![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
josephrjusticeThis is my answer to the OKC question "Do you believe contraception is morally wrong?" The possible answers are: (1) Yes; (2) No.
In short, my answer to this is "No". However, not only do I not believe that contraception is morally wrong, but indeed I believe that contraception is morally (or perhaps rather ethically) right.
We know from knowledge of how humans behave in the real world that, given the opportunity, people are going to have sexual activity with one another. This includes even sexual activity that can result in pregnancy, and more specifically pregnancy that is unplanned and/or unwanted at the time of the activity. (Some people may limit themselves to activities that cannot result in pregnancy, but I believe most will not so limit themselves.) It is going to happen regardless of the pronouncements or demands of moral authorities or the government. It is going to happen regardless of whether people are aware (or worse yet *not* aware) of the risks they are running, including the risk of causing a pregnancy, by engaging in sexual activity and more specifically in activity that can result in pregnancy. It is going to happen both for people who are willing and able to ideally and properly handle the consequences and result of any pregnancy which might occur as a result of their sexual activity, and also for people who are not willing, or are not able, to ideally and properly handle the consequences and result of any pregnancy which might occur as a result of their sexual activity. It is going to happen even for people who honestly believe they would "never" do something that would risk causing a pregnancy, no sirree, not them, they know better! (Not all such people, but at least some, some of the time for reasons under their control but also some of the time for reasons *not* under their control.)
And, accordingly, there will be people who end up causing and/or undergoing a pregnancy, and more specifically an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy, as a result of the sexual activity they had engaged in at some point in time.
I will assert that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so. Unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies force people to either (1) have to undergo an abortion (which, even if one believes in the right of a person to have an abortion, is almost certainly not going to be something they actively desire to do -- I can't imagine many (or really any) people saying to themselves "Gee, I'd really like to have the experience of aborting a pregnancy... Let's go get preggers!"), or else (2) undergo a pregnancy (which is not a risk-free experience by any means even for the most physically capable of child-bearing woman) for a child which, at least at the time of conception, is not wanted or desired (I freely concede that this attitude may change during the course of the pregnancy), and which the biological parents may not be capable of properly supporting and nurturing at that time (or perhaps even ever) given their financial circumstances, maturity as an adult, etc, and which will usually drastically and irreversibly alter the life of the birth parents from that time forward and quite possibly alter it in ways which the birth parents would find to be undesirable, and which even in some circumstances might need to be given up by the birth parents for adoption and/or given up to be a ward of the state. I certainly won't claim that any or all of the things in case (2) always exist or occur for every instance of an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy, but I think that if we view the world as it exists around us we'll see that many or even all of these things exist in many unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, and especially for those people least capable of dealing with the normal end result of a pregnancy, e.g. the birth of a newborn child.
(I'm not saying here that I think adoption is an undesirable thing. I do not think that at all. But, isn't it better to have an adoption under circumstances where someone is proactively and intentionally seeking to provide a person who desires a child to nurture and raise with a child for that person to raise, instead of an adoption where someone is having a child which they are unable or unwilling to keep, and they're seeking a person, *any* person, who is willing to take this child off their hands and give it a home, much as they would seek to find a home for an puppy or kitten they are unwilling or unable to keep? I have to think the former set of circumstances is a far preferable set to be living in.)
So... If people are going to engage in sexual activity, even sexual activity that runs the risk of pregnancy, such that inevitably at least some of these people *will* end up causing and/or undergoing a pregnancy and more specifically an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy... And if we accept the assertion that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so.... Then it seems to me that things which help people avoid the creation of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies as a result of the sexual activity we fully expect them to engage in are right and a desirable thing to have and/or to encourage, in general.
And these things are, broadly, known as "contraception".
[The following paragraphs have been re-composed following my reading of the information at http://ec.princeton.edu/index.html -- "The Emergency Contraception Website" and other reading.] I will grant that some things classed as contraception, specifically the things known as "emergency contraception" such as the "morning after pill", etc, might be viewed by some people as being akin to abortion, in that they prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted within the uterus or caused an fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus. However, from what I read at the website I referred to above, and more specifically at the page http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html ("How Emergency Contraception Works"), the various pill forms of emergency contraception (at least those legally available in most countries) appear to work primarily by preventing the ovulation of eggs while viable sperm is present subsequent to an act of unprotected sex, and possibly secondarily by affecting in some way the ability of sperm to fertilize eggs. They either do not appear to (or at the very least have not been shown to) adversely affect the implantation of a successfully fertilized egg within the womb. (The egg might fail to implant for reasons other than the use of an emergency contraception pill, of course.) Further, they do not appear to cause a fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus. So, apparently that belief I suggested some people might have would be wrong (or at least not supported by available evidence).
There is a claim that use of a "Copper-T IUD" (by its insertion subsequent to having unprotected sex) as emergency contraception might have some of its effectiveness as an emergency contraceptive due to adversely affecting the implantation of a successfully fertilized egg within the uterus. However, it's not stated that this is known to be the case, but rather raised as a possible means of action in this particular set of circumstances.
