Let us now consider the general and special arguments advanced in favor
of rational and scientific Birth Control, as stated by the advocates
thereof.
GENERAL ARGUMENT. The general argument in favor of Birth Control may
well be begun by the statement that rational and scientific Birth
Control is not the fixing upon the race of a new and unfamiliar practice
or policy, but is rather the scientific correction of a practice and
policy which is now followed by the majority of married persons in
civilized countries, though in a bungling, unscientific, and frequently
a harmful manner. The modern advocates of scientific methods of Birth
Control seek to replace these bungling, unscientific, and frequently
harmful methods by sane, scientific, harmless methods, approved of by
capable physicians and other experienced and capable authorities, and
under the sanction of the law rather than contrary to it.
The advocates of Birth Control seek to place upon a scientific basis,
under cover and protection of the law, a subject which heretofore has
been but imperfectly known, and more imperfectly practiced in some form
by the majority of married couples, and which has heretofore been under
condemnation of the law so far as concerned the actual dissemination of
information concerning methods of contraception. They hold that it is
the veriest hypocrisy to pretend ignorance of the fact that the great
majority of married couples in civilized communities know and practice
to some extent contraceptive methods--usually imperfectly and
bunglingly, it must be added.
One has but to consider the families of married couples, and to count
their children, to become aware that at least some form of contraception
has been known and practiced in many cases. This is particularly true of
the more intelligent and cultured members of civilized society, among
whom we find large families of children to be the exception, and small
families to be the general rule. Among the less intelligent and
uncultured classes the reverse of this condition is found.
It is hypocritical folly to assert that these small families to be found
among the more intelligent classes of society are due to the fact that
the husbands and wives are physically incapable of procreating
off-spring--the mere suggestion produces an incredulous smile from the
reader. No one who is acquainted with the habits and customs of married
people would in good faith offer such an explanation. Rather is it
tacitly acknowledged by all thinking persons that such married couples
practice some form of Birth Control, or else commit the crime of
abortion. All physicians, particularly those who practice in the large
cities, are fully informed as to the appalling facts concerning the
prevalence of abortion among the women of the "respectable" classes, and
are likewise fully informed as to the terrible consequences so
frequently arising from this criminal course.
The question, then, to many intelligent persons is not so much that of
"Should contraception be employed in order to avoid excessively large
families?" as that of "Should not contraception be employed to obviate
the crime of abortion with its terrible train of consequences?" And the
Birth Control propaganda which is so vigorously underway in all
civilized countries may be stated to be designed for the following
purposes: (1) to replace abortion, and other harmful methods of
restricting the size of families, with rational and scientific methods
of contraception; and (2) to supply to married persons the best
scientific knowledge concerning the regulation of the size of families,
and the methods of producing the best kind of children, under the best
conditions, and at the times best adapted for their proper care and
well-being. These advocates of the Betterment of the Race face the facts
of human nature and married life fearlessly, instead of trying to cover
them over with pretty words and sentimental generalities. They take
"things as they are," and not as certain persons insist that "they
should be"--they live in a world of facts and try to better things as
they find them, instead of trying to live in a fool's paradise and
contenting themselves with denying the existence of the facts which they
consider "ugly."
Dr. William J. Robinson, one of the leading American workers in the
field of Birth Control, ably presents the main contention of the Birth
Control advocates as follows:
"We believe that under any conditions, and particularly under our
present economic conditions, human beings should be able to control the
number of our offspring. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE HOW MANY CHILDREN
THEY WANT TO HAVE, AND WHEN THEY WANT TO HAVE THEM. And to accomplish
this result we demand that the knowledge of controlling the number of
offspring, in other and plainer words, the knowledge of preventing
undesirable conception, should not be considered criminal knowledge,
that its dissemination should not be considered a criminal offense
punishable by hard labor in Federal prisons, but that it should be
considered knowledge useful and necessary to the welfare of the race and
of the individual; and that its dissemination should be permissible and
as respectable as is the dissemination of any hygienic, sanitary or
eugenic knowledge.
"There is no element of force in our teachings; that is, we would not
force any family to limit the number of children against their will,
though we would endeavor to create a public opinion which would consider
it a disgrace for any family to have more children than they can bring
up and educate properly. We would consider it a disgrace, an anti-social
act, for any family to bring children into the world which they must
send out at an early age into the mills, shops, and streets to earn a
living, or must fall back upon public charity to save them from
starvation.
"Public opinion is stronger than any laws, and in time people would be
as much ashamed of having children whom they could not bring up properly
in every sense of the word, as they are now ashamed of having their
children turn out criminals. Now, no disgrace can attach to any poor
family, no matter how many children they have, because they have not got
the knowledge, because society prevents them from having the knowledge
of how to limit the number of children. But if that knowledge became
easily accessible, and people still refused to avail themselves of it,
then they would properly be considered as anti-social, as criminal
members of society. As far as couples are concerned who are well-to-do,
who love children, and who are well capable of taking care of a large
number, we, that is, we American limitationists, would put no limit. On
the contrary, we would say: 'God bless you, have as many children as you
want to; there is plenty of room yet for all of you.'"
