Natural Law, Contraception and Sexual Ethics

Natural law stems from the influence of Stoicism and Roman Jurists. This theory promotes a universe saturated by reason, resulting in nature that is inherently rational and reasonable. Therefore, an act going against nature is simply irrational and unreasonable. This theory is based primarily on reason. As the views of Stoicism and Roman Jurists merged, the dawning of the Christian Middle Ages occurred. Natural law promotes that nature must always acts for an end, and, therefore, does nothing in vain. This theory embraces teology, which, by definition, means everything must have an end, a purpose. Further, it promotes that this end is properly adapted to the role being played. Otherwise, without an end, it would simply be committing a random act. There would be no point to committing the random act as it would be irrational.

In addition to its promotion of the concept of every act having an end, this theory also believes that you do not have the power to change the designated end. While additional ends might be added, natural law does not support deleting an end. Theory also recognizes that often there are inherent constraints on fulfilling the designated purpose, which we must be cognizant of and actively adhere to, when engaging in the act. Otherwise, the act should not be attempted.

With respect to contraception, natural law does not perceive this as an acceptable practice. This theory bans sex for pleasure, which is, in reality, the purpose behind utilizing contraception. Natural law believes the only acceptable function of sex is procreation. Utilizing contraceptive methods, whether birth control pills, condoms or methods such as withdrawal prior to climax, improperly alters or deletes the "telos" of this act, which is procreation. Alternatively, natural law does not allow for changing or inhibiting nature, which would include the usage of fertility drugs. If nature does not deem it your end to create a child as a result of that specific occurrence of sex, then, by using fertility drugs, you are interfering with nature's telos by attempting to enhance the preferred telos, that of creating a child at that point in time.

The question then arises of whose life should be spared, when an expectant mother is place in a medical situation where the choice must be made to spare either her life or the baby's life. Natural law would support saving the mother's life. However, Catholicism would insist on saving the child's life, at the risk of killing the mother. Natural law does support the idea of "double effect," however, meaning that if one end is desired, and another end is reached in addition to the originally desired end, through no fault of the individual, this is acceptable.