“Every Marital Act Ought to be Open to New Life”: Toward a Clearer Understanding

Contraceptives for Victims of Rape and for the Mentally Disabled: A Reply to Stephen Napier

“…Here, I follow the so-called “New Natural Lawyers,” in thinking that this likeness is to be found in a “contralife will,” that is, a will that is oriented against an instance of a basic good (in this case, the good of human life) insofar as the agent's intention is to prevent a possible person from coming into existence. 10 Defense of this account is beyond the scope of this essay, but I believe this account is not susceptible to the criticisms Napier levels against Janet Smith's account; moreover, this account sets us on the right track to understand how the administration of contraceptives in rape cases can be other than contraceptive in intent. But to reiterate: to take this casuistic approach is to go down the path of double effect, a path that Napier does not take and, indeed, does not really acknowledge.…”

“…12 To use an example from the New Natural Lawyers, which will be important in what follows, a dictator intent on reducing fertility, who put a contraceptive drug in the water supply, would be guilty of the wrong of contraception; but most subjects of the realm, engaging in intercourse without knowing of the dictator's actions, would not be guilty of that wrong. 13 And clearly, one need not be married to be guilty of this wrong, nor can one commit this wrong only in marital acts. Anyone who, foreseeing that some(body's) action might lead to the conception of a child, takes steps to prevent the possible child(ren) from coming to be, has contracepted.…”

The Missing Premise in the HIV-Condom Debate

“…Likewise, the NFP couple does not choose to render the conjugal act infecund; rather, being infecund is an unintended side effect of having relations when the woman is not fertile. 22 In both cases, the conjugal act is deprived of its essential end, procreation; but neither act is evil. They are not evil, at least, in virtue of the conjugal act not being procreative because not being procreative is not what is chosen.…”

What is Right About the Contra-Life Argument Against Contraception?

“…They point out, for example, that contraception is like homicide inasmuch as both the choice to impede life and the choice to destroy life are directed at the future and never at the past or the present. 9 Contraception, by definition, aims to ensure that future possible people have no future life. But homicide, too, denies existing people only their future life.…”

“…Their past and present life cannot be taken away since human agents can act neither retroactively nor instantaneously. Again, they say, “the beginning of our lives, which contraception perhaps could have prevented but did not, is continuous with the life by which we are now alive.” 10 Also, they maintain, “the possible person whose life is prevented is no mere abstraction but an absolutely unique and unrepeatable individual who would exist if he or she were welcomed rather than prevented.” 11 Though all are interesting points, none of them answers the crucial question: Why is contraception wrong even though it is not against the good of anyone?…”