Humanism and contraception

Humanism and contraception

Most Humanists have no ethical objections to birth control.

They argue that if contraception "results in every child being a wanted child, and in better, healthier lives for women, it must be a good thing." (British Humanist Association)

Humanists are not convinced by the "natural law" argument.

• Humanists who do not believe in God dismiss the argument that contraception interferes with God's plan for the universe.
• Humanists who do not accept that there is a "natural order" to the universe dismiss the natural law argument as being based on a false premise
• Humanists who accept that there is a "natural order" to the universe and that contraception interferes with that natural order, see that as no reason to object to contraception.

They argue that since humanity interferes with the natural order of the universe all the time, what matters is whether the consequences of that interference are good or bad.

Most Humanists assess the rights and wrongs of birth control by looking at the consequences of birth control and say that where contraception leads to good results it is ethically right to use it.

Humanists don't think that it's right for contraception to be used to permit promiscuity - they think that people should take a responsible attitude to their sexual behaviour; but they do so because promiscuity leads to bad consequences and not because it offends any moral principle.

Humanists have played a considerable part in the promotion of contraception in modern times. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated birth control as did other contemporary Humanists such as Jeremy Bentham and Francis Place.

Charles Bradlaugh (1833-91), leader of the National Secular Society, and his partner Annie Besant (1847-1933) were given prison sentences for publishing a book that advocated birth control. These convictions were later quashed.

Find out more

• Humanism