The objection is frequently heard that the general knowledge of scientific methods of contraception would lead to increased illicit relations among unmarried persons, particularly among the young people.
This argument is apparently based upon the belief, or fear, that the fear of conception is the only thing which prevents many persons from indulging in illicit relations. It a.s.sumes that a large portion of our womankind are chaste simply because of fear of pregnancy; and that this fear once removed these women would at once plunge into such relations.
In other words, it a.s.sumes that mentally and in spirit these women are already unchaste, but are restrained from physical unchast.i.ty by reason of the fear of conception.
The answer of the advocates of Birth Control takes direct issue with the above contention. On the contrary, it a.s.serts that the chast.i.ty of our women is the result of their general training, education, heredity, observance of the accepted customs and standards of their community, religious and moral training, etc. The woman who is chaste simply through fear, usually manages to allay that fear in one way or another, often by mistaken methods which work great harm to the woman and the community in general. The general knowledge of scientific contraceptive methods might result in such women manifesting their inclinations and desires in a "safer" manner, but this "safety" would not consist of protection against conception (for that they already think they have) but rather of a protection against the dangers of abortion and similar evil practices.
Some of the writers go further in this matter, as for instance Dr.
Robinson, who says: "If some women are bound to have illicit relations, is it not better that they should know the use of scientific preventives than that they should become pregnant, disgracing and ostracising themselves, and their families; or that they should subject themselves to the degradation and risks of an abortion; or failing this, take carbolic acid or bichloride, jump into the river, or throw themselves under the wheels of a running train?"
The objection to Birth Control on the ground that it would increase illicit relations among men and women by means of removing the fear of physical consequences, seems to many careful thinkers to be akin to the old objection (now happily pa.s.sing away) to the dissemination of the knowledge of the treatment of venereal diseases, and to the public cure of such diseases, on the ground that by so doing a part of the fear concerning illicit relations was removed, and thereby illicit relations actually encouraged. The result of this fallacious argument was the enormous spread of venereal diseases, to the great hurt of the race; and the encouragement of quacks and charlatans who fattened on the gains received from the sufferers from this cla.s.s of complaints. The argument against Birth Control on similar grounds will be seen to be equally fallacious, and capable of equally evil consequences, if the matter be fairly and carefully considered.
Illicit relations, if prevented or regulated at all by society, must be so regulated or prevented by other means than fear of conception. Such fear, though it may deter for a short time, will usually be overcome in time if the desire and temptation remain sufficiently strong. It is doubtful whether any considerable number of women remain chaste for any length of time simply by reason of fear of conception. If such fear be the only remaining deterring factor, it will usually be swept away in time under continued temptation, opportunity, and desire. Chast.i.ty and virtue must have a far more solid foundation than such fear; and experience repeatedly shows that such fear is but as shifting sand sought to be employed as a foundation for the structure of chast.i.ty.
There is no reason whatsoever for believing that the scientific knowledge of contraceptive methods, if generally possessed by married people under the sanction of the law and society, would result in any more cases of illicit relations than exist at the present time. It might, it is true, result in less evil consequences of such relations in some cases, as Dr. Robinson has so clearly pointed out in the above quotation; but the relations in such cases would exist in either event.
Fear of conception, like fear of infection, has never, and will never entirely prevent illicit relations between men and women; and to oppose scientific information in the one case on these grounds, is as futile as to oppose scientific treatment in the other case on the same grounds.
And when it is considered how society in general is injured by the withholding of such information or treatment, respectively, the argument in favor of such suppression of scientific truth and method is seen to be actually dangerous to society and sub-service of the public good.
I would like to add a few words concerning the question of morality in the matter of practicing scientific Birth Control. To me what I shall say in the succeeding paragraphs of this chapter have a vital bearing on the whole subject, and should be taken into serious consideration by the fair-minded and conscientious student of the subject. Here follows my thought in the matter:
In my consideration of the arguments against scientific Birth Control I am impressed with one particular thought which refuses to be silenced, but which insists upon persistently presenting itself to my consciousness. This particular thought may be expressed as follows: It is admitted by unprejudiced students of the subject that the educated and cultured portions of the civilized countries of modern times do actually practice, to some extent, in some form, manner, or degree, the limitation of offspring--no honest observer will dispute this statement.
This being so, does it not seem that the race should fairly and squarely, honestly and frankly, face this question and decide whether or not such rules of conduct are "right" or "wrong"--"moral" or "immoral"--and to what extent, if any, they should be permitted or encouraged to be practiced toward the ends of individual and race happiness and betterment.
If the decision is totally against this rule of conduct, then it should be vigorously denounced, and all honest people should refrain from it.
If, on the contrary, the decision should be that this mode of conduct, or some phases of it, are justified, then, in the name of Honesty and Truth, let us turn on the full light of general information, knowledge, and instruction on the subject, under the full protection of the laws and public opinion. Why should we not throw aside the mask of cowardly hypocrisy, and stand before the world showing ourselves as just what we really are?
