CONTEMPORARY MORAL ISSUES

SEX CHANGE SURGERY

There are two kinds of sex change operations, namely: (1) from male to female, and (2) from
female to male. In the male to female operation, the testicles are removed, the penis amputated, and
an artificial vagina is constructed using parts of the penis. The breasts are enlarged with silicone
implants and the Adam’s apple is reduced in size.
In the female to male surgical operation, the ovaries and the uterus are removed, the breasts
reduced to size, and an artificial penis is simulated. Surgeons implant a hydraulic system in the artificial
phallus that enables it to mimic erection. To develop the appropriate secondary sex characteristics, both
male and female are given sex hormones of their new gender.
Despite the sex operation, however, the true biological sex is not changed. The sex change is
only external, in the sense that the “new woman” cannot conceive nor can the “new man” father
a child. The first sex change surgery was reportedly done in 1952 on American George Jorgensen, a
twenty-six years old man, who transformed into a woman in the hospital in Denmark. After the
operation he (she?) returned to New York as Christine Jorgensen.
Application of Ethnical Theories. Christian Ethics, otherwise known as the natural law ethnics,
demands the preservation of the natural order and forbids its violation. Transsexualism is an aberration
or a deviation from nature (e.g., a transsexualism person [either male or female] has an obsessive-
compulsive desire to belong to the opposite sex).
Therefore, just as we obliged to preserve “what is natural’ (i.e., the natural order), so we
ought to “subdue” what is not natural, as mandated by God who, in the Genesis, told Adam to Eve:
“Subdue Nature”. Transsexualism is not natural, hence sex surgery is deemed to be procedure to
“subdue” it, so as to make natural.
On utilitarian and pragmatist moral principles, sex change operation is regarded as the most
practical and beneficial procedure for transsexuals to undergo in order to discover their true selves.
Indeed, sex surgery will promote the greatest benefits and happiness, and a meaningful life, for sex
deviants.
The ethnical principle of autonomy justifies sex change operation, insofar as an autonomous
transsexual individual who opts for it exercises his moral right to make his/her own decision. Besides,
the ethnical principle of justice grants a transsexual what he/she rightfully deserves by nature (i.e.,
according to his/her natural feelings).

DEATH WITHOUT SUFFERING (EUTHANASIA)

