Many Christians, including Catholics, will agree contraception that can cause a chemical abortion should never be used. They stop short, however, of consenting that ALL contraceptives should never be used. They act as if the abortifacient property of hormonal contraceptives are the sole reason to ever be against contraception.
If a couple deploys condoms, spermicides, or any other non-abortifacient contraceptive method, they think they have found a happy compromise. They would be correct in one aspect, but completely wrong otherwise.
Those who support non-abortifacient contraceptives correctly describe it as a compromise. But rather than serving as a happy medium between birth control proponents and moral conservatives (i.e., mainly devout Catholics), such a concession compromises their moral code all together.
(If you need a review on what I mean by the abortifacient nature of many contraceptives, read my prior post.)
THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE PREMISE
Think about what a person is arguing, by saying couples may use contraception, so long as it does not cause a human embryo to die.
They are saying that couples may engage in the conjugal act with the expectation to never conceive a child.
That is the premise this crowd wants everyone to accept.
TOO MANY QUESTIONS LEFT UNANSWERED
Let us consider the moral implications of the acceptance of this premise.
First, if couples may engage in the conjugal act with the expectation to never conceive a child, then they are saying sex can be separated from babies.
If sex and babies do not inherently go together, then what, pray tell, is the purpose of sex?
It then would appear to be, and many openly admit as much that sex serves merely for physical and emotional wellbeing of its participants.
If that is true, then several more questions arise that must be answered.
Naysayers are always quick to point out that not all heterosexual couples can physically procreate. But this does nothing to disprove the primary purpose of the conjugal act.
If sex can be engaged in without an openness to new life being formed, then what limits, if any, can be placed on sex?
It is hard to see much of anything that would fall out of bounds, at this point. Is there even an age limit on legitimate consent to sex? I’ll leave that one be. But consider some of these other questions…
Why would sex need to be limited to a man and a woman, if no babies are to result?
To some, this might seem like a silly question. Well, a men and women are sexually attracted to each other and they have the complementary body parts for the conjugal act, you might say.
Yes, that is true. But what good are those parts, if they are not meant for procreation? Why can’t gays or lesbians engage in the activity, since it has just been reduced to emotional fulfillment and physical recreation?
Why then must sex be contained within marriage?
It is still a Christian principle that sex must wait for marriage, but that rule is softening in effect over time. Think about it, why would sex and marriage need to go together at all? If babies can be removed from the conjugal act, then why must that act be limited to those in marriage?
For what reason does the conjugal act need to be exclusive, if babies do not come from sex?
What good is fidelity in a sexual relationship, if sex is merely for physical or emotional pleasure? What if the relationship is souring? Cannot the couple just go have sex with other people, so as to try to maintain that emotional high?
Why must sex be limited to just two people at the same time?
If babies ought not come from sex, then sex is reduced to an emotional, recreational activity. What if some people find it more exciting to engage in sexual acts with multiple people at the same time? What is inherently wrong with that?
The questions could go on, but I think you get the idea.
How does a proponent of abortifacient-less contraceptives answer these questions?
The fact is, they all go either unanswered or inadequately answered.
MORAL CHAOS THEN DEVELOPS—AS WE HAVE WITNESSED
Sadly, our culture has adopted the premise already.
As I have written about before, the Supreme Court of the United States of America legalized abortion on demand based on the premise that sex can be had with no children resulting. This is because abortion is “needed,” for couples whose contraception has failed.
More and more states are legalizing so-called same-sex “marriage.” By their very nature, homosexual acts are sterile. But the premise that sex without an openness to life is okay permits sterile sex. So then, what difference does it make who claims to be married to whom?
Teen promiscuity remains rampant, as evidenced by the number of teenage pregnancies, as well as the explosion in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. But if sex can be had without an openness to children, and we do not have a good answer for why people ought to wait for marriage, then how can we be surprised?
The examples are endless. I have written about others in the past as well.
You cannot deny the primary purpose of eyes is to see, even though a percentage of people are physically blind. Nor can you refute that legs are meant for walking, even though amputees are among us.
IT’S TIME TO ADMIT THE TRUTH OF THE NATURAL LAW
The truth is inescapable. Sex is inherently ordered toward procreation. Thus, contraception use in the conjugal act will remain always intrinsically evil.
As with any and all acts we perform, sex is ordered toward an end. In other words, it has purpose.
You don’t have to study the complementarity of the male and female anatomy very long to realize for what reason they are a part of our human design. The reproductive parts are made so as to—don’t fall out of your chair when you read this—you know, reproduce.
Sure, the conjugal act is physically pleasing. It remains emotionally bonding. It will always be psychologically potent. But that does not negate its primary purpose.
Therefore, to pretend that sex is not ordered toward procreation, when it actually is, is a contradiction. It makes contraception immoral in each and every circumstance.
OBJECTIONS
Naysayers are always quick to point out that not all heterosexual couples can physically procreate. But this does nothing to disprove the primary purpose of the conjugal act.
In the case of the elderly, even if menopause has rendered the conjugal act sterile, this is a natural process and so nothing is out of sorts.
For younger couples physically unable to bear children for whatever reason, they too merely suffer a defect in their bodies. It is not the same as to say there’s a defect in the act itself.
This is akin to speaking about blindness. You cannot deny the primary purpose of eyes is to see, even though a percentage of people are physically blind. Nor can you refute that legs are meant for walking, even though amputees are among us. We must not mix up something’s essence (or purpose) with its accidents (or properties).
Thus, my statement that ears are for hearing is not made untrue because some people are deaf.
In the same way, to say the conjugal act is ordered primarily toward procreation is not rendered false by heterosexual couples unable to conceive.
Nor it is false just because so many millions of couples render their sex sterile by use of contraceptives.
In fact, contraceptive couples only prove the correct premise that the conjugal act is ordered toward the begetting of children. Wait, what? Why is that?
Why else are they popping pills, using condoms, or any other measures to try to prevent conception from occurring? Well, because they know deep down that sex can result in conception occurring.
IN CLOSING
Sadly, there remain folks who think the only bad birth control is the kind that can serve as an abortifacient. They think contraceptive sex is morally acceptable, so long as no one (i.e., tiny, unborn babies) gets killed.
As we have seen, the conjugal act’s primary purpose lies in its procreative potency. To take that away, as contraception use attempts to do, is to make the resulting act unnatural and reprehensible. And, by the law of natural consequences, it has led to societal mayhem.
If you don’t believe me, just look at the world around you.
YOUR TURN
So, if you have an answer to my string of questions above, I would like to hear from you.
If you have more questions for contraceptive proponents, please add them below.
Any other thoughts you may have, you are welcome to share below, as well.
