Contraception *qua* contraception may not be healthcare in the narrow sense, but there are incidental uses of it that seem to be: the regulation of very painful and/or very irregular menstruation by hormonal birth control seems to be a case of healthcare that incidentally results in contraception (in the event of intercourse).

jmh1001 wrote:

(2) Contraception frustrates our sexual faculties from achieving their natural end of procreation.

I'm not sure the form:

X frustrates the natural end of Y.

will alwayse result in:

X is not healthcare. (thus I deny your 1 as given)

Consider the example of various drugs and treatments for the obese. Most of these either mechanically or chemically thwart digestion and/or absorption of food towards the end of causing the patient to lose weight. It is the permanent or temporary partial frustration of some natural faculties towards the maintenance or restoration of others.

Amputation and hysterectomy come to mind as similar in form as well.

iwpoe wrote:

Contraception *qua* contraception may not be healthcare in the narrow sense, but there are incidental uses of it that seem to be: the regulation of very painful and/or very irregular menstruation by hormonal birth control seems to be a case of healthcare that incidentally results in contraception (in the event of intercourse).

I suppose I'd have to rework the argument...

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that contraception is health care in the context of someone who uses it for the medical reasons you mention, but otherwise remains sexually inactive so that the intrinsically evil nature of contraception -- the deprivation of the sexual act of its procreative meaning and/or the killing of a newly conceived human being -- is not an issue. For, if the person who uses contraception for those medical reasons chooses to have sex while taking the drug, then the person directly intends to use their sexual faculties under conditions that are contrary to the purpose of those faculties. The contraception that occurs in the event of intercourse when the person is using the drug for medical reasons is not merely an "incidental result," but an intrinsically evil aspect of deliberately having contraceptive sex.

Consider the example of various drugs and treatments for the obese. Most of these either mechanically or chemically thwart digestion and/or absorption of food towards the end of causing the patient to lose weight. It is the permanent or temporary partial frustration of some natural faculties towards the maintenance or restoration of others.

Amputation and hysterectomy come to mind as similar in form as well.

Again, I'd have to rework the argument, perhaps to include the principle of totality, which allows for the removal of some diseased or gravely damaged organ (thereby preventing the person from realizing one or more of their natural ends) for the sake of the health of the whole organism (so that they might at least realize all their other natural ends). But removing such a faculty seems a fundamentally different sort of situation than deliberately using that faculty in a manner that frustrates the purpose of that faculty.

The obesity drugs counterexample is a bit better, and one that I've considered before. You rightly point out that it is only a "partial frustration" of the nutritive end, otherwise the person would starve to death. It might be the case that, on this analysis, such drugs to an extent do have a certain immoral character. They certainly would given certain contexts: for example, you can imagine someone who uses such drugs in order to justify pigging out on whatever they want, or simply to avoid giving up foods they shouldn't eat, thus detaching the act of eating from the virtue of temperance -- indeed, subsituting the drug for the virtue of temperance. (Much like contraception in our culture has subsitutued a pill for the virtue of chastity, as Russell Hittinger once pointed out.)

But, again, it's an objection I've considered before, and I'll have to give it further thought.

EDIT:

Scott wrote:

In (1), try restore a person's natural faculties to, or maintain them in, a state.

In (2), instead of frustrates, try is deliberately intended primarily or exclusively to frustrate.

Thanks for the suggestions, Scott.

Last edited by jmh1001 (9/30/2015 4:39 pm)

jmh1001 wrote:

For, if the person who uses contraception for those medical reasons chooses to have sex while taking the drug, then the person directly intends to use their sexual faculties under conditions that are contrary to the purpose of those faculties. The contraception that occurs in the event of intercourse when the person is using the drug for medical reasons is not merely an "incidental result," but an intrinsically evil aspect of deliberately having contraceptive sex.

Hmm, I don't know about that. If you're not careful here, you'll also rule out sex between couples one member of which is infertile for any reason, and that reason could be having a medical disability, being post-menopausal, or even just not being fertile at the moment (as in natural family planning). Those certainly aren't the kinds of sexual act the natural-law/perverted-faculty arguments are intended to prevent.

In order for a sexual act to count positively as a frustration of the reproductive faculty, it's surely not sufficient for it to be deliberately undertaken under conditions that "just happen" to make conception impossible or do so as a not-directly-intended side effect of medical treatment. I should think at least one of the parties would also, and in the first place, have to have implemented the effectively contraceptive measure itself at least partly for the direct purpose of preventing pregnancy.

Last edited by Scott (9/30/2015 5:02 pm)

Here's another way of framing the argument so that the motivation for 2., or something like it, is clearer: If someone in prime reproductive age came to you and was unable to conceive, this would be a problem with that person's health. His or her body is, in some way, not functioning properly. Aiming to induce that condition in someone else is to damage health and proper functioning intentionally. That which aims at damaging health and proper functioning is not healthcare. So contraception is not healthcare.

This is consistent with the use of, say, the pill for non-contraceptive purposes. Then you are not trying to destroy reproductive function, and its damage to reproductive function is justified by the principle of totality.

Last edited by Greg (10/01/2015 2:53 pm)