodies-reject-certain-sperm to http://www.figo.org/news/female-bodies-reject-certain-sperm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724221400/http://familyscholars.org/2011/02/17/4579/ to http://familyscholars.org/2011/02/17/4579/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hfea.gov.uk/39.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artificial insemination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ivf.com//success.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828172939/http://dk.cryosinternational.com/private-customers/questions-answers.aspx to http://dk.cryosinternational.com/private-customers/questions-answers.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to elaborate on the pregnancy rates that occur between the ICI and IUI techniques as there is more recent literature published on the topic. Additionally I would like to further edit the sections on the 4 techniques (ICI, IUI, Intrauterine tuboperitoneal insemination, and Intratubal insemination) of artificial insemination to discuss the differences and similarities. Jackieelsokkary (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that your other group members assign themselves to this article, and that they will each also contribute something to it. Health policy (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources suggest that the method Intracervical Insemination isn't what the current source says: It differs from Intravaginal Insemination. Furthermore, it is described quite short in the current source. What I want to say is: The Intracervical Insemination is in fact, Intracervical. The semen isn't placed on top of the cervix, but a bit inside of it like the term actually suggests. This helps sperm cells to pass the cervical barrier easier but allowing it to be unwashed.

Src: http://www.dallasfertility.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Third-Party-Reproduction-Guide.pdf P. 11

Src2: https://americanpregnancy.org/infertility/donor-insemination/

Src3: https://www.shecares.com/pregnancy/artificial-insemination-ai

Placing semen on the cervix is referred as Cervical Insemination here, but not as Intracervical insemination:

Src 4: Besselink, D. E., Farquhar, C., Kremer, J. A., Marjoribanks, J., & O’Brien, P. A. (2008). Cervical insemination versus intra-uterine insemination of donor sperm for subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000317.pub3 

Src5 is one of the early studies comparing different methods of Intracervical Insemination: One with a cap that entered the cervical canal, the other one with a straw where semen is placed into the canal.

Flierman, P. A., Hogerzeil, H. V., & Hemrika, D. J. (1997). A prospective, randomized, cross-over comparison of two methods of artificial insemination by donor on the incidence of conception: intracervical insemination by straw versus cervical cap. Human Reproduction, 12(9), 1945–1948.

To conclude, the whole section, especially the phrase "Intracervical insemination (ICI) simulates the ejaculation of semen by the penis into the vagina during intercourse." is very certainly completely wrong.

AidenPicasso (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Equating Artificial insemination of animals with rape is massively POV and is promoting a fringe viewpoint. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, censoring those views is POV, and the stances of major animal rights advocates and organizations regarding animal treatment are not fringe viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolovr (talk • contribs)

No, it is a fringe view. It should not be listed here, just as we don't write 'Flat earthers think this is all fake' on all of our astronomy articles. - MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is a fringe theory? I looked up wikipedia's article on fringe viewpoints, and this obviously isn't one. For one thing, this isn't a discussion of scientific theories. It's just a semantic squabble. If the entire article was dedicated to saying animal AI is rape, then sure, that wouldn't be right, but animal AI = rape is a significant minority viewpoint, substantiated by tons of sources, both for and against such statement. As such, it deserves at least a mention. Even the flat-earth theory is still mentioned on the Earth article. Censoring this would be much worse than letting it stay. Mariolovr (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what sources do you have that establish prevalence of this view? This isn't akin to mentioning flat earth on Earth, this is the equivalent of mentioning flat earth theories on GPS. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, MrOllie views animal rights proponents as extremists.

Why are you asking for sources? You removed them, so I would have thought you already read them. Does that mean you didn't even read them? But since you asked, here are the sources I added.^[1][2][3] I didn't realize this was going to be so controversial, so I can provide more if needed.

Could you explain your analogy a bit better? I fail to see the link. I thought flat earth theory didn't really discuss GPS or label it in any way. Mariolovr (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PETA is the fringe of the animal rights movement. Sources noting that PETA said something do not establish that a belief is widespread in the animal rights movment. - MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Any source on that? Probably not, considering that PETA is the biggest animal rights organization in the world. Besides, I also linked "The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics". Is that a fringe source too? Mariolovr (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just commenting on the same PETA statements. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it comments on PETA's stance means that it is relevant.

But anyway, here is Mercy for Animals repeating the same thing.^[1][2] Like I said, I could easily find more sources if I had the time. Mariolovr (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic animal advocates also compare AI to bestiality.^[3] In Kansas the bestiality law apparently makes no exceptions for AI, making AI de jure illegal. ^[4] Trimton (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emiliaberk, Jlower2, Nklaus99099, Uosduffy, Lvillasenor2019 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Emiliaberk (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in adding a section to the article about legal frameworks for artificial insemination, such as for establishing parental rights in various jurisdictions in the US--Uosduffy (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]