My thought, in essence, is that the chief "wrong," and "immorality"
about the whole matter consists in our present practice of doing one thing in private, and condemning the same thing in public. There can be no excuse, to the intellectually honest person at least, for the course of tacitly holding that a certain thing is "all right for us," while "all wrong for the other folks."
IS IT INJURIOUS TO HEALTH? It is sometimes urged against Birth Control that the use of contraceptive methods is injurious to the health of women, in some cases a long list of physical and mental ills being given as possible of being caused by such methods. Opposed to this is the contention of the members of the medical profession who have arrayed themselves on the side of scientific Birth Control. The latter authorities positively contradict the a.s.sertion that women"s health is injured by the practice of rational and scientific methods of Birth Control; although these authorities freely admit, in fact they CLAIM, that certain unscientific methods and practices popular among certain persons--such as the use of certain chemicals and mechanical appliances--undoubtedly have resulted in physical harm, and they strongly advise against the use of such bunglesome methods.
One of the leading medical advocates of scientific Birth Control in the United States throws down the gauntlet squarely before those of his profession, and others, who urge this objection to scientific Birth Control, in the following challenging words: "I challenge any physician, any gynecologist, to bring forth A SINGLE AUTHENTICATED CASE in which disease or injury resulted from the use of modern methods of prevention.
I know they cannot do it." And others in the ranks of the medical profession have made similar a.s.sertions and claims. The unprejudiced person who will consult the best medical authorities on the subject will unquestionably agree that the best medical opinion of the day holds that scientific Birth Control is not in fairness to be open to this objection.
IS BIRTH CONTROL UNNATURAL? Another favorite argument of the opponents of scientific Birth Control is the broad statement and claim that "all voluntary attempts to limit procreation are unnatural," and therefore wrong. This objection, while usually offered without any particular argument, explanation, or proof, must be carefully and honestly met and answered by the fair-minded advocate of Birth Control.
In the first place, it may as well be admitted that regulation, restriction, or control of the procreative functions by application of the intellect or reasoning processes IS unnatural, in the sense of not being indicated by Nature and enforced through the instinctive actions of the race. The only instinct which primitive man seems to have had in this case (and these he held in common with the lower animals) was that of free and unlimited s.e.xual intercourse, in response to his instinctive desires, with this exception (and this exception should be carefully noted), i. e.: that the male respected the instinctive disinclination to cohabit during the period in which the woman was pregnant, and often also during the period in which she nursed her infant. This instinct, unhappily for the race, the "civilized" man has overridden until it has practically ceased to manifest its voice.
The lower animals, obeying this primitive instinct, do not manifest violation of this law of Nature. On the contrary, the female will not allow the male to approach her at such times, and will fight savagely at any attempt to violate this instinctive law of her nature. The male usually recognizes the existence of this law, and makes no attempt to violate it, but should he attempt the same he is defeated by the female as above stated. It has remained for Man alone to override and violate, and to eventually render nul and void this wise instinctive provision of Nature.
But beyond this there is no "natural," instinctive regulation of the s.e.xual activities of animal or man, other than the desires of the male and female. If civilized man adhered wholly to the "natural" in this respect, he would obey the voice of instinct alone, and would show reason and intellect the door in such matters, and would also bid defiance to all legal or ecclesiastical authority when it sought to "control" his activities along these lines. But, it is needless to say, such is not the case. Not only has the Law of the Church insisted upon certain "control" of these matters--as witness the laws against adultery, illicit relations, incest, b.a.s.t.a.r.dy, etc.--but man, himself, has a.s.serted a greater and still greater voluntary control over the reproductive functions as he has risen in the scale of civilization and culture.
Today it is only the lowest and least cultured cla.s.ses of society who (to use the expressive but somewhat inelegant term) persist in "breeding like pigs." All other cla.s.ses exercise a greater or less degree of "control" of some kind in the matter of limitation of offspring. In making this broad a.s.sertion I, of course, have in mind not only the modern methods urged by the advocates of scientific contraception, but also the "control" and regulation observed by married persons in either total abstinence from the marital relations for a stated time, or else the abstinence from such relations during certain portions of the lunar month, the latter method (somewhat uncertain, however, in its efficacy in some cases) being apparently favored by certain ecclesiastical authorities as the "only moral" method.
In view of the above facts, which might be enlarged and extended if necessary, it is seen that as soon as man rises above the level of the beast or savage--as soon as he begins to manifest culture and civilization--he begins to exercise a certain "control" over the procreative FUNCTION, and in the direction of the limitation of the size of his family of offspring. The contention of the modern advocates of scientific Birth Control is that the "new ideas" on the subject are simply a natural and inevitable evolution from the degrees of "control"
which man has exercised since the time he emerged from savagery. The later developments are no more "unnatural" than the earlier--nor the accepted methods and forms any more "natural" than those which are now opposed by the more conservative elements of society.
