CONTRACEPTION AND WOMEN OBJECTIFICATION: AN ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION

I would like to begin this write up by asking some fundamental questions. These fundamental questions seem to cover the aim, nature and the scope of this work. But it would be nice to note this before proceeding to the questions. The politics of contraception and women objectification and its moral issues are seriously linked to arguments of women’s freedom and right and is built on the Kant’s principle of not treating human person as a means to an end but as an end in itself. With this assertion, the questions read: what is contraception all about? What are the contraceptives? Does fertilized egg have right to live? Is it not a potential human being? Don’t you think that contraception could gradually and quietly lead to extinction of human race? What are the major types/forms of contraception? How does contraception entail women objectification? Do women have right to contraception since they are the owners of their body? To what extent do women have right to contraception? Do women have any right at all to contraception? Is contraception justifiable under any moral standards or schemata? By moral standard or schemata: one means mental or ethical framework by which an action is judged good or bad; right or wrong. What does the Church teach about contraception, contraceptives and women objectification? The above questions are existential and ethical. At this juncture one might ask: what is the meaning of contraception? And what forms does it take?
CONRACEPTION: WHAT IT ENTAILS
Contraception may be seen as the striking product of modernity. It is mass-produced and over half of the world’s products now use it. It has brought with its massive normalization and routinzation. Contraception and women objectification have become household terms both in public and private discourse. Contraception according to the Electronic Encarta Dictionary has three nuances. First, it is prevention of fertilization: the preventions of pregnancy using artificial methods such as condoms and birth control pills or natural methods such as avoiding sex during the woman’s known fertile periods. Second, it means preventing pregnancy and thirdly, it is deliberate prevention of pregnancy using any of several methods in birth control; preventing a female sex (egg) from being fertilized by male sex cell (sperm) and implanting in the uterus. For Electronic Encyclopaedia Britannica, contraception is a deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation. From the above definitions, this phrase ‘wilful prevention of conception’ forms their common denominator. Having seen what contraception entails in an eye bird, one might ask: Are there forms of contraception?
KINDS OR FORMS OF CONTRACPTION
There are various kinds or forms of contraception as underlined in The Electronic Encyclopaedia Britannica. It would be nice to classify them in groups for better articulation. The first method is: the Barrier Devices. This method involves spermicides, condoms both male and female and diaphragm method. Condom prevents sperm from entering the uterus by sheathing the penis with latex or rubber like- object. Diaphragm involves covering the uterine cervix with a cervical cap avoiding sperm from the uterus. Barrier methods simply bar sperm from entering the uterus; hence inhibiting conception. Second group is hormonal methods. Here drugs are used in preventing pregnancy. These drugs alter hormonal levels in women; it suppresses the hormonal signal sent by pituitary gland for the ovaries to release an egg. Under hormonal contraception, we have: birth control pill. Birth control pill is a combination of synthetic oestrogen and synthetic progesterone which inhabits ovulation. Other examples of hormonal contraceptive are: hormonal implant, contraceptive injection, contraceptive ring and, contraceptive patch. More still, we have another method called Intrauterine Device (IUDs). Plastics or metal objects are implanted inside the uterus to avoid fertilization of an ovum by semen. Beside IUDs, we have surgical method of contraception. It includes surgical sterilization which is one of the most effective forms of contraception; is permanent and generally irreversible. It also includes vasectomy which is the blocking or severing of the ductus deferentes (or vasa deferential) which transports the male gametes. Finally, we have withdrawal method or coitus interruptus (an earliest contraceptive method). It involves the withdrawal of penis from vagina before ejaculation, and is the one of the oldest methods and though it is not reliable, it is still widely used. Summarily, Coitus interruptus is one the oldest methods, is not reliable yet is still widely used and practised. Sterilization is one the effective forms of contraception, is permanent and irreversible; whereas hormonal contraceptive method is one the most effective methods and reversible too. It includes: birth control pills, Norplant and Depo-Provera, intrauterine device and condoms used with spermicides. The safest contraceptive methods include the use of barrier devices and the avoidance of sexual intercourse during the period of ovulation.
 CAN CONTRACEPTION/ CONTRACEPTIVES AND THE OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN BE JUSTIFIED MORALLY?
From the above question, one is asking whether contraception/contraceptives and the objectification of women are morally right or morally wrong; morally good or morally bad. The above question could be answered with these ethical theories such as: Kant’s ethical imperative, personalism; existentialism, CD: Comprehensive doctrine and deontologism. First is: “Kant’s ethical imperative” (3rd formula) which states that: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in a person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. This particular thought asserts the dignity, freedom and nobility of womanhood. Hence, it judges the actions of those who indulge in contraception/contraceptives to be morally wrong since women are merely use as means to an end. Thus women are objectified, only seen as objects of sexual gratification or sexual toys to be manipulated or exploited. Similarly, “personalism” is a movement which upholds the primacy of the human person. Hence, a “personalist” would judge the actions of those who indulge in contraceptives to be morally wrong since it thwarts the nobility and the worth of womanhood and sees women as mere objects as opposed to subjects. Hence, women are objectified, instrumentalized and dewomanized. Next is “existentialism”. It is also movement that emphasizes on the individual responsibility and freedom. It was championed by Søren Kierkegaard and Martin Heidegger. For “existentialists”, those who engage in contraceptives are morally wrong since they are guilty of not allowing the fertilized egg to be and for depriving the “fertilized egg its freedom. Any conceived embryo has right to live. For “CD” which stands for “Comprehensive Doctrine” like Ten Commandment. It forbids: “you shall not kill’ and ‘other actions’ related to such an act. Hence, CD judges the actions of those who engage in contraceptives to be morally bad and ethically wrong and religiously sinful: and finally, ‘deontologism’ which is rooted philosophically in and popularized by the Kantian movement is focused on duty and goodwill. For deontologists, it is never the duty of women to prevent or inhibit conception and it does never involve goodwill at all rather bad will; hence, their action is morally wrong and bad will oriented. Finally, Natural law theorists would also argue against contraception since it goes against nature by blocking the natural process rooted in the metaphysics of finality which is fertilization, conception and partition. It would be nice to note that natural law according to Igboanusi in his book Normative Media Ethics designates the general dispositions and ends of those things and processes that are into being by natural processes and not by any intentional purposeful act of a creature. Thus, the proponents of natural law like Thomas Aquinas, John Finnis would see contraception and contraceptives as morally wrong since it obstructs natural process or it distorts the normal flow of nature thus abhorring artificiality of any sort. From the above ethical theories, it implies that contraception is intrinsically evil and as such denigrates the worth of women and also objectifies them. At his place, one might ask: what does the church say about contraception and women objectification?
