Defending Natural Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter FAH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FAH

Guest
I was debating with someone how artificial contraceptives are unnatural and violate the natural law. He responded by saying that the glasses I wear are unnatural but helpful like contraceptives. Can anyone think of a way of addressing his point? My knowledge of the natural law is limited but aren’t their 5 things St. Thomas defines as natural? Or I may be mistaken.

Many thanks
God Bless
 
FAH said:
I was debating with someone how artificial contraceptives are unnatural and violate the natural law. He responded by saying that the glasses I wear are unnatural but helpful like contraceptives. Can anyone think of a way of addressing his point? My knowledge of the natural law is limited but aren’t their 5 things St. Thomas defines as natural? Or I may be mistaken.

Many thanks
God Bless
Click to expand...
Your friend has the wrong conception of what the “natural” in “natural law” means.

It does not mean simply “occurring in nature.” Otherwise, nothing would be unnatural.

Rather, it means “consistent with the nature of.”

The eyes serve the end of seeing. Eyeglasses enhance this function (or, rather, they correct the deficiencies that impair this function). Therefore, eyeglasses are “natural” in the sense that they are consistent with the nature of eyes, the purpose or end of which is seeing.

Let’s take a different example: sex. Sex makes use of the reproductive system and the reproductive system is ordered by nature toward reproduction. That’s why we have sexual complementarity, strong sex drives (which, for women, often fluctuate according to fertility), etc. Using the reproductive system in a manner consistent with its end is good (since “goodness” in natural law theology is simply “being,” in our case, “being” what we by nature are), so having sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation is good. That means marital, noncontraceptive, intravaginal, ejaculatory sex. Using it in a way that is contrary to this end (e.g., fornication, contraception, masturbation, intentional withdrawal, etc.) is bad. When done deliberately and with full knowledge or culpable ignorance, it’s a sin.
 
sw85 said:
Your friend has the wrong conception of what the “natural” in “natural law” means.

It does not mean simply “occurring in nature.” Otherwise, nothing would be unnatural.

Rather, it means “consistent with the nature of.”

The eyes serve the end of seeing. Eyeglasses enhance this function (or, rather, they correct the deficiencies that impair this function). Therefore, eyeglasses are “natural” in the sense that they are consistent with the nature of eyes, the purpose or end of which is seeing.

Let’s take a different example: sex. Sex makes use of the reproductive system and the reproductive system is ordered by nature toward reproduction. That’s why we have sexual complementarity, strong sex drives (which, for women, often fluctuate according to fertility), etc. Using the reproductive system in a manner consistent with its end is good (since “goodness” in natural law theology is simply “being,” in our case, “being” what we by nature are), so having sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation is good. That means marital, noncontraceptive, intravaginal, ejaculatory sex. Using it in a way that is contrary to this end (e.g., fornication, contraception, masturbation, intentional withdrawal, etc.) is bad. When done deliberately and with full knowledge or culpable ignorance, it’s a sin.
Click to expand...
information:

Direct and voluntary contraception is wrong and is very sinful.
Indirect and involuntary contraception is not, per se, wrong.

Direct and voluntary abortion is wrong and very sinful;
Indirect and involuntary abortion is not, per se, wrong.

The question: what is the true, real - natural definition of terms “indirect and involuntary” in the cases (situations) of medical issues???

“Ejaculatory sex” for husband in the vagina, but the quality and the quantity of sperms or liquors, liquids (the substances) are not the relevant criterias for defining the impotency of husband. Only vaginal penetration, even " copula dimidiata" (1/3 of penis in the vagina, perhaps less (to verify) is enough with the mechanism of ejaculation (even if there is a dry ejaculation).
 
FAH said:
I was debating with someone how artificial contraceptives are unnatural and violate the natural law. He responded by saying that the glasses I wear are unnatural but helpful like contraceptives. Can anyone think of a way of addressing his point? My knowledge of the natural law is limited but aren’t their 5 things St. Thomas defines as natural? Or I may be mistaken.

Many thanks
God Bless
Click to expand...
His analogy is exactly backwards. Glasses assist defective vision. Glasses are better compared to NaPro or even Viagra.

Contraception, on the other hand, nullifies the healthy condition of fertility. Contraception would therefore be better compared to staring into a laser beam or using hydrochloric acid for eye drops.
 
Using contraception would be like sewing your eyes shut when what you really need are glasses.
 
Thanks for the answers, I was a bit taken back when he said this. God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top