Can contraception ever be ethical?: A hypothetical

[LilyM]

There is a certain amount of wishful thinking in all law-making, is there not?

We don’t make laws against murder, fraud and the like merely to punish people after the fact, surely, but also to deter people from committing them in the first place. Certainly the imposition of ever harsher penalties for some crimes is not usually because we view the crimes as being more serious - theft has always been as serious as it is today - but for a greater deterrent effect among other things.

The idea of deterrence is the same idea behind the Church’s stance - ‘if we send a strong message that these things are sins, people are less likely to do them’. And we can see an increase in premarital sex etc among Catholics accompanying increasing confusion about and watered-down expounding of Church teaching on such issues.

 

[R_C]

So as Catholics, we are consequentialists

:nope: Definitely not.

Article "The Consequences of . . . Consequentialism " by Dr. Jeff Mirus, CatholicCulture.org
Series of papers by moral theologian Germain Grisez including:

• “Against Consequentialism”
• “Choice and Consequentialism”
• Christian Moral Theology and Consequentialism

 

[JimG]

I am aware that there are studies showing that contraceptives are harmful to society. My post is asking what if this wasn’t the case? What if we lived in a world where studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives reduced suffering and had no harmful effects on relationships? Would contraceptives still be considered immoral, or must there be a negative effect for something to be considered immoral?

I ask because when most Catholics defend the Church’s teaching on contraception they do not point to the moral philosophy behind it, but ralther the consequences as the two posters above have done. This seems to imply that while the original position is based on non-consequentialist argument, it is defended with consequentialist argument, which is inconsistent.

There is a sense in which all true judgments of moral evil can be deemed as “consequentialist,” for moral evil is evil precisely because it goes against the good and is thus bad for human beings. The moral law does not arise from judging the consequences of actions; but violating the moral law always has bad consequences.

In any case, the point with contraception is moot. It was the widespread acceptance of contraception which enabled and fostered the sexual license of the sexual revolution, resulting in increases in fornication, casual sex, unmarried sex, adulterous sex, unnatural sex. The results were bad–particularly for children, but also for women, for marriage, for families, for men, for society as a whole. Those results are presented by Mary Eberstadt in the book I previously cited.

One might make an analogous case for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has been argued–quite well–that these actions resulted in good, by shortening the war and saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Does that mean that the nuclear bombing of cities may be moral provided that the consequences are good? It’s not a conclusion I would be willing to make.

 

[R_C]

The moral law does not arise from judging the consequences of actions; but violating the moral law always has bad consequences.

Beautifully concise, thanks!

 

[edwest2]

As I understand it, Catholic opposition to contraception stems from natural law philosophy, which states that to use contraception would be to interfere with the purpose, or end, of sexual intercourse. Because the opposition is based on natural law philosophy, consequence holds less weight in determining whether the use of contraception is ethical, and some studies have even suggested that the overall effect of contraception on society has been detrimental.

But what if, hypothetically, studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives have a positive impact on society, significantly reducing the spread of STD’s, abortion, and teen pregnancy? Would the Catholic Church still advocate returning to a pre-contraceptive society, which in this scenario would be wrought with higher rates of STD’s, abortions, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies? In other words, If something has an impact that is overall positive, can it still be considered immoral, or must a thing clearly have negative consequences to be considered immoral?

Your assumptions would have to be valid for any comments to be made. Unless you can show for a fact that a non-contraceptive society would lead to all the ill effects you mention, what is the point?

The human male and female have sex organs designed for each other and the union of man and woman is the only way to get the next generation. If you want to avoid STDs, don’t have sex with anyone other than your spouse. If you want to avoid an abortion, and can’t raise the child, then put the child up for adoption.

The biggest LIE that is going on right now is that NO ONE can control themselves. Who decides when you have sex? You do. Not the Church. Not the State. Only you.

From the Guttmacher Institute:

CONTRACEPTIVE USE

"• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]"

Contraception can never be ethical, since it denies the other person your full self-commitment and it denies the true use of the act of marital intercourse. Marriage is not just a ceremony, it is a lifelong commitment to the other, and it must be open to life.

To be blunt: having orgasms is not the purpose of sexual intercourse, although it is a part. Contraception is designed primarily to increase the number of orgasms - with the intention of not producing a baby - even in marriage.

Peace,
Ed