Should I allow myself to use birth control?

Con: We must not interfere with the biological rhythms that make the procreation of life possible, since this would be interfering with the natural order.
The destination of semen is the womb. And the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction.

Pro: Morality need not be based on the 'purposes' of nature; biological functions are not to be seen as moral laws. Were nature to take its course, our hair would grow to the ground, our worsening vision would go uncorrected by lenses, the weeds in our garden would overrun it, and disease would be unchallenged by antibiotics. The possibility that sexual intercourse can result in the procreation of children does not require us to have sexual intercourse only when we want to reproduce. Humans, being a part of nature, often intervene in the workings of nature. The workings of nature are not always good for humanity.

The distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural' methods of birth control, or methods permitted by God and methods not, is spurious. The intent of the rhythm method, for example, is no less clear than the intent of the physical or chemical methods of contraception: the rhythm method aims to prevent procreation. And since it can in fact do so, it is in principle the same as a physical or chemical method of contraception: at least in some cases, it can frustrate 'the will of God' every bit as much. At the heart of religious objections to the use of 'unnatural' means of birth control is the notion that people ought not to get sexual pleasure for nothing: only those who are willing to accept the responsibilities of parenthood ought to get sexual satisfaction.

Con: Love is an essential component of the meaning of the sex act. To be complete, that is, to include love, sexual intercourse must allow for the possibility of conception. Procreation ought to be uppermost in our minds during intercourse; there must be a willingness and even a desire to procreate to make the sex act morally good. Contraception prevents love from playing a part in sexual intercourse.

Pro:

The mere possibility that the conjugal act involves procreation is not sufficient to give the act meaning. Consciousness of the 'procreative aspect of the conjugal act'—the awareness of the possibility of creating a new life—is not necessary to make the sex act physically and intellectually satisfying. Indeed, there may be a fearful awareness of the 'procreative aspect of the conjugal act' and a hope that a pregnancy does not occur. Contraception does not preclude a full expression of love.

Con: Some methods of contraception do more than prevent conception: they kill the embryo. These methods of 'contraception' are actually methods for abortion, and thus they are ways to murder potential persons.

Reply: Neither sperm and eggs nor embryos in the earliest stage of development are human beings. And neither interference in their development nor outright destruction of them constitutes murder.

Con: Contraception removes one of the restraints on sexual intercourse, namely, the fear of causing pregnancy. Therefore contraception encourages individuals to indulge in sexual activity to excess.

Pro: People should not procreate unless they have adequate resources to raise their offspring. Potential parents should use birth control when they do not have enough money to clothe, feed, and house their children.

Pro: Overpopulation exists in a region where the supply of food is inadequate for the number of people who live there. People who live in overpopulated countries should limit their reproduction to improve their situation.

Pro: The methods of birth control provide us opportunities to enjoy physical relationships without unwanted responsibilities for raising children. (This is the 'play without pay' argument.)

Con: Contraception allows a kind of theft to occur: pleasure should not be taken in sex unless the possibility exists for creating life and undertaking responsibilities for a family. (This is the 'no pay, no play' argument.)