THE CHURCH’S STAND ON CONTRACPTION/CONTRACEPTIVES AND THE OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN
According to Adrian Thatcher in the book titled The Good News of the Body : Sexual Theology and Feminism( 2000) classified papal teaching on contraception into three types: First: it is contrary to natural law; second; it is contrary to the inseparable connection between procreative sexual activity and third; it is an expression of a decadent society, culture or mentality. In the first point contraception/ contraceptives is against nature and it is intrinsically evil since it objectifies and instrumentalizes women. For the Vatican 11 document, contraception is vicious and is intrinsically shameful since it makes humans mere objects especially women. Pope Paul V1 in his encyclical Humane Vitae noted that contraception’s use is either contributing to a culture of death or it is already a consequence of such culture. Pope Paul V1 maintained that contraception would justify behaviour leading to marital infidelity or for gradual weakening in the discipline of morals as we see in Humane Vitae sec. 17. Similarly, the encyclical Familiaris Consortio no 6 warned against contraceptive mentality. Continuing, the encyclical affirms that contraception is a direct evidence of selfishness. Hence, it sees human as means of achieving a selfish interest. In the document Evangelium Vitae nos 22 and, 24, contraception and abortion are linked with a culture of death; a conspiracy against life and another negative mentality of hedonism. Moreso, the encyclical Evangelium Vitae no 24 states that contraception is evidence of a veritable structure of sin, a war of the powerful against the weak and conspiracy against life. In like manner , the encyclical Familiaris Consortio underscores that contraception is associated with consumer and anti-life mentalities, ultimate reason for which is the absence of people’s heart of God…( sec; 30). Finally the encyclical Familiaris Consortio affirms that contraception makes for adultery more likely because they make pregnancy less likely and by contraception the husbands lose respect for their wives because they are seen as object of sexual pleasure and sexual gratification. On this note, contraception involves the objectification of women: merely as objects of sex: sexual toys for men: pleasure giving venture. Furthermore, feminists would argue that contraception contributes in sexual promiscuity, selfishness, lack of respect and contempt for life especially on women (cf Lisa Isherwood, 2000, The Good News of the Body: Sexual Theology and Feminism). Indeed, contraception/contraceptives involve the objectification of women since women are seen as sexual toys to be used and dumped. Thus contraception objectifies and instrumentalizes women thus leading to I: ID of Martin Buber and seinde of Martin Heidegger
EVALUATION/CONCLUSION
Contraception goes against “natural law principle and divine principle. It also contravenes societal norms of any rational and moral society. Contraception objectifies, instrumentalizes, reifies, denigrates the worth, right, value, dignity and sanctity of women. Contraception is in itself is intrinsically evil, viciously shameful, morally wrong and religiously mortal or sinful. For us to ensure the women’s dignity and right; we should abhor all forms of objectification, instrumentalization, exploitation and manipulation rooted in contraception and contraceptives. Thus, the rights, dignity and worth of a fertilized egg according to Kant are non-negotiable. They are inalienable rights and values which form the foundation of human society since fertilized ovum is a potential child as well as an actualized adult. Summarily, fertilized ovum should be protected and sincerely cared for since it will fully become a human person requiring genuine love and care devoid of self-interest and self-centeredness. We have seen the problems associated with the politics of contraception and its multi-factorial nature, types and implications. The individual woman has to be made to understand the medical, theological, psychological, social and moral implications of her actions pertaining to contraception/contraceptives. There is need to address contraception both in private and public sectors. Conclusively, one would ethically and socially say that the politics of contraception and contraceptives is extremely important in our contemporary society both nationally and internationally. Contraception strips women of their womanhood, peels off their dignity, disrobes them of their freedom, divests them of their value, sheds off their worth and above all undresses them of their sanctity. It thwarts the autonomy and privacy of the fertilized egg since it is weak. Indeed contraception is intrinsically evil; naturally abominable, ethically wrong and psychologically disgusting since it de-womanizes women. It is really an anti-social tendency and anti-life. Therefore, the fertilized egg has an inherent worth and sacredness. This inherent worth of the “fertilized egg’ is buttressed by the theological and philosophical viewpoints. As a result, the protection of fertilized egg should form the preoccupation of government of any ethical and rational society. Hence, any relativistic understanding of moral values with regard to human persons fails in upholding the dignity and the right of a fertilized egg.