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.
