Contraception
A. Impact and logical position
B. Objective Morality/
I.2 The Issue: What Contraception Is
A. An act, either before, during, or after sexual intercourse, which is intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or as a means.
B. Different from NFP = a choice not to have sex when it is thought to be fertile /
II. Conventional Natural Law Argument
A. Like argument agst. Lying
B. Wrong because unnatural
C. Prevents a power from attaining its natural end /
III. The Problem in More Detail
I. The Is-Ought problem
II. Naturalistic fallacy: deriving a moral ought from premises all of which is propositions
1. To prevent a natural power from attaining its natural end is intrinsically immoral.
2. Contraception prevents a natural power from attaining its natural end.
3. Therefore, contraception is intrinsically immoral. /
III. Problems with Scholastic Argument
A. Is it always wrong to prevent a power from attaining its natural end?
B. Counter-examples: shaving, ear-plugs /
IV. Grisez’s Argument
A. Basic Human Goods
B. Human Life a Basic Human Good /
IV.2 Grisez’s Argument
C. Ought not to act precisely against a basic human good
D. It is possible to act against a good that does not yet exist ----- by choosing to prevent it’s coming to be /
IV. 3 Grisez’s Argument
Why this is wrong: the content of one’s will is the not-coming-to-be of a basic good
Closing of one’s will to new life /
V. NFP vs. Contraception
A. NFP to avoid conception = not having sex when the woman is fertile
B. a choice not to pursue the good, because of the difficulties of that pursuit --- not the same as choosing to prevent
C. analogy: choosing not to start a book this summer, or not to take a potentially life-saving drug (because of its side effects) /