Issues surrounding Contraception

What are the ethical issues surrounding contraception? Ethical issues tend to fall into three categories: those concerning consequences (utilitarianism, situation ethics), those concerning rights (which could be derived from a number of perspectives including Kantian, Natural Law and Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism) and those concerning what it means to be human (Natural Law, Virtue Ethics, and Religious views of what it means to be made in “the image of God”). A useful backdrop for any discussion is the Humanist Bill of Sexual Rights published in 1976, fascinating for its strong Kantian and Utilitarian hints – remember ethical theories are more complementary than you might think. it declares boldly “sexual pleasure is an intrinsic moral good”.

Consequentialist ethical perspectives tend to work better looking backwards than looking forwards, meaning that we can all see the results of a lack of contraception use in Africa, where AIDS has ravaged many countries such as Malawi with terrible consequences for child orphans and human suffering generally. As a general point, AIDS only takes off where promiscuity combines with lack of contraceptive protection. But here I disagree with the former Pope Benedict when he famously said that use of contraception encourages AIDS by encouraging promiscuity – I would argue the point the other way round: contraception is a moral imperative where promiscuity is deeply ingrained in a culture. And of course, population explosion (now above 7 billion) is one of the most pressing issues of our time – as world food resources will fall short of world population and again entail extreme human suffering amongst the poorest nations. (Click below to read more)

Rights theories have predominated after the Enlightenment stress on human autonomy or our right to make up our own rational moral law (following Kant, for example). But rights also come out of natural law theory where “we hold these things to be inalienable” as the US Declaration of Independence so strongly states it. The question is: do we have a natural right to choose our own sexual destiny (and orientation)? The Charter of Human Rights, based on natural rights theory, would argue against discrimination but says little about sexual rights arguing instead that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society (A16)” and taking the classic liberal defence of personal liberty, “in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others (A29)”. For example the issue of homosexuality is nowhere mentioned in the UN charter, nor is there a right to free access to contraception. The European Convention, which the UK ratified into law in the year 2000, mentions the right to privacy and this has been interpreted by the courts to prevent interference with private sexual practice. It is easy, I would argue, to derive a strong statement of sexual rights from Kant’s second formula – not to treat people as means only, but always as ends, which would seem to grant all of us the dignity to choose our own sexual path. Quite how contraceptive rights are interpreted depends crucially on cultural and religious assumptions which may explain why it is handled so ambiguously by the two primary charters of rights.

Finally there are arguments about human nature. What does it mean to be made in the image of God. When Jesus says “male and female he created them” is he referring to gender difference or sexual complementarity? Is contraception really against the procreation of human life, or is it against the preservation of human life to prohibit contraception? What is our natural rational purpose and does this exclude the idea of divergent sexual practices? When discussing this question, we need to bear in mind that secondary precepts in Aquinas’ natural law are not absolute (contrary to what is often said) but “proximate conclusions”. Moreover, it is quite possible to argue that where preservation of life (be it African life or human life generally) would appear to be in conflict with reproduction, then preservation of life should take precedence.

And feminists reading this would rightly point out that I have said nothing about female rights over their own bodies and their own reproductive future – that arguably the lack of worldwide contraceptive rights has forced women into a kind of slavery we should argue vigorously against on grounds of justice and equality.

Image: Lot and His Daughters © Peter Baron