“Mercy killing, or euthanasia is the giving of an easy, painless death to one suffering from an
incurable or agonizing ailment. Its advocates argue that person will die anyway, that the purpose is
not to invade the person’s right to life but only to substitute a painless for a painful death, that
the shortening of the person’s life merely deprives him or her of a bit of existence that is not
only useless but unbearable, that the person can do no more good for anyone, himself or herself
included. Some would leave the decision to a qualified physician: most would require the
subject’s consent.”
 Etymologically, euthanasia means “easy death”, from the Greek eu “easy” and thanatos
“death”. More strictly, it means painless, peaceful death; it is deliberate putting to death, in an easy,
painless way, of an individual suffering from an incurable and agonizing disease. It is popularly known as
mercy killing , insofar as it is regarded as a merciful release from an incurable and prolonged suffering.
Some call it an art or practice of painlessly putting to death a person suffering from a marked
deformity or from an unbearable and distressing disease. Other consider it is a theory that in certain
circumstances when, owing to disease, senility, or the like, a person’s life has permanently ceased to
be either agreeable or useful, the sufferer should be painlessly put to death, either by himself or
another. Thus, by implication euthanasia is a theory which affirms an individual’s right to die in a
painless and peaceful manner whenever he/she is confronted with a horrible disease and the quality
of his life deteriorates.
Two Types of Death without Suffering. Death without suffering may be either self-administered
or other administered. Self-administered painless death may be either an act of commission (active) or
an act of omission (passive). It is an act of commission whenever a terminally-ill patient will be
deliberately and directly terminate his life by employing painless method; it is an act of omission
whenever one allows oneself to die without taking medicine or by refusing medical treatment.
Other-administered painless death may be carried out in four ways: (1) active and voluntary, (2)
passive and voluntary, (3) active and nonvoluntary, and (4) passive and nonvoluntary. Active and
voluntary peaceful death --- either a physician, spouse, or a friend of the patient will terminate the
latter’s life upon the latter’s own request, by using positive methods; passive and voluntary peaceful
death --- a terminally- ill patient is simply allowed to die by the physician, spouse, or an immediate
relative, upon the request of the patient’s own request, employing no positive method.
Active and nonvoluntary peaceful death --- the physician, spouse, a close friend or a nearest kin
decides that the life of a terminally-ill patient should be terminated, using some positive means. Passive
and nonvoluntary peaceful death --- a terminally-ill patient is simply allowed to die, as request by
immediate family member (spouse or parents) or attending physician, without using any positive means.
Application of Ethical Theories. First of all, Christian ethics condemns mercy killing. Euthanasia
is instrically wrong, because it imlies the direct and deliberate killing of an individual; hence, it is a
murder. Even though the motive is good (e.g., a terminally-ill patient is better off dead than suffering
from prolonged agony), the good end does not justify the evil means in this case. Mercy killing is against
the principle of stewardship and the inviolability of life.
Nevertheless, the double effect principle may consider peaceful death legitimate under certain
circumstances. To give medication for the relief of pain, for instance, even if the indirect outcome of the
medication will be shorten the patient’s life, may be morally permitted. The primary and direct
object of the initiated medication is the relief of pain, which is good in itself, and the patient’s
death following the medication is never intended directly; it becomes the secondary, indirect result of
the act of medication.
Moreover, there is no moral obligation to continue medical treatment if and when terminally-ill
patient becomes hopeless. Even if one’s life might be lengthened through extraordinary measures,
which are already useless, anyway, it is legitimate to allow patient to die as a result of his/her own
illness or injury, as may be the case. The same moral reasoning and decision may be applied to us in a
similar situation.
 On situation ethicist’s moral principles, Joseph Flecher does not only favor the decision
to terminate a “subhuman life in extremies” in old age, but also endorses the merciful and painless
death of terminally-ill patients. He argues that just as we are morally obliged to terminate pregnancy
when an amniocentesis reveals a terribly deformed fetus, so are we equally obliged to end a terminally-
ill patient’s misery when a brain scan reveals that his cancer has advance metastases (i.e., the transfer
of disease of its manifestation of spreading from one part of the body to another).
Active and voluntary peaceful death may be compatible with the principle of situation ethics. (1)
(i.e., physician or another) may employ some positive means to put a terminally-ill patient’s life to
speedy end at his own request. This would be doing the patient more good than harm. To
prolong the patient’s agony and suffering, despite a request a painless death, would be to do him more
harm than good. Thus, it can be argued that one is acting in the name of agapeic love by helping a
terminally-ill patient to die in painless manner.
For the pragmatists, particularly the organ-transplant advocates, inasmuch as terminally-ill
comatose patient is going to die anyway, he can be assisted to die in a painless way, that his
transplantable “spare parts” or organs (e.g., eyes or kidneys) will benefit those who are in need
(upon informed consent or with permission of his immediate relatives). This is likewise in conjunction
with the utilitarian principle of promoting the greatest benefits for the greatest number of individuals.

SELF-KILLING (SUICIDE)
Suicide is here taken in the strict sense as the direct killing of oneself on one’s own authority.

Direct killing is an act of killing that is directly voluntary: that is, death is intended either as an
end or as a means to an end. Either the actions is capable of only one effect and that effect is death, or
the action is capable of several effects including death, and among these death is the effect intended,
either for its own sake or as a means to something else.

Indirect killing is an act of killing that is indirectly voluntary: death is not intended, either as an
end or as a means to an end, but is only permitted as unavoidable consequences. The action is capable
of at least two effects, one of which is death and the agent intends not death, but the other effects. To
avoid misunderstanding it is better not to speak of the indirect killing of oneself as a killing at all, but as
the deliberate exposure of one’s life to serious danger. Such exposure is not what meant by
suicide.

The killing is not suicide unless it is done on it’s own authority. Two others might thought of
as having authority in the matter: God and the State. God having a supreme domination over human
life, could order a woman to kill herself, but to know God’s will in such a case, a special
revelation would be needed, for which there is no provision in philosophical ethics. The State supposing
that it has the right of capital punishment might appoint a man condemned to death to be his own
executioner. Whatever be the morality of such an uncommon and questionable practice, it is not suicide
according to the accepted definition.

