An argument for the illegality of condoms

[fred_conty]

The following attempts to be an argument for the illegality of condoms. It seems to me that if the truth of any of its premises relies upon the truth of a notion that cannot be rationally justified, the argument should be rejected. If the premises do not so rely, and are true, then the argument, if valid, should be accepted. In this case, people who argue for the legality of condoms should, it may seem, consider their arguments irrational. That making condoms illegal might be impractical strikes me as an irrelevant reply: concerning matters of natural law, charges of impractically have nothing to do with the law should or shouldn’t be. The pervasiveness of slavery never made it true that slavery should be legal. Even if the impractically argument was considered relevant it would be baseless—how could one ever be so sure? Had someone told people living in Connecticut in 1960 that condoms should be made available for widespread use by 1980, surely this would be considered impractical as well. The argument is as follows:

P1: Intentional acts embodying a contra-life will are intrinsically immoral (contrary to natural law).
P2: The use of contraceptives embodies a contra-life will.
C1: Therefore, the use of contraceptives, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
P3: Condoms are contraceptives.
C2: Therefore, the use of condoms, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
P4: State resources should not in any way support products whose usage, as intentional acts, is intrinsically immoral.
P5: If a state makes the usage of a product legal, it supports the product with state resources.
C3: Therefore, the state should make illegal any product whose usage, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
C4: Therefore, the state should make condoms illegal.

Good luck to you, and I hope you get an understanding Judge, but …

 

[passer_by]

Well, here’s your problem: it’s not the secular government’s place to outlaw things that one particular religious group considers bad.

We luckily live in a pluralistic society with a secular government, in which individuals are permitted to have all kinds of beliefs – including this belief that condoms are somehow “bad” – but in which those individuals aren’t permitted to force those beliefs on others.

The government’s laws aren’t based on morality. They’re based on practicality. The government doesn’t outlaw murder, for example, “because it’s bad,” which is a nonsenscial reason. It outlaws murder because a society in which there were no negative incentives for murder might descend into chaos, and nobody wants that.

You already seem to presuppose that chaos is bad and order is good.

So in either case, you have to subscribe to some moral system on top of which you build your legal system. Otherwise the legal laws won’t make any sense at all. It would just be some man’s (or men) arbitrary set of rules in which case no one should adhere to them anyway.

As for the question by the OP, I think it might be important for us to change the culture, and interior of the person rather than the law. But the change of law can also be beneficial. But if there is only a change of law without any interior conversion, then its only a matter of time before someone tries to break free of it.

So all of them need to happen simultaneously. It might be easier though to change the laws than change the hearts. So that might be a place to start.

 

[Christopher68]

This is the second thread I’ve seen on this topic lately. This topic is a complete non-starter for any number of reasons. Only on an internet message forum would this topic even be debated as if it were a legitimate topic.

 

[Nate13]

This is the second thread I’ve seen on this topic lately. This topic is a complete non-starter for any number of reasons. Only on an internet message forum would this topic even be debated as if it were a legitimate topic.

Only a few generations ago this topic was being debated in the Supreme Court.

 

[WinterLight]

In truth our system of law is based upon the priciple of “utility” – the “greatest good for the greatest number.” See Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

You might want to check your dates. Although Bentham was a contemporary to our Founders, Mill followed them. More importantly, our Founders had more in common with natural law and so-called “Enlightenment” values than utilitarianism.

 

[andrewstx]

I think it’s impossible to use force to make the largely non-Catholic populace to live according to Catholic teaching.

An example would be it the USA made Catholicism the official state religion and made all others illegal.

Everyone would be forced to go to a Catholic church and be baptised.

But many of those individuals would just be going through the motions and doing nothing but getting wet.

Nothing would matter if those people did not belive in God and in the case of adults repent.

 

[sw85]

I think it’s impossible to use force to make the largely non-Catholic populace to live according to Catholic teaching.

An example would be it the USA made Catholicism the official state religion and made all others illegal.

Everyone would be forced to go to a Catholic church and be baptised.

It doesn’t follow that making Catholicism the state religion would necessarily require other religions to be banned. Historical establishment of the Church tolerated, for instance, Jews. In any event involuntary baptisms are universally recognized as invalid.

 

[NonServiam]

You already seem to presuppose that chaos is bad and order is good.

You had better watch those “seems” – they’re not always what they seem.

In point of fact, I don’t think that chaos is “bad” in the sense of being “wrong” according to some “moral system” I subscribe to. Chaos – in the sense I’m using it here, when applied to an entire society – is a state of affairs that I personally find displeasing and that I think it’s reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people would find displeasing. There is no need to appeal to any “moral system” here – just the preferences of the vast, vast majority of people.

