Ethics of natural family planning (NFP) vs ethics of contraception

Abstract

The article analyses the moral difference between Natural Family Planning (NFP) and contraception. Problem Statement: Today one of the most frequently asked questions is the following: if contraception and NFP both have the same purpose of avoiding pregnancy, how can there be any moral difference between them. Moreover, people state that it does not make any difference which method is used, if the end and purpose are the same. In fact, proponents of contraceptives often argue that there is no moral difference between contraception and NFP and even treat NFP as a natural form of contraception. Purpose of the study: To disclose the ethical/moral difference between contraception and NFP. Research methods: Theoretical structural method was used for thorough understanding of human person as a bodily and sexual being. Comparative analysis was used to find the distinction between Christian anthropology and dualistic anthropology. Action assessment criteria were used to evaluate the difference between contraceptive action and contraceptive purpose. Findings: In order to show the moral difference between contraception and NFP, firstly thorough understanding of human person as a bodily and sexual being is given, the difference of the use of NFP and contraception in the aspect of human dignity is revealed, and then a distinction between a contraceptive action and a contraceptive will is drawn. Conclusion. The end or purpose of family planning does not make all of the various practices ethically the same. NFP is not a natural contraception; it is the ethical opposite. Keywords: Christian anthropology, dualistic anthropology; bodility; sexuality; natural family planning; contraceptive action; conjugal act.