Another writer, a celebrated English thinker along these lines, has said
of the general argument in favor of Birth Control:
"It used to be thought that small families were immoral. We now begin to
see that it was the large families of old which were immoral. The
excessive birth-rate of the early industrial period was directly
stimulated by selfishness. There were no laws against child-labor;
children were produced that they might be sent out, when little more
than babies, to the factories and the mines to increase their parents'
incomes. The diminished birth-rate has accomplished higher moral
transformation. It has introduced a finer economy into life, diminished
death, disease, and misery. It is indirectly, and even directly,
improving the quality of the race. The very fact that children are born
at longer intervals is not only beneficial to the mother's health, and
therefore to the children's general welfare, but it has been proved to
have a marked and prolonged influence on the physical development of
children.
"Social progress, and a higher civilization, we thus see, involve A
REDUCED BIRTH-RATE AND A REDUCED DEATH-RATE. The fewer the children
born, the fewer the risks of death, disease, and misery to the children
that are born. The fact that civilization involves small families is
clearly shown by the tendency of the educated and upper social classes
to have small families. As the proletariat class becomes educated and
elevated, disciplined to refinement and to foresight--as it were
aristocratised--it also has small families. Civilizational progress is
here on a line with biological progress. The lower organisms spawn their
progeny in thousands, the higher mammals produce but one or two at a
time. The higher the race, the fewer the offspring.
"Thus diminution in quantity is throughout associated with augmentation
in quality. Quality rather than quantity is the racial ideal now set
before us, and it is an ideal which, as we are beginning to learn, it is
possible to cultivate, both individually and socially. That is why the
new science of eugenics or racial hygiene is acquiring so immense an
importance. In the past, racial selection has been carried out crudely
by the destructive, wasteful, and expensive method of elimination,
through death. In the future, it will be carried out far more
effectively by conscious and deliberate selection, exercised not merely
before birth, but before conception and even before mating. Galton, who
recognized the futility of mere legislation to elevate the race,
believed that the hope of the future lay in eugenics becoming a part of
religion. The good of the race lies, not in the production of a
super-man, but of a super-humanity. This can only be attained through
personal individual development, the increase of knowledge, the sense of
responsibility toward the race, enabling men to act in accordance with
responsibility. THE LEADERSHIP IN CIVILIZATION BELONGS NOT TO THE NATION
WITH THE HIGHEST BIRTH-RATE, BUT TO THE NATION WHICH HAS THUS LEARNT TO
PRODUCE THE FINEST MEN AND WOMEN."
Let us now proceed to a consideration of the special arguments in favor
of rational and scientific Birth Control as advanced by its leading
advocates.
The advocates of rational and scientific Birth Control have presented
the strongest points of their case in their replies to those opposing
the general idea, and without positively taking the stand that the
burden of the proof in the argument concerning Birth Control rested upon
those opposing the idea, have practically assumed that position. They
claim that the right to Birth Control is so self-evident, and its
application so generally recognized (though usually sought to be
smothered with silence) that the case in favor of Birth Control is
really quite apparent to anyone seriously considering the same without
prejudice. The opposing side of the question is held by them to be
represented principally by statements based on prejudice and
disingenuous statements, which are capable of being turned against those
advancing them.
And, the present writer, likewise is of the opinion that the strongest
possible case for Birth Control is presented in the answer to the
arguments advanced by the opponents thereof. But, before proceeding to
the latter phase of the argument, it may be well to examine briefly the
several leading points of argument advanced by the advocates of rational
and scientific Birth Control, in order to clear the way for the answers
to the opposite side of the question. The reader is, therefore, invited
to consider the said points, briefly presented in the following
paragraphs:
BIRTH CONTROL ENCOURAGES MARRIAGE. The advocates of Birth Control hold
that a scientific knowledge of contraception would speedily result in a
large increase of marriages, particularly among persons of limited
incomes. Persons who have not been able to accumulate the "little nest
egg" which prudent persons consider a requisite on the part of those
contemplating marriage and the responsibilities of rearing a family of
children, are in many cases caused to hesitate about contracting
marriage, and often relinquish the idea altogether. Many of these
persons are well adapted for marriage, being of the domestic temperament
and having the home ideal prominent in their mental makeup.
The increasing number of bachelors and unmarried women past thirty years
of age, who are in evidence in all large centers of population at the
present time, is undoubtedly due to a great extent to the fear on the
part of these men and women regarding the proper support of a family of
children. Many men and women feel that the man is able to earn enough to
support himself and wife comfortably, by the exercise of economy, but
that the said earnings are not sufficient to provide properly for a
family of children. Some would be willing to have one or two children,
born after the couple have well established themselves, but are
appalled at the thought of bringing into the world a practically
unlimited number of little children for whom they would not be able to
provide properly.