So in either case, you have to subscribe to some moral system on top of which you build your legal system.

Incorrect.

Otherwise the legal laws won’t make any sense at all. It would just be some man’s (or men) arbitrary set of rules in which case no one should adhere to them anyway.

Laws aren’t based on a system of morality, but they’re also not arbitrary in the sense of being picked out of a hat: I’ve been trying to explain that they are rooted in real preferences and developed slowly over time.

 

[Christopher68]

Only a few generations ago this topic was being debated in the Supreme Court.

And it was only a few generations ago that black people were treated like second class citizens.

Sometimes the Supreme Court is needed to reaffirm common sense.

 

[Nate13]

And it was only a few generations ago that black people were treated like second class citizens.

Sometimes the Supreme Court is needed to reaffirm common sense.

Haha I’m sure you know that the laws on contraceptives were overturned not based on whether they were good laws or not, but rather based on the idea that they were against our right to privacy that was conjured up for the case. The same goes for abortion actually. They never addressed whether it was right or wrong or in society’s best interest or not. It was ruled a breach against the “right to privacy”.

The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court’s opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the “penumbras” and “emanations” of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating “a zone of privacy,” to Justice Goldberg’s partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment’s reference to “other rights retained by the people,” to Justice Harlan’s decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment’s liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based “on the concept of ordered liberty.”
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

I’d also argue that making laws to control the import/production of condoms would not be a breach of the right to privacy. I mean seriously, a “zone of privacy”? That’s what you call common sense?

 

[Christopher68]

Haha I’m sure you know that the laws on contraceptives were overturned not based on whether they were good laws or not, but rather based on the idea that they were against our right to privacy that was conjured up for the case. They never addressed whether it was right or wrong or in society’s best interest or not. It was ruled a breach against the “right to privacy”.

Regarding whether they were good laws or not, even the two dissenters in the Supreme Court’s Griswold decision didn’t think they were good laws. In fact, Justice Stewart, called the Connecticut statue “an uncommonly silly law.”

You also used the words “society’s best interest”. However, the most important role of government is the protection of individual rights. The Constitution was designed to limit government, not individuals. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power. The Ninth Amendment declares that the fact a right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right.

I’d also argue that making laws to control the import/production of condoms would not be a breach of the right to privacy. I mean seriously, a “zone of privacy”? That’s what you call common sense?

It appears that there is no limit to the power you would cede to government. Thankfully your views are in the small collectivist minority.

 

[Nate13]

You also used the words “society’s best interest”. However, the most important role of government is the protection of individual rights. The Constitution was designed to limit government, not individuals. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power. The Ninth Amendment declares that the fact a right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right.

It appears that there is no limit to the power you would cede to government. Thankfully your views are in the small collectivist minority.

My point earlier was that if the government has the power to regulate the gun industry, why not condoms? I mean there is a whole amendment devoted to protecting the right to bear arms and people are all over trying to quench that right. Do you favor making prostitution legal in the name of the protection of individual rights? Are laws against prostitution also silly laws?

 

[Christopher68]

My point earlier was that if the government has the power to regulate the gun industry, why not condoms. Do you favor making prostitution legal in the name of the protection of individual rights? Are laws against prostitution also silly laws?

I’ll let my earlier comments regarding individual rights stand on their own.

Regarding the Griswold statute that was referenced, it is worth repeating that it was one of the *dissenting *justices who referred to it as being “uncommonly silly”. And over the course of 50+ years it has not become any less silly.

 

[Tenofovir]

What is the difference between regulating condoms like some countries regulate guns? In all honesty a stronger argument can be made against regulating guns than it can against regulating condoms. Guns have recreational uses and uses that are not a danger to society. What use do condoms have that is not a danger to society? Party balloons? Obviously America does not outlaw owning guns, but there are advocates for that and there are countries that do so. If we can do so with guns, why not condoms?

Condoms can protect from sexually transmitted diseases in cases where sex will occur anyway because some people have rejected the prohibition against extra-marital sex. Too counterclaim the issue of contraception, consider that the couple is bent on abortion should they conceive.

Also are condoms immoral in cases where the people cannot conceive, are married and one has a deadly STD such as HIV/AIDS? So you have an HIV positive woman, sans a uterus (born without one or it was removed for medical reasons), married to a man. She cannot conceive. But sex is dangerous because the STD can be spread to her HIV negative partner.