Suicide can be committed positively, by the performance of some death – dealing act against
oneself: or negatively by omitting to use the ordinary means of preserving one’s life. It is suicide
to starve to oneself to death, to refuse to avoid an oncoming train, to neglect to use the ordinary
remedies against an otherwise fatal disease.

Among the arguments proposed in favor of the moral permissibility of suicide are the following:
1. It is understood that no one should commit suicide for whom life holds out some hope or
promise, and that people suffering from temporary despondency should be prevented from
harming themselves, but there are always some for whom life has become an intolerable and
irremediable burden. They are useless to society and to themselves. It is better for all concerned
that they retire from the scene of life through the ever open door.
2. It is an act of supreme personal self-determination to summon death when life’s value has
been spent. A person is expected to manage his or her life intelligently and not be merely
passive in the face of inexorable nature.
3. A person is allowed to choose a lesser evil to avoid a greater. Since there are more evils than
death, why cannot death be chosen as the lesser evil? There is nothing unnatural about it.
4. Even admitting that God has given us our life, yet it is truly a gift. A gift belongs to the receiver,
who may now do whatever he or she wills for it.
5. To suppose that suicide in any way defrauds God of his supreme right is to have very naïve idea
of God.
6. In the case of self-defense we have the rights to destroy other human lives for our own safety.
The State claims the same right in war and capital punishment.

These rather persuasive arguments are countered by opposing arguments:

1. Suicide is often regarded as an act of cowardice and a refusal to face life courageously. We take
the easy way out when we thrust the burdens we cannot bear onto shoulders of our
dependents.
2. It is natural prompting of well-ordered self-love to keep one’s person in being against all
destructive forces.
3. The lesser of two physical evils may be chosen when there is no moral evil involved, but moral
evil may never be chosen to avoid physical evil.
4. Life is a gift from God, but some gifts are given outright and others have strings attached. All
God’s gifts are restricted; not because of any lack of his generosity, but because he has to make
us responsible for their use when entrusts them to our freedom.
5. We can never actually defraud God, but we are no allowed even to try to be willing to do what
would fraud God were he not infinitely beyond all possible harm.
6. In self-defense the defender kills the attacker not on his or her own authority but on God’s
authority implicit in the defender’s own natural right to life.

MURDER

In ethics we find the civil law’s distinction between murder and manslaughter of little
help. Murder supposes malice aforethought and thus full voluntariness, but the civil law can judge
only by external criteria. Morality, which resides chiefly in the act of inner freedom preceded by
knowledge, does not always correspond with the amount and kind of evidence presentable in the
court. So long as the act of killing another is both directly voluntary and unjust, we shall call it
murder, following the usage of common language rather than the technical terms of the civil law.
 Murder is defined as the direct killing of an innocent person. It is direct killing, directly
voluntarily, so that the death is intended as end or as serious danger.

An innocent person is one who has not forfeited his or her right to life. Murder is unjust killing,
done without legitimate authority. This excludes killing another on the authority of God or the state
as mentioned before as suicide. The word innocent must be understood as objectively innocent, for
it is not murder to kill a maniac in self-defense.

The murder is morally wrong hardly needs a separate proof if the argument against suicide is
already admitted, for if a person is not allowed to take even his or her own life, much less would a
person be allowed to take the life of another. Murder is morally wrong because it violates the right
of God, who has exclusive full ownership over human life, the right of use ownership that each
person has over his or her own life, and the right of the state to administer justice and preserve
public order.

From a nontheist point of view murder is immoral, because the murderer violates the rights of
both the person murdered and the state of which the murdered person was a member. The murder
commits a double injustice: (1) against the individual by depriving another of the life to which he or
she has an absolutely inalienable right as a rational free being, and (2) against the state as a society
that exists to foster the common good of all its members and cannot long allowed to go about freely
killing other members. Murder can be treated briefly because no one of the worst of crimes and as
the most glaring example of a morally evil act. But some are not convinced of the injustice contained
in certain types of direct killing, and these must be examined further.

