Is It Moral To Make Contraception Illegal?

[Catherine Therese]

Of course it is moral to make contraceptives illegal.  Contraceptives are intrinsically immoral.  This is straight-forward.

 

However, it is theoretically possible for it also to be moral for them to be legal.  There are some circumstances under which is it moral to tolerate an evil.  This is a more complicated question and the more interesting one to discuss.  Are we in circumstances under which we ought to tolerate the evil of contraception?

 

As a theologian, I can agree with what I think you're trying to say IF AND ONLY IF an important distinction can be made. 

 

It is moral to make the deliberate act of using a contraceptive for a contraceptive purpose illegal. 

(Obviously this would be impossible to police, but we're talking principle and not praxis, here; we're also talking what is morally permissible and what is not, regardless of whether it is feasible to enforce.) 

 

It is NOT moral to make pharmaceutical contraceptives that have other applications illegal; firstly, such pharmaceutical goods are not intrinsically evil at all. If one uses the pill for legitimate reason, but is not sexually active at the time, there is no evil at all.

 

The contraceptive act is intrinsically evil.

 

The contraceptive MEANS is not necessarily evil at all, even if there is potential for it to be put to evil purpose, if there is also potential for it to be put to good purpose without evil effect.  

 

Whilst it is true to say that some pharmaceutical goods were designed as contraceptives and their other applications were identified after the fact, there is, for example, a great deal of research into particular pharmaceutical goods that were NOT designed as contraceptives, but were designed as solutions to real medical problems in the female reproductive system (and beyond). Their subsequent application to contraceptive purpose is a travesty, but it was not the initial purpose for which some of those pills, some forms of natural progesterone injection and some forms of IUD were designed. 

 

Speaking strictly in terms of the principles of moral theology, however, the purpose for which a drug may have been designed is not sufficient to preclude the serendipitous discovery of genuinely good and useful applications of the drug such that its use be outlawed. So even for the drugs that WERE designed with contraception in mind, if they have been found to have real benefits to people with serious health problems, then they should be permitted for prescription for those legitimate purposes. 

 

For those of you who think that pharmaceutical contraceptives are only useful outside of contraception for lessening the impact of acne, or for the convenience of a more regular cycle, for example, you are mistaken. 

 

There are some women for whom their endometriosis is so severe that it has spread beyond their reproductive system into their gastro-intestinal tract and even beyond, above their diaphragm and into their lungs. Women with these severe cases of endometriosis are incapacitated, cannot hold down regular jobs due to the extent of their pain and fatigue, bleed in their lungs, cough up blood as much blood as if they were a tuberculosis sufferer, regularly experience symptoms that mimmick heart attacks, experience excruciating abdominal pain while digesting meals, have improperly functioning rectums that don't allow proper toilet function.... These are REAL cases. Furthermore, these cases are not as rare as you might think. AND, this is just ONE type of severe problem to which hormonal medications that are often otherwise used as contraceptives can be a solution. 

 

It is also true to say that often these contraceptives have nasty side effects. They can cause diabetes, they can cause nasty headaches, mood swings, weight fluctuation, etc. But I'm sure you'll agree that if a woman is incapacitated in the manner in which I've listed above, diabetes will present as much more manageable than coughing up blood, and insulin injections are preferable to permanent colostomy bags if that woman wants to hold down an office job, for example. 

 

The fact that these drugs are the only real medical aids for women with real trouble, and that they are NOT inherently evil, means that to make them illegal is, in fact, immoral. It would deny legitimate medical aid to a person in need, over ideology and agenda. Definitely immoral.

 

The important distinction is that whilst it is most definitely moral to outlaw contraceptive use of a drug, it is not moral to outlaw the drug itself, if the drug does not necessarily entail the loss of human life and the drug does necessarily entail the relief of genuine medical need. 

[Perigrina]

The important distinction is that whilst it is most definitely moral to outlaw contraceptive use of a drug, it is not moral to outlaw the drug itself, if the drug does not necessarily entail the loss of human life and the drug does necessarily entail the relief of genuine medical need. 

 

I actually considered explicitly stating this distinction, but decided not to because I thought that it was implied in the term "contraceptive".  But I completely agree with what you have said.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Catherine Therese]

I THOUGHT you probably meant that :) Wasn't sure though, because I don't really know you yet, so I wanted to be sure! 

[Perigrina]

I THOUGHT you probably meant that :) Wasn't sure though, because I don't really know you yet, so I wanted to be sure! 

 

I appreciate precision in explaining Church teaching, so I am grateful.  I look forward to getting to know you better.