Abstract
<p>The contra-life argument against contraception by Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William May maintains that contraception is always and everywhere morally wrong because it involves a contra-life choice to impede new human life. This article develops four problems that people might have with the contra-life argument and then shows that none of those problems undercut the argument. The most serious problem is that the contra-life argument seems to fail to show adequately what is wrong with impeding new human life, and this article neutralizes that problem by showing that choices to impede new human life are wrong because they involve unreasonable self-preference. Finally, this article shows that the moral character of contraceptive use for non-contraceptive reasons is often difficult to determine.</p>