Known also as self-murder or self-killing, suicide is the direct, willful destruction of one’s
own life. It is direct, insofar as the primary object of the act itself is the killing of oneself; it is willful,
insofar as it is deliberate, voluntary, and intentional; and it is destructive, insofar as the means of
terminating one’s own life is, more often than not, brutal, violent, or very harsh and bloody.
Self-Killing and Euthanasia. In some respects, the concept of active voluntary euthanasia and
suicide overlap, but there are several differences. As pointed out in the previous chapter, people who
resort to the euthanasia do so mainly for medical reasons, e.g., terminal illness amidst unbearable
suffering; hence it is referred to as”an easy and painless death” or without even suffering.
Suicide, on the contrary, is usually (though not always) the destructive and violent termination
of life (e.g., self-strangulation, jumping off the window, shooting oneself in the head). As a rule, suicide
presupposes one’s healthy physical condition, whereas euthanasia presupposes incurable ailment or
terminal condition amidst excruciating agony and pain. Hence, the former is a sudden interruption or
destruction of the life process, while the latter is an easy, painless, quiet acceleration of imminent or
certain death, in order to rid oneself of prolonged suffering.
The one case, however, in which suicide overlaps with euthanasia is what is known as assisted
suicide, or being put to death by another for humanitarian reasons through merciful, painless means
upon the patient’s own request. But even in this case, it is presupposed that the person who
makes the request to be put to death is a patient; hence, it is done for medical reasons in one way or
another.
Causes of Suicide. There are cultural, religious, personal, financial, socio-political causes of
suicide. The cultural and religious causes are best exemplified by the Kamikaze pilots during World War
II who regarded suicide as a heroic act of self-sacrifice for their own country. The Japanese Shintoist (an
advocate of Shinto religion) believes that one who dies for one’s country becomes one with the
deities.
This explains the unconditional readiness and willingness of the Japanese soldiers to die (via
suicide or harakiri by stabbing or emboweling themselves to death with a samurai) for their own
country during a war. Moreover, the Shintoists claim that even their spirits (souls) can help defend their
land from external aggressors.
In recent times, even Roman Catholic Irish men and Buddhist Vietnamese have committed
suicide through self-immolation or self-starvation on order to achieve a political objective. The latter
may take the form of a protest against social injustice, such as the Buddhist monks who burned
themselves to death in protest against tyranny in Vietnam. These exemplify the political and social
causes of suicide.
The personal reasons may include: (1) misfortune and frustration in love or marriage (e.g.,
desertion by one’s beloved boyfriend/girlfriend, or spouse) making one a victim of a broken
home or a shattered family; (2) parental indifference or apathy towards one’s boyfriend or
girlfriend; (3)in-law problems, especially if victims live with their own parents-in-law; (4) failure in
examination; (5) loss of honor and integrity (e.g., shame and self-pity resulting from pregnancy caused
by rape and/or incest; (6) nervous breakdown due to one’s inability to cope with life’s problems
(e.g., cultural shock, inability to adjust to new situations and/or responsibilities).
Financial causes include: (1)abject poverty and impoverishment (e.g., parents and children burn
themselves to death because of extreme deprivation), and (2) great loss of money or collapse in
business venture. Other social and political reasons include: (1) failed coup d’ etat (e.g., many of the
coup plotters and against Mikhail Gorbachev who failed resorted to suicide) and (2) protest against
man’s inhumanity to man (e.g., the practice of self-oimmolation among Buddhist monks).
Cons and Pros of suicide. St. Augustine considers suicide as against the fifth commandment
(“Thou shall not kill”) and it is an ignoble act through which one attempts to escape the ills of life.
Suicide itself is a greater sin than any and all sins that could be allegedly avoided by committing it,
insofar as it deprives a person of the opportunity to repent.
St. Thomas Aquinas himself gives a threefold argument: (1) suicide is against the natural
law(e.g., our natural inclination of self-preservation and conservation); (2)being a member of a society, a
person who kills himself will deprive the community (e.g., family, relatives, friends, co-workers ) of his
activity- they will be greatly affected by his brutal or violent death; and (3) suicide is a
usurpation of God’s function-life is God’s gift to man, and hence, suicide involves an arrogant act
which one is not a liberty to perform.
David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, on the other hand, defends suicide: (1) The removal of
misery makes suicide morally justifiable and permissible-to bear unbearable pain is in no way part of a
natural inclination; (2) moral duty is reciprocal-while alive and healthy, it is my bounden duty to render
service to society as it protects me in turn, but when my life becomes a liability and a burden to society,
my withdrawal is not only innocent but laudable; and (3) there is no such thing as order designed ny
God; man’s life is as disposable as that of an oyster’s.
Michel \de Montaigne, a French skeptical philosopher, argues that if and when an individual
reaches a point where all that he feels is terrible pain, agony, and misery, and then suicide becomes
excusable-nay, permissible. In his view, one’s fear of suffering that is worse than death itself is
the most excusable incitement to self-killing.
 Application of ethical theories. Christen ethics, with its principles of stewardship and
inviolability of life, considers suicide as self-murder. An individual has no right to murder himself/herself
as he/she has no right to murder someone. Only an individual who has dominion over a thing has the
right to destroy it. No individual, however, has dominion over his/her life, for it is but the gift to him/her.
No person has acquired it through his/her own effort and industry. He/she has not purchased it but
rather received it as a gift from God. Hence, the latter alone has dominion over an individual’s life.
A person is only a steward- a caretaker at most. Life is inviolable.
The utilitarian principle of utility seems to be in keeping with the argument that an individual
may deliberately terminate his/her own life if and when suffering becomes too much to bear. Besides,
whenever one has become a financial burden and a liability due to prolonged, incurable disease, then an
appeal to “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” principle becomes justifiable. This,
however, is arguable.
This moral pragmatist may consider self-killing as the most practical and realistic thing to do if
and when life becomes too much of a burden due to unbearable pain and suffering, in which life has
already ceased to be a pleasure or a pleasant one. In such a situation, suicide is a means of liberating
oneself from misery and affliction, a sort of escape from suffering and from the anathema of senility, the
decay of old age, or fast physical deterioration.