When anyone begins to talk about things being "natural" or "unnatural,"
respectively, he should tread softly and watch his steps carefully. For at every step he treads upon instances of "unnatural" modes and methods of living. Strictly speaking, it is "unnatural" to wear clothes, or to cook food, or to live in houses, or to ride in conveyances or on horseback. All of these things have been evolved by the use of intellect and reason, and are not instinctive or "natural" to man. Birds build nests, wasps build shelter, hornets build homes, bees build honey-combs, worms build coc.o.o.ns, snails build sh.e.l.ls--all by instinct and "naturally"--and the young of such species do not have to be TAUGHT how to do these things. But the young of the human race requires to be taught such things as above mentioned as having been evolved by man in the course of his rise from savagery--instinct will not do it for them.
And all of these things outside the plane of instinct, and within the plane of intellect, cannot be called "natural" in the strict sense of the term.
You think that I am exaggerating the matter, perhaps. Well, then, I ask you to consider the meaning of the two terms which I have employed so freely in the foregoing paragraphs: First, let us consider the term, "NATURAL"; we find it defined as "FIXED OR DETERMINED BY NATURE, AND, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO NATURE, AND NOT ARTIFICIAL, a.s.sUMED, OR ACQUIRED." Next, let us consider the term, "INSTINCT"; we find it defined as "NATURAL IMPULSE, OR UNCONSCIOUS, INVOLUNTARY, OR UNREASONING PROMPTING TO ANY ACTION." It will be seen, accordingly, that merely the most elemental and primitive activities of man are "natural" in this sense; and that all his acquired activities and methods are "not natural."
The activities of man which are in the "not natural" cla.s.s may be either desirable for the individual and the race, or else undesirable for both.
Therefore, it will be seen, all such activities must be subjected to the test of reason and experience in order to determine whether they are in the best interests of the individual and the race, or else opposed to these. This is the only sane method of testing the validity and desirability of such things--Birth Control among the others. The claim of "not natural," if applied at all, must be extended to ALL things which are not strictly "natural" or instinctive--it is casuistical to apply the term in reproach to certain things and to withhold it from others in the same general cla.s.s.
LESSON XIV
RACE SUICIDE
A favorite argument of certain opponents of scientific Birth Control is that such teachings and modes of conduct tend toward Race Suicide, and the consequent weakening and final destruction of the human race by means of "bleeding it white" by draining from it its normal supply of children. Those who hold this view argue that if Birth Control methods become popular, and sanctioned by the law and public opinion, then the race will eventually die out and disappear from the face of the earth.
Some vary the argument by insisting that those nations favoring Birth Control would suffer decline and gradual extinction at the hands of other nations opposed to scientific methods of regulating the number and frequency of offspring. This is a serious charge against Birth Control, which if proved would probably serve to array all right-thinking persons against it.
But the advocates of Birth Control seriously and positively controvert and deny the validity and truth of this argument. On the contrary they claim that scientific Birth Control would not only keep up the population of all countries, or any country, to a normal standard proportionate to its ability to sustain properly such population, but will also act to render that population stronger and better, physically, mentally and morally, and far more efficient in every way owing to improved quality of the stock. The first requisite is met by THE REDUCTION OF THE DEATH RATE to meet the decreasing birth-rate; and the second requisite is met by the improvement of the stock by proper rearing and training made possible by the decreased size of the average family. BIRTH CONTROL SERVES TO ELIMINATE THE WASTE CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE INFANT MORTALITY, and to thus fully counterbalance the decreased birth rate.
The advocates of Birth Control a.s.sert that the natural instinct of parenthood, the love of children, and the desire for offspring and the perpetuation of the family name and stock, are too firmly rooted and grounded in human nature to be seriously affected by such knowledge and practice on the part of the race. They point to the fact that in many families in which intelligent modes of Birth Control are favored, and in which the size of the family has been limited to a few children, the children are, as a rule, better cared for and provided for, better reared and better educated, than in the case of families in which children are brought into the world without thought or reason, and without the possibility of proper care and rearing. Birth Control, say its advocates, will not do away with children, but will merely regulate their number to rational limits, and at appropriate intervals between births. Moreover, it is claimed, that while the birth-rate in such families may be smaller, THE DEATH-RATE IS ALSO SMALLER. And, at the last, it is the number of children that SURVIVE that counts with the race, not those who merely are BORN.
The fact that many persons consult physicians for a cure for sterility, and go to great trouble and expense to further the bearing of children, and the fact many childless couples adopt children rather than to have a childless home, are evidence of the fact that there is no danger of the parental instinct dying out. It is the experience of physicians generally that the patients who desire information regarding scientific contraceptive methods are usually those who already have as many children as they can well take care of, and not those who wish to escape parenthood in toto.
