Sexual Ethics: Abortion and Condom Advertisments before the Watershed?

As I type, my mother is drawing up a petition against the news that the advertising agency are planning to air TV advertisements giving pregnancy advice before the 2100 watershed.

You can read the planned news here
You can read news on anti-abortion agency being against this proposal here.
And a heartwarming mother’s perspective on the blogosophere on the nature of abortion, here.

There are various positions we can argue from; for and against. The debate rages and comes to light in this blog in light of my own Catholic beliefs and my philosophical background. They are, it seems to be at odds and it is a very emotional issue. So, what’s the fuss about?

---

Against

The sanctity of life is a moral imperative for Catholics. It would be quiet controversial to suppose that murder is acceptable. Abortion and the morning-after pill equals murder. Condoms and the pill for contraceptive use prevents the possibility of life, the natural order of things. Abstinence is the answer - STIs are avoided and babies can be raised in a traditional, nuclear family.

---

For

The reality is different: STIs are on the increase, media sensationalization of sex and the acceptance of sexual promiscuity is clearly the problem and we must respect the rights of the mother and the social circumstances that lead to use of contraception and abortion methods. A last resort, is needed to prevent the breakdown of society and we must provide for the circumstances in abortion and condom use is sensible and necessary.

---

Conclusion

Speaking with my philosopher’s hat on, it is not disputed that abortion is abhorrent, the destruction of life. I would have to agree with BBC Mark Easton’s blog:

“What stops teen pregnancies: condoms or family meals? I suspect that the problem is more down to lifestyle than to lack of information.” [Read blog here]

This hits the nail on the head and fits into both arguments - the conservative, religious view and the liberal, pro-choice view. So what’s the answer?

The reality must be accepted - that we exist in a society where sex is apparent, and yet it seems that discussion of sex and sexual ethics is a ‘taboo subject’. It is not the place of government is legislate what is right and wrong on this personal issue, but some guidance and acceptance in the difference of opinions should allow people to make a rational choice. Perhaps this is too philosophical to contemplate, maybe no society can become one-dimensional in its moral directives. Yet if the education is there, condoms and abortions can be used for the more rational and acceptable means: Preventing spread of STIs, Family planning, abortion to protect the life and welfare of the mother and child. To resolve this dilemma of ‘what is right’ here is an age-old question that I cannot answer. Something to consider…

---

PS: You can read my personal opinion in the comments section here.

Unholy Urine?

Having downloaded a great app on my iPhone - ukPolitics - I have gained access to as handy set of political news items by party and blogs on the bologsphere.

One such blog, from Liberal Conspiracy attacks the Vatican statement that women's urine is unholy and contributes to male infertility.




"The contraceptive pill was polluting the environment and was in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said on Saturday.

The president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, said the pill ''has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature'' through female urine.

''We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill,'' he said, without elaborating further."

Laurie Penny, a feminist liberal blogger at LiberalConspiracy.org, attacks the Vatican on grounds of being sexist, and being incorrect in their assertions:

"I don’t see the Pope asking us to stop eating so much junk in order to protect some sacred ideation of male potency. I don’t see that increasingly unfunny former Hitler Youth member and his friends asking blokes everywhere to wear looser trousers and stop smoking. Why would they, when they’ve already decided that by daring to decide for ourselves whether we want to have kids, we’ve symbolically castrated men?The contraceptive pill is one of the most important inventions of the last three centuries, and doesn’t damage the environment so much as the status quo. I’m not a Christian, but if I were I’d get down on my knees every night to thank Ratzinger’s God for the miracle of contraception."

"Oestrogens are present in drinking water from a host of sources, most notably from the by-products of plastics production, and studies have shown that most oestrogens in drinking water are natural – not the synthetic oestrogens present in oral contraception."

You can read Laurie's blog here.


My personal opinion is not something I am going to argue here (just yet)... but I would argue that Laurie is missing crucial points of the Vatican's statement. Short of reading the actual statement (I can't read Italian, I will assume she can't either), I would like to suggest that she took the Australian article at face value and believed every word of it.

What is more likely, is that the Vatican are not disputing the science that there are natural oestrogens in various water sources, but are merely making the logical point that the substances contained in the contraceptive pill may constitute, in part, of women's urine.

It is not a sexist attack, and I'm sure the Pope would also argue that it is best that men do not smoke either - though I am sure he is not so conservative as to outlaw smoking and drinking.

Smoking may damage the sperm given consistent usage and abuse, but it does not interfere with the direct act of sexual intercourse with marriage, as does a contraceptive pill or a condom.

This here is the crucial difference I see. It is not sexist of the Pope, the media spin has twisted it that way and Laurie has obviously been unduly offended. She says she is not Catholic, so I'm wondering why she bothers to take note of supposed Vatican directives if they have no bearing on her life. People will consider the facts for themselves, I believe that we can reach through reason the right decisions on whether to use contraceptives or not, irrespective of religious doctrine or scientific evidence that increased usage of the morning after pill or the use of Thalidomide can be harmful (certainly in the case of Thalidomide, anyway).

The Pope is merely making the point as part of traditional Catholic doctrine that it is wrong to use any artificial means to interfere with the natural act of procreation. Always the Catholic church has been against contraceptives and this has caused controversy in AIDs-stricken countries. Thus I do not believe the statement is saying that women's urine is unholy (or at least the ones that take contraceptives, anyhow), but is merely adding the Catholic church's medical findings (correct or otherwise) into the scientific sphere.

That is how I see the other side of the coin anyway and I value the arguments on both sides over the issue of contraception. Sex is a loving act, and should, where possible be open to the possibility of pregnancy. But there are so many variables, unforseen circumstances where contraception is necessary (in cases to prevent STIs), or where the entire Catholic doctrine, I feel should be called into question when it opposes procedures such as IVF which allow women to fulfill their natural biological instinct to procreate. That, however is another story. But women's wee as unholy? I doubt that is the Catholic position. And even if it were, I would like to ask what Laurie is supposing by highlighting the Pope's Hitler Youth past. What does this have to do with the price of bacon?