ABORTION

The expulsion of a living fetus from the mother’s womb before it is viable is known as
abortion.
In medical parlance, abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy, spontaneously or by
inducement
, prior to viability . Thereafter, the termination of pregnancy is called delivery. Viability has to do with the
child’s capability to live independently of its mother after it has left the womb.
Normally, a child is considered to be viable at about the 28 th week (calculated from the first
day of the last menstrual period) or toward the end of the 7 th months (at least the fetus born during this
period has about a 10% chance of survival). The availability of an incubator to keep a prematurely born
baby warm will heighten its chances of survival.
Types of Abortion: (1) natural abortion, (2) therapeutic abortion, (3) eugenic or selective
abortion, (4) indirect abortion. Natural abortion (known also as spontaneous or accidental) is the
expulsion of the fetus through natural or accidental causes. In lay people’s term, it is called a
miscarriage. Abortion of this type is unintentional and involuntary, and hence devoid of moral
significance.
It assumes a moral bearing if and when it is voluntary in cause. A pregnant woman, for
example, who scrubs the floor with all her might, or wilfully steps on a banana peel in order to slip, with
the intention of inducing abortion, .akes her act intentional and voluntary, and, therefore, she is morally
responsible for it.
Therapeutic Abortion, on the other hand, is the deliberately induced expulsion of a living
fetus in order to save the mother from the danger of death brought on by pregnancy. A pregnant
woman who has a heart condition, for example, will probably have a heart attack if she carries her
pregnancy to term; hence, the expulsion of the fetus is recommended. Note that the health and life of
the mother are considered paramount in this case.
 The fourth type is eugenic abortion, which is recommended in cases where certain defects
are discovered in the developing fetus. It is argued that it is better for a child not to be born that for it to
lead a miserable life, burdened with crippling genetic disorders. It is called eugenic because it is meant
to get rid of abnormal babies, and thus prevent from “contaminating” the human species. It is also
known as selective abortion or abortion on feta indications in the sense that is recommended on a
case-by-case basis, depending upon the gravity of fetal indications or abnormalities.
The fifth type is known as indirect abortion, which refers to the removal of the fetus as a
secondary effect of a legitimate or licit actions, which is the direct and primary object of the intention.
This is an instance of the double effect principle, which applies to a situation where a good effects as
well as an evil effect will result from a good cause. Some evil effects, voluntary in cause, may be
permitted to occur provided certain conditions are fulfilled (see Christian ethics, Chapter 6, Theory 4).
The two instances where the conditions are fulfilled are the case of a woman who has a
cancerous uterus (with a tumor or myoma in the uterus) and of another who as an ectopic pregnancy.
The latter occurs when the fertilized ovum does not descend into the uterus but becomes implanted in
the Fallopian tube and begins to develop there. The embyo, however, cannot grow into viability in the
tube. In the course of its growth, it will cause rupture with subsequent bleeding, endangering the life of
the mother.
What is the moral issue of abortion? Ethicist point to the difficult questions regarding the
beginning of human life as the moral issue of abortion. When does human life begin? Is the fetus a
human person? Another variation of the central issue is: When does the soul fuse or unite with the
body? From the moment of conception or sometime later.
There are two schools of thought that attempt to resolve the crucial issue: (1) the theory of
immediate hominization , and (2) the theory of delayed animation. The theory of immediate
hominization (or immediate ensoulmate) contends that a new human being exists immediately upon
conception; that is, the soul enters at conception, hence the newly fertilized ovum (fetus) is already a