And, most or all of the other things grouped under the term "contraception", be they barriers to sperm such as condoms or diaphragms, or things that poison sperm and/or eggs to prevent successful fertilization such as spermicides or the IUD, or hormonal means of birth control such as "the pill", are (as far as I know anyway) generally accepted as not affecting successfully fertilized eggs -- instead, they prevent eggs from becoming successfully fertilized in the first place. (It does appear from reading, for instance at http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/how-do-birth-control-pills-work , that one of the ways taking the pill or I suppose other hormonal methods may work to prevent pregnancy is by adversely affecting the ability of a successfully fertilized egg to become implanted within the uterus. However, I don't know that it's broadly accepted that this means the pill should not be considered to be a means of contraception, or that taking the pill is akin to using a drug such as RU-486 which causes a successfully fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus and which is accepted to be a form of abortion.)
But... Even if you exclude every and any thing that has an adverse effect on a successfully fertilized egg from being considered to be "contraception", that still leaves a vast variety of things which simply prevent eggs from being fertilized at all, by blocking sperm, or blocking eggs, or affecting the sperm's ability to fertilize the egg. And, if you simply prevent an egg from being fertilized at all, then by definition you have prevented a pregnancy (since as far as I know it's not possible to be pregnant from an unfertilized egg). And, since this prevention would be due to a person's active use of a means of contraception, then presumably the pregnancy its use prevented was undesired and/or unwanted in the first place. (Since, after all, if the person had wanted or desired a pregnancy, why would they be using contraception in the first place?) And, since we've already asserted that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so, then to me it follows that those things (in this case contraception) people use to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies must be right and desirable things as well.
And if contraception and its use is a right and desirable thing, then it seems to me it must be morally and/or ethically right.
(If you're willing to consider things which adversely affect a successfully fertilized egg from successfully implanting in the uterus as being "contraception" rather than as something else, then that just broadens your available options for contraception by your standards, values, and beliefs. I won't claim any given person should or should not think this -- I feel it depends on the beliefs of the individual, where they feel the essence of what it means to be human begins at, etc. That's a very sensitive and personal issue, but one that can be disregarded for the purpose of this question simply by suitably constraining the definition of contraceptive as appropriate.)
Hopefully I haven't committed a serious lapse in logic or argument in the above. If I have, I apologize for doing so -- it wasn't intentional.
Oh, and before I forget... I've decided that an acceptable answer to this question for me is "No", and that this question is "very important" to me. (Perhaps at some point I'll decide it's mandatory, but for now I'll stick with "very important".)
In short, my answer to this is "No". However, not only do I not believe that contraception is morally wrong, but indeed I believe that contraception is morally (or perhaps rather ethically) right.
We know from knowledge of how humans behave in the real world that, given the opportunity, people are going to have sexual activity with one another. This includes even sexual activity that can result in pregnancy, and more specifically pregnancy that is unplanned and/or unwanted at the time of the activity. (Some people may limit themselves to activities that cannot result in pregnancy, but I believe most will not so limit themselves.) It is going to happen regardless of the pronouncements or demands of moral authorities or the government. It is going to happen regardless of whether people are aware (or worse yet *not* aware) of the risks they are running, including the risk of causing a pregnancy, by engaging in sexual activity and more specifically in activity that can result in pregnancy. It is going to happen both for people who are willing and able to ideally and properly handle the consequences and result of any pregnancy which might occur as a result of their sexual activity, and also for people who are not willing, or are not able, to ideally and properly handle the consequences and result of any pregnancy which might occur as a result of their sexual activity. It is going to happen even for people who honestly believe they would "never" do something that would risk causing a pregnancy, no sirree, not them, they know better! (Not all such people, but at least some, some of the time for reasons under their control but also some of the time for reasons *not* under their control.)
And, accordingly, there will be people who end up causing and/or undergoing a pregnancy, and more specifically an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy, as a result of the sexual activity they had engaged in at some point in time.
I will assert that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so. Unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies force people to either (1) have to undergo an abortion (which, even if one believes in the right of a person to have an abortion, is almost certainly not going to be something they actively desire to do -- I can't imagine many (or really any) people saying to themselves "Gee, I'd really like to have the experience of aborting a pregnancy... Let's go get preggers!"), or else (2) undergo a pregnancy (which is not a risk-free experience by any means even for the most physically capable of child-bearing woman) for a child which, at least at the time of conception, is not wanted or desired (I freely concede that this attitude may change during the course of the pregnancy), and which the biological parents may not be capable of properly supporting and nurturing at that time (or perhaps even ever) given their financial circumstances, maturity as an adult, etc, and which will usually drastically and irreversibly alter the life of the birth parents from that time forward and quite possibly alter it in ways which the birth parents would find to be undesirable, and which even in some circumstances might need to be given up by the birth parents for adoption and/or given up to be a ward of the state. I certainly won't claim that any or all of the things in case (2) always exist or occur for every instance of an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy, but I think that if we view the world as it exists around us we'll see that many or even all of these things exist in many unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, and especially for those people least capable of dealing with the normal end result of a pregnancy, e.g. the birth of a newborn child.