We are constantly reminded that the size of the average family is much smaller than it was a hundred years ago--but still the race is rapidly increasing, owing to the decreased death-rate resulting from a better knowledge of hygiene and medicine. Moreover, it is positively a.s.serted that the "old time large family" frequently had one father but several mothers--the husband marrying several times in order to replace with a new life the old wife who had broken down and died from overwork and excessive childbearing.
It is claimed that in Holland, in which Birth Control is recognized by law, and where it is legally sanctioned and even encouraged among those who are not able to support large families, statistics show that the population is increasing more rapidly than before, owing to the decreased mortality of infants and young children arising from the better care of those who are born.
Dr. Robinson says on this point: "Here we have a whole country, Holland, in which the prevention of conception is legally sanctioned, in which the use of preventives is practically universal--and is this country dying out? On the contrary, it is increasing more rapidly than before, because we have this remarkable and gratifying phenomenon to bear in mind, that WHEREVER THE BIRTH-RATE GOES DOWN, THE DEATH RATE GOES DOWN PARI Pa.s.sU, OR EVEN TO A STILL GREATER DEGREE. This can be proven by statistics from almost every country in the world. For instance, in 1910 the birth-rate in Holland was 32, and the mortality 18; in 1912 the birth-rate fell to 28, but then the mortality rate fell still lower, namely to 12, so we see an actual gain in population, instead of a loss.
And the physical const.i.tution of the people has been improving * * *.
And in New Zealand, where the sale of contraceptives is practically free, the birth rate is now 20, and the mortality rate is 10. Does that look like race suicide? On the contrary, there is a steady increase at the rate of ten per cent, while sickness and death of children, with their attendant economic and emotional waste, are reduced to a minimum."
Not only are the children of small families as a rule better cared for, from economic reasons easy to discern, but it is also a fact that the health of the mothers is far better, and consequently the health of the children when born is better than the average. One has but to look around him upon the families who boast of having had eight, ten, and twelve children born to them, to see what a frightful average percentage of deaths of infants and young children is present, and which brings down the number of the survivors.
Dr. Alice Hamilton, in "The Bulletin of the American Academy of Medicine," for May, 1910, reports that she has investigated the families of 1,600 wage workers, and found the following death rate per 1,000 birth among them, viz.:
Families of 4 children and less 118 deaths per 1,000 births Families of 6 children 267 deaths per 1,000 births Families of 7 children 280 deaths per 1,000 births Families of 8 children 291 deaths per 1,000 births Families of 9 children or more 303 deaths per 1,000 births
Dr. Hamilton sums up her investigation as follows:
"OUR STUDY OF THE POORER WORKING CLa.s.s SHOWS THAT CHILD MORTALITY INCREASES PROPORTIONATELY AS THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN INCREASE, UNTIL WE HAVE A DEATH RATE IN FAMILIES OF 8 CHILDREN AND OVER WHICH IS TWO AND A HALF TIMES AS GREAT AS THAT IN FAMILIES OF 4 CHILDREN AND OVER."
The facts above mentioned, and other facts of the same nature which will be disclosed in the progress of our consideration of the matter in the present book, have evidently been overlooked, deliberately or otherwise, by the fanatics in this country and in Europe who have been preaching to the people that a falling birth-rate means a decaying nation. Careful students of sociology now dismiss altogether the statement so often made that a falling birth-rate means "an old and decaying community."
The Germans for years have contemptuously been making this remark about France, but today they have been forced to recognize an unexpected vitality in the French, while, in fact, their own birth-rate has been falling more rapidly than that of France.
Nor is it true that a falling birth-rate means a falling population. The French birth-rate has been steadily falling for a number of years, yet the French population has been steadily increasing all the time, though less rapidly than it would had not the death-rate been abnormally high.
It is not the number of babies born that counts, but the net result in surviving children. An enormous number of babies are born in China; but an enormous number die while still babies. So that it is better to have a few babies of good quality than a large number of indifferent quality, for the falling birth-rate is more than compensated by the falling death-rate. In England, as the statistics show, while the birth-rate is steadily falling, the population has been steadily growing.
Small families and a falling death-rate are not merely no evil--they are a positive good. They are a gain for humanity. They represent an evolutionary rise in Nature and a higher stage in civilization. We are here in the presence of a great fundamental principle of progress which has been working through life from the beginning.
At the beginning of life on the earth, reproduction ran riot. Of one minute organism it is estimated that, if its reproduction were not checked by death or destruction, in thirty days it would form a ma.s.s a million times larger than the sun. The conger-eel lays fifteen million eggs, and if they all grew up, and reproduced themselves on the same scale, in two years the whole sea would become a wriggling ma.s.s of eels.