human being.
On the contrary, the theory of delayed animation (or delayed ensoulment) upholds
ensoulment occur at a later time from the moment of conception. By way of implication, the fetus upon
conception, in as much as no ensoulment has yet occurred, is not a human being.
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Views of Abortion. The disapproving view of abortion is commonly
known as the pro-life stand, while the approving view is called the pro-choice position. The pro-life view
declares that abortion is never permissible, or at most, is permissible if and only if it is required to save
the pregnant woman’s life, as in the case of the removal of cancerous uterus of the removal of
the Fallopian tube, or a part of it, because of ectopic pregnancy.
Pro-life advocate maintain that the fetus has full ontological status (i.e., already a human
being) and is hence as individual human person with moral status who possesses the same rights as
those who are born. Life, from the moment of conception, must be regarded with greatest care.
On the other hand, the pro-choice view claims that abortion is always permissible,
whatever the state of fetal development may be. Its proponents uphold that the fetus has no
ontological status; it is neither an individual, human, nor a person; therefore, it possesses no rights and
no moral status. It may be expelled, especially in case of rape and incest.
Application of Ethical Theories. Christian’s ethics considers abortion to be intrinsically
wrong. The fetus is human precisely because it is conceived by humans; hence, we must accord it human
rights, most especially the right to life. By the same token, the respect for life principle, in sofar as
human life is inviolable, is intended to protect and safeguard the life of the unborn (be it deformed or
not) from the moment of conception.
Situation ethics endorses selective abortion or abortion or abortion on fetal indications
(including pregnancy caused by sexual aggression, if the woman so decides). Depending upon the
gravity of chromosomal deformity, it would be better off for the fetus to be aborted. Whenever a fetus
is terribly malformed, then human harm can be prevented and suffering relieved by expelling it is early
as possible.
The pragmatist and the utilitarian ethicists would take into account the practical,
beneficial, and workable consequences of aborting a terribly malformed fetus, most particularly in cases
of pregnancy caused by rape or incest. Under utilitarian and pragmatist moral principles, is aborted
foetuses (malformed or not)may be used as subjects of human experimentation for the greater benefits
of humankind.

Morality of Abortion

Abortion is the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is viable, that is, before it can live
outside the mother. It is not the premature delivery of a viable fetus. To hasten birth is not wrong if the
child can be kept alive, but it presents such a serious risk that grave reasons are required to make it
permissible, it can be justified by the principle of double effect, the proportionate reasons being the
danger to the health of the mother, child, or both, if the gestation bellowed to reach its natural term.

HOMOSEXUALITY

Homosexuality or inversion is the erotic, sexual attraction of a person toward members of the same sex
and the absence of attraction toward members of the opposite sex, at times to the extent relations with
the opposite sex. Research a date suggests that it is impossible to categorize a persons simply as either
heterosexual or homosexual, but most persons are both with more of an emphasis on one rather than
the other. Statistics seem to indicate that about 5% of the men and women in this country are
excessively homosexual through their entire lives. It means that some twelve million American men and
women are exclusively homosexual. Our concern here is with the exclusively homosexual person.

Society seems to be more willing to accept homosexuals than previously, but there is still a good
deal of prejudice and misunderstanding. Many myths about homosexuals are still passing as facts with
large segments of the public. The following are examples.

