Contraception defies natural law

In response to Paul Herman’s letter, I have to respectfully ask what world he’s living in? His views on abortion and contraception do not reflect reality. In fact, there is essentially no critical distinction between abortion and contraception. In the real world, abortion is used for contraception and contraception is used for abortion.

If human life is too valuable to casually terminate, as Herman claims, then there can be no rational argument for contraception when one considers that some birth control pills prevent conception and others are abortifacients that cause abortion.

There is a difference between preventing ovulation or fertilization, and destroying the life present in a fertilized egg or embryo.

Herman wrote that the view that sexual intercourse must not include the potential for contraception has no legitimate moral foundation and is based on religious dogma. Quite the contrary, the moral foundation is based on nature not religion. Opposition to contraception is based on nature and natural law.

Nature not religion inseparably bound pleasure and procreation in sexual intercourse. Science not nature separated pleasure from procreation with artificial birth control. And a secular, humanist society has embraced pleasure without procreation.

Nature not religion made abortion and contraception equivalent imperatives. Does nature cause every sexual act to result in procreation? Of course not. By nature, a woman is not fertile every day of the month. Nature, not religion or science, has provided us with natural family planning. Instead, we rely on artificial contraception that may fill a woman with dangerous chemicals and may cause serious side-effects, including abortions.

Opposition to artificial contraception and abortion are, in fact, natural imperatives. We should not allow confusion about this to be exploited by ignorance of nature, political demagoguery or religious bigotry.

Mark J Schumaker

Grayslake