(I'm not saying here that I think adoption is an undesirable thing. I do not think that at all. But, isn't it better to have an adoption under circumstances where someone is proactively and intentionally seeking to provide a person who desires a child to nurture and raise with a child for that person to raise, instead of an adoption where someone is having a child which they are unable or unwilling to keep, and they're seeking a person, *any* person, who is willing to take this child off their hands and give it a home, much as they would seek to find a home for an puppy or kitten they are unwilling or unable to keep? I have to think the former set of circumstances is a far preferable set to be living in.)
So... If people are going to engage in sexual activity, even sexual activity that runs the risk of pregnancy, such that inevitably at least some of these people *will* end up causing and/or undergoing a pregnancy and more specifically an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy... And if we accept the assertion that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so.... Then it seems to me that things which help people avoid the creation of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies as a result of the sexual activity we fully expect them to engage in are right and a desirable thing to have and/or to encourage, in general.
And these things are, broadly, known as "contraception".
[The following paragraphs have been re-composed following my reading of the information at http://ec.princeton.edu/index.html -- "The Emergency Contraception Website" and other reading.] I will grant that some things classed as contraception, specifically the things known as "emergency contraception" such as the "morning after pill", etc, might be viewed by some people as being akin to abortion, in that they prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted within the uterus or caused an fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus. However, from what I read at the website I referred to above, and more specifically at the page http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html ("How Emergency Contraception Works"), the various pill forms of emergency contraception (at least those legally available in most countries) appear to work primarily by preventing the ovulation of eggs while viable sperm is present subsequent to an act of unprotected sex, and possibly secondarily by affecting in some way the ability of sperm to fertilize eggs. They either do not appear to (or at the very least have not been shown to) adversely affect the implantation of a successfully fertilized egg within the womb. (The egg might fail to implant for reasons other than the use of an emergency contraception pill, of course.) Further, they do not appear to cause a fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus. So, apparently that belief I suggested some people might have would be wrong (or at least not supported by available evidence).
There is a claim that use of a "Copper-T IUD" (by its insertion subsequent to having unprotected sex) as emergency contraception might have some of its effectiveness as an emergency contraceptive due to adversely affecting the implantation of a successfully fertilized egg within the uterus. However, it's not stated that this is known to be the case, but rather raised as a possible means of action in this particular set of circumstances.
And, most or all of the other things grouped under the term "contraception", be they barriers to sperm such as condoms or diaphragms, or things that poison sperm and/or eggs to prevent successful fertilization such as spermicides or the IUD, or hormonal means of birth control such as "the pill", are (as far as I know anyway) generally accepted as not affecting successfully fertilized eggs -- instead, they prevent eggs from becoming successfully fertilized in the first place. (It does appear from reading, for instance at http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/how-do-birth-control-pills-work , that one of the ways taking the pill or I suppose other hormonal methods may work to prevent pregnancy is by adversely affecting the ability of a successfully fertilized egg to become implanted within the uterus. However, I don't know that it's broadly accepted that this means the pill should not be considered to be a means of contraception, or that taking the pill is akin to using a drug such as RU-486 which causes a successfully fertilized and implanted egg to be expelled from the uterus and which is accepted to be a form of abortion.)
But... Even if you exclude every and any thing that has an adverse effect on a successfully fertilized egg from being considered to be "contraception", that still leaves a vast variety of things which simply prevent eggs from being fertilized at all, by blocking sperm, or blocking eggs, or affecting the sperm's ability to fertilize the egg. And, if you simply prevent an egg from being fertilized at all, then by definition you have prevented a pregnancy (since as far as I know it's not possible to be pregnant from an unfertilized egg). And, since this prevention would be due to a person's active use of a means of contraception, then presumably the pregnancy its use prevented was undesired and/or unwanted in the first place. (Since, after all, if the person had wanted or desired a pregnancy, why would they be using contraception in the first place?) And, since we've already asserted that it is right and a desirable thing for people to seek to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, insofar as they are able to do so, then to me it follows that those things (in this case contraception) people use to avoid causing unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies must be right and desirable things as well.
And if contraception and its use is a right and desirable thing, then it seems to me it must be morally and/or ethically right.
(If you're willing to consider things which adversely affect a successfully fertilized egg from successfully implanting in the uterus as being "contraception" rather than as something else, then that just broadens your available options for contraception by your standards, values, and beliefs. I won't claim any given person should or should not think this -- I feel it depends on the beliefs of the individual, where they feel the essence of what it means to be human begins at, etc. That's a very sensitive and personal issue, but one that can be disregarded for the purpose of this question simply by suitably constraining the definition of contraceptive as appropriate.)
Hopefully I haven't committed a serious lapse in logic or argument in the above. If I have, I apologize for doing so -- it wasn't intentional.
Oh, and before I forget... I've decided that an acceptable answer to this question for me is "No", and that this question is "very important" to me. (Perhaps at some point I'll decide it's mandatory, but for now I'll stick with "very important".)
