 Her claim is that the further intentions that accompany these actions may be the same, but there is a significant difference between the acts themselves. Her claim is that contraceptive intercourse, unlike timing intercourse to coincide with infertile periods, is a bad sort of action because in the case of contraceptive intercourse “…to intend such an act is not to intend a marriage act at all, whether or not we’re married” (CAC, 183). Having intercourse that has purposely been rendered infertile is itself a different act from having intercourse at an infertile time. Even though both types of action may have the further aim of, for example, limiting family size, the acts themselves differ. The “perversion of the sex act in marriage is, in this one way, like writing a forged check for a good cause”, she claims. The further intention of, let’s say, helping the needy is a worthy one but does not vindicate the action of forging the check.