There has recently been a lot of discussion about contraception and the Catholic Church's teachings. I wish to continue the discussion about the use of contraception started in "Contraception and dignity" by Mr. Damian, Mr. Lynch, and Ms. Stempky.
Firstly, the claim that sex with contraception somehow makes the intimacy less genuine, less fulfilling and less meaningful, is debatable. Sex with contraception can allow the partners to have a more intimate and meaningful experience. What if a married couple is not currently in a position to take up the responsibilities of raising a child? They would be free to take their intimacy to its deepest levels without worrying about an unintended pregnancy. If you are using Natural Family Planning to avoid an unintended pregnancy, how is that any different than using a contraceptive, so long as the couple is not going to terminate an unintended pregnancy? Using contraceptives allows people to focus on the intimacy of a moment.
Secondly, I strongly disagree with the claim that contraception destroys a woman's dignity. Contraceptives empower women and give them the ability to make a choice in her creative gifts. Without female contraceptives, a man has all the control (even if God plays a part in the creation of a child, the sperm still has to fertilize an egg) in the creation of a child. Contraceptives give women the ability to pursue careers and develop other natural talents that would be hindered by having to raise a large family.
Finally, all people make poor decisions, or put themselves in positions of making poor decisions. On a college campus, students who drink heavily are more likely to make poor decisions that they might not have made had they been sober. Contraception is one tool that helps prevent a poor decision, such as hooking up, from becoming a life-altering event. Does this mean that contraception encourages promiscuity? Maybe. But isn't it better to prevent an unintended pregnancy than to put two students in the difficult position of raising a child that they aren't ready to have?
John Galeziewski
junior
Siegfried Hall
Feb. 2
is a member of the 
26 comments
"If you truly need me to specify then using artificial means to prevent life is wrong and clearly distinguished from NFP." This is a restatement of the view we're debating, not a justification. I'm not disputing that's the view, I'm disputing that it's justified.
"There is no good intended in providing birth control outside of previously established constraints. Therefore the first stipulation of the doctrine of double effect is not met." As I already said, the good intended would be to comply with the law and to provide health insurance coverage to the community.
"Other than polygamy all the ridiculous examples to try to cite are clear examples of violence against another individual." I didn't say they weren't. I was disputing your general claim that limiting religious freedom is a violation of the constitution. As I already said, "There's a legitimate debate to be had about whether or not the right to insurance that covers contraceptives should be one granted by the government in such a way that limits the religious freedom of organizations. But it is certainly not the case that limiting religious freedom is per se unconstitutional."
"You repeatedly ignore the fact that the University prevents no one from obtaining birth control. They are infringing on no ones freedom." I'm not ignoring that. I'm pointing out that HHS has determined that insurance coverage that covers birth control is a right. Legally, if that holds, not preventing someone from obtaining birth control doesn't meet that demand. We have all sorts of legal rights that aren't about our freedom, e.g., indecent exposure laws. "What does Obama have to do for you not to support him?" I suppose he'd probably have to say that he doesn't think contraceptive use is morally permissible. But on a serious note, if you want to have a respectful discussion, I'm happy to continue. If you want to try and insult me, as you have in your last two comments, I'm done engaging.
What about a situation in which someone has an STD and their spouse does not? Can the un-infected spouse reasonably be expected to have sex with their infected partner without the use of a condom to at least lower their chance of infection? I suppose one answer to this objection would be that they knew what they were getting into when they married someone with an STD, but even so, it seems to me to be... a somewhat extreme position to take (that someone married to a person with an STD has a moral obligation to expose themselves to the infection if they want to have sex with their husband/wife). Especially when one considers that the infected party possibly did not contract their illness through pre-marital sex (which is an argument I suppose one could make in response to this scenario). For instance, someone infected with HIV could have contracted it from their mother during birth or nursing. In such a scenario, it could not be construed in any way that the infection was the infected party's fault (if one is inclined to such assigning of blame). (Also, if one assumes from my questioning of this article that I am on the side of the university being forced to pay for contraception you would be wrong, just in case someone takes issue with the possibility of me thinking that.)