1. Every homosexual is attracted to children and adolescents and wishes to have genital sex
with them.
2. Male homosexuals look and act effeminate, while female homosexuals look and act
masculine.
3. Homosexuals can recognize one another easily.
4. Homosexuals invariably tend toward particular professions, for example, music theatre;
other fine arts, interior decorating.
5. All homosexuals are promiscuous and unable to form enduring relationships.
 6. Homosexuals, having deliberately chosen their sexual orientation, can correct their situation
by an act of will or by getting to know some member of the opposite sex intimately.

It goes without saying that these myths are just that – myths. A person’s sexual orientation, as far
as we know, is not set by a deliberate act of will. The homosexual person finds himself or herself with
an orientation to the same sex just as a heterosexual does to the opposite sex. The orientation is a felt
sexual attraction or preference over which we have no control once it is formed. Much scientific
research has been done but with inconclusive results as to the causes of homosexuality. The homosexual
orientation is not confusion about one’s maleness or femaleness but rather a preference for persons
of one’s own sex erotic partners. While we have no control over the orientation or preference itself, we
have control over our behavior that stems from our sexual orientation.

Homosexuals have the same needs and rights to love, intimacy, and relationships as heterosexuals, and
they are bound to strive for the same ideals of human wholeness and integration into society. The
norms governing the morality of homosexual activity are those that govern all sexual activity. The
homosexual must judge his or her relationships and actions in terms of whether or not they are loving
and self- liberating, enriching to the other person by reason of the respect and reverence for him or her
as a person, honest, faithful, life-serving and joyous. All of us, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are
bound to avoid depersonalizing ourselves and others because selfishness, dishonesty and promiscurity
are harmful both to the individual and to society.

Although homosexuality is more openly and sympathetically regarded today than in the past,
large segments of our society still consider it morally wrong and they base their position either on
religious views or on traditional natural law arguments. We are not concerned here with theological but
rather with philosophical arguments that point to the immorality of the practice of genital sex between
homosexuals. The chief reason seem to be the following:

1. The Judeo-Christian tradition has constantly regarded genital sex between homosexuals as
unnatural, a perversion of the meaning of human sexuality, and therefore immoral. The
argument runs as follows: (a) The objective meaning of sexual acts is to be an expression of
a loving relationship, one that is totally self-giving and creative of new human life. Acts of
genital sex derive their human meaning from such a loving relationship. (b) Any act of
genital sex that does not express this interpersonal relationship is a use of sex without
human meaning, because it withdraws from values that nourish this relationship. Such as
misuse of a symbol that tends of its own nature to strengthen within marriage the love
uniting a husband and wife and to engender a child. (c) Homosexual genitals sex represents
a withdrawal from and a rejection of this relationship and rejection of at least other value of
engendering a new human life. (d) Hence the practice of homosexual genital sex is refusal to
grow in one’s own intersubjectivity and heterosexuality. A rejection of one’s own
personal growth. € Since the distinction between male and female is part of the
natural order willed by the Creator, heterosexual genital sex must be normative in the
matter of generating new human life. Homosexual intercourse can never be generative or
creative in this sense. Consequently, any kind of genital sexual expression between two
partners of the same sex, even though it may be loving and said to strengthen the union
between them, will always be
 contrary to the order of the nature by reason of its failure to be open to protection and
therefore immoral.
2. The fundamental order of nature and the existence of the male and female sexes justify
speaking of homosexuality as unnatural, as not in accord with the order of nature.
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation must be placed on the same level with abnormal
personality structure, mental illness and psychological aberration. The very orientation of
the homosexual is abnormal an objective disorder and the genital behavior flowing fromm
such an orientation must be regard as sick, in need of healing, neither the orientation nor
the genital behavior based on the orientation can be placed on the same level with the
normal natural order of the sexes.
3. To be human means to be sexual being, being who has at her core of his or her being the
urge to relate to members of both sexes to form interpersonal relationship. While these
relationships can develop into warm affective friendships the relationship between man and
woman who love one another and are married is the only one in which genital sexual
expression can ever be appropriate according to the right order of nature.
4. While it is possible for two persons of the same sex to love one another in the deepest sense
of the word and to establish a permanent relationship based on that genuine mutual love,
such a relationship can never be enough to justify the use of genital sex. Homosexuals do
use genital sex to express mutual love and affection, but such use always falls short of the
human meaning of sexual communication. Genital sex is deadly for us humans an act of
creative love, it does express further in its being open to the generation of a new human
being who is like the two partners will always elude homosexuals, for genital sex a new
being because it is no even open to such creativity in the first place. Homosexual genital sex
is essentially incomplete as an expression of fully human love and full sexual communion.
Homosexuals frequently engage in casual sexual encounters with little or no regard for love.
Genital sex is used for sheer pleasure and recreation.
These arguments against the practice of genital sex between homosexuals overlap to
some extent, but each highlights a different side of the question. They are strong
presentation of the natural law ethic, but the publicity given to homosexuality its
growing acceptance by well-meaning people, and the satisfactoriness of continence for
some homosexuals invite us to rethink the whole question. Some adherents of the
natural law ethic challenge the foregoing arguments on two main counts:
1. A deeper understanding of human sexuality requires that we revise some of
our opinions on the exact natural character of the reproductive process.\
2. Ethical honesty and sincerely require that we reconsider some of our views
concerning the proper interpretation of the natural law.
CONTRACEPTION