I agree that condom use to prevent pregnancy is wrong, but in cases where pregnancy cannot occur or where the couple use family planning anyway/would abort the child anyway, condoms can provide at least reduction in spread of disease. This is not ideal, but at least when the one partner starts thinking about the other’s health, it is a small step towards Godly morality.

 

[Tenofovir]

My point earlier was that if the government has the power to regulate the gun industry, why not condoms? I mean there is a whole amendment devoted to protecting the right to bear arms and people are all over trying to quench that right. Do you favor making prostitution legal in the name of the protection of individual rights? Are laws against prostitution also silly laws?

Does God want us to do that though? Surely we have free will. Does not prohibiting that free will excessively deny the free will God gave us to accept Him and follow Him of our own? If we’re co-erced to follow because we may be arrested if we don’t, are we really following God the way God wants us to follow Him?

Perhaps someone can weigh in on this. Thanks.

 

[Nate13]

Condoms can protect from sexually transmitted diseases in cases where sex will occur anyway because some people have rejected the prohibition against extra-marital sex.

Also are condoms immoral in cases where the people cannot conceive, are married and one has a deadly STD such as HIV/AIDS? So you have an HIV positive woman, sans a uterus (born without one or it was removed for medical reasons), married to a man. She cannot conceive. But sex is dangerous because it can be spread to her HIV negative partner.

I agree that condom use to prevent pregnancy is wrong, but in cases where pregnancy cannot occur or where the couple use family planning anyway/would abort the child anyway, condoms can provide at least reduction in spread of disease. This is not ideal, but at least when the one partner starts thinking about the other’s health, it is a small step towards Godly morality.

Now this is a much more reasonable position. However I assume that if ever get to a point where we are making condoms illegal we are doing so because more than 50% of the population agrees that it is in societies best interest. If we made such a law now it would probably end up causing more harm than good as you proposed.

It should be pointed out though that we didn’t have problems with raging STD’s and high amounts of women getting pregnant out of wedlock when condoms were illegal. How much of this do you attribute to people changing and how much do you attribute to the availability of condoms? I’d also point to Africa where the results show that preaching monogamy, NFP, and abstinence is a much more effective way of fighting the AIDS epidemic there than throwing condoms at them. They say condoms are what, 80% effective at preventing AIDS in actual application? Would you have sex with someone if there was a 1 in 5 chance that you would get AIDS?

 

[Nate13]

Does God want us to do that though? Surely we have free will. Does not prohibiting that free will excessively deny the free will God gave us to accept Him and follow Him of our own? If we’re co-erced to follow because we may be arrested if we don’t, are we really following God the way God wants us to follow Him?

Perhaps someone can weigh in on this. Thanks.

I agree, and that’s why I asked. In my opinion though a country that bans guns, should have no qualms about banning condoms. I’d also like to hear why the same reasoning for making prostitution illegal does not apply to making condoms illegal. 80 years from now are we going to be hearing about how the prostitution laws were “silly”?

 

[Tenofovir]

Now this is a much more reasonable position. However I assume that if ever get to a point where we are making condoms illegal we are doing so because more than 50% of the population agrees that it is in societies best interest. If we made such a law now it would probably end up causing more harm than good as you proposed.

It should be pointed out though that we didn’t have problems with raging STD’s and high amounts of women getting pregnant out of wedlock when condoms were illegal. How much of this do you attribute to people changing and how much do you attribute to the availability of condoms? I’d also point to Africa where the results show that preaching monogamy, NFP, and abstinence is a much more effective way of fighting the AIDS epidemic there than throwing condoms at them. They say condoms are what, 80% effective at preventing AIDS in actual application? Would you have sex with someone if there was a 1 in 5 chance that you would get AIDS?

Condoms may not be very effective mainly because they’re not used consistently and correctly. People simply stop using them consistently the longer they’re in a relationship.

But latex gloves do help reduce risk of infection for dentists and surgeons. So I would not say condoms are entirely worthless.

Thankfully pre-exposure chemo-prophylaxis is looking very promising. Taking of HIV drugs on a daily basis has a positive effect in reducing rates of infection in HIV negative people. And there is no contraceptive effect. My namesake is used commonly in this type of research.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

State resources should not in any way support products whose usage, as intentional acts, is intrinsically immoral.
If a state makes the usage of a product legal, it supports the product with state resources.

It requires no state resources to not ban condoms. Products are not illegal until proven otherwise.

 

[Nate13]

It requires no state resources to not ban condoms. Products are not illegal until proven otherwise.

I agree that is not a viable reason.