There are many ways to explain the difference between artificial contraception and NFP. The most straightforward explanation goes like this: (a) there is nothing wrong with wanting
We think that the only plausible interpretation of " Every marital act ought to be open to new life" is: It is wrong for those who engage in marital intercourse to attempt to imped
This paper is based on the author's answer to a question from Theresa Notare, director of the Natural Family Planning Program of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, about what
The ethics of parenthood and procreation apply not only to daily acts of decision-making by parents and prospective procreators, but also to law, public policy, and medicine. Two r
It may be wondered why a moral philosopher should begin a discussion with psychiatrists on the subject of birth control by recalling what might seem to many the quite irrelevant—an
Pregnancy and birth can be approached from many philosophical angles. Pregnancy raises interesting issues in philosophy of law, such as the appropriate legal status of the fetus an
The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to t
The truth of this act stems from its being an expression of the spouses’ reciprocal personal giving, a giving that can only be total since the person is one and indivisible. In the
Natural Family Planning ‘NFP’ – sometimes referred to as the ‘rhythm method’ of reproductive control – deploys the fact that there is a natural female menstrual cycle and that conception is very unlikely to occur within the menstruation period, hence intercourse can take place with a low chance of pregnancy resulting. From an ethical point of view NFP is favoured for positive and negative reasons. Positively, it is felt by some to be in harmony with the natural sequence of fertility and infertility. Negatively it is not a method of contraception, that is to say it does not involve intervening artificially to suspend fertility or to create a barrier to prevent conception, or to counter the occurrence of conception. The relevance of these ‘negative’ considerations is that some hold that contraception is morally wrong because it subverts the defining natural function of sex and thereby changes it from an integrative act that combines intimacy, marital union, and openness to procreation, diminishing it by reducing it to physical gratification.