Should fertility clinics divest themselves of pornography?

Some commentators object to the way in which fertility clinics make pornography available to men as an aid to masturbation when those men produce sperm for evaluation, storage or IVF. These objections typically rely on claims that pornography is generally harmful to women, unnecessary and dissociates sexual acts from conception. In light of these objections, certain commentators want fertility clinics to divest themselves of pornography, but these objections to pornography are not morally convincing. In general, pornography can have psychological value to men masturbating 'on demand' in clinical contexts. Not all erotica must, either, work to the disadvantage of women in its means of production or social effects. Moreover, the sexuality expressed in masturbation has a value of its own, and conception apart from sexual intercourse is morally defensible on its own. Divestment from pornography would do little to constrain the putative harms of pornography because clinics consume only a fractional amount of the total amount of pornography available. The provision of pornography is a defensible clinical practice, even if it is not absolutely necessary to all men in producing a sperm sample important to their fertility or their interests in donating gametes.