Humanist perspective: Sex, contraception, and STDs
Humanists think we should consider the consequences of our actions when deciding whether something is morally acceptable rather than simply following unquestionable rules or allowing figures of authority to command how we behave. They believe we have only one life (there is no afterlife) and so we should make the most of it, trying to lead happy and fulfilling lives, and helping others to do the same.
Some people believe that sex is sinful. Others say it should not take place before marriage or that it shouldonly be performed with the goal of reproduction. Many humanists, however, believe that sex is a pleasure that can be enjoyed responsibly. As long as we are physically and mentally mature enough to make the decision, and are fully aware of the consequences and risks, then it can be a positive ingredient of a happy life. Most humanists believe there is no particular moral virtue in preserving one’s virginity until one is married, although they recognise that we should not rush into sex until we feel we are ready. Many see nothing wrong with having sex with more than one person over the course of our lives. We are, however, responsible for our own decisions and their consequences, and so we should make sure we always consider our choices carefully.
Humanists have always been strong advocates of birth control. An early humanist and founder of the National Secular Society, Charles Bradlaugh, was sentenced to six months in prison in 1877 for publishing with his friend, Annie Besant, a pamphlet about family planning and birth control.
Unlike some opponents of birth control, humanists do not believe that contraception is wrong because it ‘interferes with nature’ or is against a god’s ‘natural law’. Firstly, humanists do not believe in a god, or believe we cannot know whether one exists. They therefore do not think contraception is interfering with any ‘plan’ for the universe. Secondly, many humanists do not believe that interfering with nature is in itself always a bad thing, particularly if the consequences are good. Human beings interfere with nature all the time, for example by farming, by wearing clothes, or by taking painkillers.
Many humanists would argue that if contraception results in every child being a wanted child, and in better, healthier lives for women, it is a good thing. No one should have a child until ready and able to take on the responsibility. Men and women should have the right to choose to use contraception. If contraception were not available, it would lead to an increased number of unwanted pregnancies and a heightened risk of sexually transmitted diseases.
Medical science has made us increasingly aware of the risks of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Many humanists would say that anyone carrying a sexually transmitted disease has a duty to inform their sexual partners and to do what they can to minimise the risk of passing it on. Many believe we should invest proper funding into prevention as well as treatment of STDs, including support for developing countries around the world. Many believe the Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception has caused significant damage in the developing world. They would also argue that we should respect the human rights of those suffering from HIV or AIDS.
For humanists, quality, age-appropriatesex and relationships education(SRE)in schools is essential. Young people should be fully informed about contraception, and a range of methods should be available to all. However, people should also be taught to think carefully about the risks and consequences before embarking on sexual relationships.
Humanist perspective: Sex, contraception, and STDs
Questions for discussion:
1)Can an activity which does not harm anyone else be morally wrong?
2)What should be the age of consent for sexual relationships? Should it be the same for males and females, homosexuals and heterosexuals?
3)Is promiscuity acceptable?
4)Why do humanists think contraception is a good thing?
5)If contraception was not part of a god’s plan, why would he/she give us contraception?
6)Is contraception morally preferable to abortion? What about the morning after pill?
7)Is your health your private business and no one else’s? Do you have a duty to tell others if you have a sexually transmitted disease?
8)How is the humanist view on this issue similar or different to that of other worldviews you have come across?
9)How are you deciding your answers to these questions? What principles and arguments influence your answers?
Further resources:
- BHA support for quality, age-appropriate sex and relationships education: humanism.org.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/school-curriculum/pshe-and-sex-and-relationships-education/
- Information about Charles Bradlaugh: humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/19th-century-freethinkers/charles-bradlaugh/
- Sex Education Forum:
- Sex Education Forum research showing the benefits of good SRE (delaying young people’s first experience of sex, reducing the number of partners, and increasing the use of contraception):
British Humanist Association ©2016