The moral issue of contraception is concerned with the rightness or wrongness of the use of
various methods by which conception can be prevented in the conjugal union. Contraception is thus
defined as the voluntary prevention of conception by the positive use of artificial means, which hinder
the sperm cell and the egg cell from uniting during the sexual act.
Contraception may be taken as synonymous with family planning, Planned Parenthood,
responsible parenthood, and birth control: family planning, insofar a couple may decide to use certain
contraceptive methods to plan the size of their family or the number of children they are going to beget;
planned or responsible parenthood, for the same reason in the spacing of children.
The words birth control, although widely used, seem to be a misnomer, because, biologically
speaking, while conception can be prevented, the birth of the fetus or child cannot; once a new life is
conceive as a result of the union of the generative cells, it can no longer be “controlled” or
prevented from being “born’ or coming out, dead or alive.
So, when we speak of contraception, we refer to the prevention of conception rather that the
prevention of birth. The latter presupposes conception, whereas the former presupposes the meeting of
generative cells during of the following sexual act. It is this meeting or union of the sperm cell and egg
cell that is supposed to be prevented in the case of contraception, and not the birth of an already
conceived life (conceptus), which is the moral issue of abortion.
In general, there are to methods by which to prevent conception: the natural method and the
artificial method. The former refers to the natural means (like rhythm or calendar method, ovulation
method) that the couple can avail themselves of so that conception will not occur. The latter refers to
the use of artificial means (like condom, vaginal foams, contraceptive pills, etc.)to prevent conception.
Justification for Contraception. 1) Parenthood and birth are matter of moral responsibility and
intelligent choice; 2) A couple should be the ones to determine their fertility and should be the ones to
control their fecundity. 3) A couple should be able to decide how many children they are able to bear
and support; 4) Contraceptive technology make husband and wife persons of will decision, and not
merely inert and powerless bodies subject to church prescription or to the divine will; 5) Contraception
checks the transmission of recessive disorders, genetically-linked and/or sexually-related disease (e.g.,
HIV virus or AIDS).
Application of Ethical Theories. Christian ethics endorses the natural methods of responsible
parenthood, but considers contraception (the use of artificial means) as an interference with the natural
inclination of man to perpetuate the species; hence, it is morally wrong. Couples must respect the
biological laws which are part of the human person; hence, any positive use of artificial means to
prevent conception is morally illicit. Sex has been designed by nature for procreation, its very reason for
being.
Utilitarian ethics, on the other hand, with its principle of utility, may justify contraception and
sterilization in terms of the great happiness and benefits that they will ultimately bring forth to the
family as a whole.
Likewise, pragmatism may consider the practicality, usefulness, workability, and beneficially that
the practice of contraception can provide for the couples who want to limit the number of children they
can afford to support and educate, without sacrificing the unitive element of marriage.
 Situation ethics views contraception within the context of a given situation (along with abortion
and sterilization) is either good or bad depending upon the circumstances. Making babies, in his view, is
just a good making love even if we don’t intend to make babies. Babies ought to be wanted and
to be intended, and not born by chance or accident.
Hence, the best way to make love without making babies is to prevent conception, either with
the use of contraceptives or through sterilization. As far as Fletcher is concerned, to be artificial or
against nature is often the highest good, in terms of moral values. All medicine and art and science, he
argues, is an “interference” with brute nature, using it or outwitting it, for the sake of humanly
chosen ends.