These people shrink at the idea of abortion, and doubt the efficacy of
the popular so-called contraceptive methods of which their friends tell
them, and they either defer the marriage until later in life, or else
give up the idea altogether as being impossible for them under the
existing circumstances. A scientific knowledge of the subject would give
to such persons--and there are many thousands of such--an assurance of
their ability to safely and properly control and regulate the size of
their families, and would lead to many a marriage which would otherwise
be out of the question.
If it is agreed that the marriage state is the one normal to the average
man and woman, and that marriages are in the interests of society--and
few would seek to dispute this--then it would seem that anything that
would tend to encourage marriage among the right kind of persons should
receive the encouragement of society and be fully protected by the laws
of society; and that the old prejudice against the subject, and the laws
which discourage the same, and place a penalty upon the dissemination of
scientific methods leading to the said result, are unworthy of civilized
society and modern thought.
EARLIER MARRIAGES AND CURB ON PROSTITUTION. It is generally conceded by
students of sociology that earlier marriages tend to decrease the causes
of the evil of prostitution, illicit sexual relations, and general
sexual morality; and the consequent spread and existence of the venereal
diseases which have followed in the trail of such relations. And it is
likewise conceded that prostitution is an evil, and a cancer spot upon
modern social life, and that venereal diseases constitute a frightful
menace to the health and physical welfare of the race. Therefore, it
would seem that anything which would promote early marriages among
healthy, intelligent young men and women would be a blessing to the race
and to society. And as these earlier marriages are unquestionably
prevented in a great number of cases by reasons of the fear of
inadequate financial support for large families of children, it would
seem to follow that the best interests of society would be served by the
encouragement by public opinion, under the protection of the law, of the
teaching by competent authorities upon the subject of rational and
scientific methods of Birth Control.
HEALTH OF WIVES. The advocates of Birth Control lay considerable stress
upon the fact that a scientific knowledge of Birth Control would
practically obviate the state of broken-down health so common among
married women, particularly among those who have been compelled to bear
large numbers of children during the first few years of married life.
Many a young married woman is in bad health--often reaching the state of
chronic invalidism--as the result of having had to bear too many
children, and in too close succession.
Not only is the above the case, but there is to be found on all sides
many cases of invalidism and shattered health caused by the horrible
practice of criminal abortion. It is doubted whether anyone outside of
medical circles can even faintly begin to realize the frequency of this
practice of abortion among the well-to-do, and those in "comfortable
circumstances"--not to speak of the countless deaths which arise from
the prevalence of this curse. Were a physician to even faintly indicate
the number of cases coming under his personal professional attention, in
which the patient is suffering from the effects of one or more
abortions, he would be accused of gross exaggeration, and would be
condemned as a sensationalist.
Without going into detail concerning these things, the writer states
that it is a matter of common knowledge among physicians that in every
large city there are thousands of unscrupulous (including those who call
themselves physicians) who are kept busy every week in the year
performing criminal operations designed to produce abortions. Some of
these practitioners have many regular patients--women who visit them
regularly for the purpose of having abortions produced by criminal
operations. It seems almost incredible, but it is a veritable fact, that
there are to be found many women in the large cities who actually boast
to their friends of the number of operations of this kind they have had
performed on them.
Surely, any instruction which would prevent the physical breakdown of so
many women by reason of excessive child-bearing on the one hand, and
abortion on the other hand, would seem to be worthy of the hearty
support of society, and the encouragement of its laws, rather than the
reverse. So true does this seem, that it is difficult to realize that
there are any intelligent persons who would condemn such instruction as
evil and harmful to society. That such persons do exist is a striking
proof of the persistence of ancient superstitions and the survival and
tenacity of old prejudices.
MORALITY OF MARRIED MEN. It is a matter of common knowledge among
physicians, and students of sociology, that many married men,
particularly those living in the large cities, indulge in extra-marital
or illicit sexual relations, with prostitutes and other women of loose
morals, and this not because these men are naturally vicious, depraved
or licentious, but rather because they fear causing their wives to bear
them more children--the wives either being in delicate or broken-down
health, or else the family already too large to be reared properly in
justice to the children.
Many persons who would see only what "ought to be," and who refuse to
see "things as they are" in modern society, will be disposed to
pooh-pooh the above statement, and to accuse those making it to be
sensational or even morbid on the subject. But those who are brought in
close contact with men and women, as are family physicians and
specialists, as well as honest students of sociology, know only too well
that the above is not an over-statement, but is rather a very
conservative recital of certain unpleasant, but true, facts of human
society.
JUSTICE TO THE CHILDREN. The advocates of scientific Birth Control hold
that a scientific knowledge along the lines favored by them would
prevent the gross injustice to children which is now only too obvious to
anyone who candidly considers the matter without prejudice. The child
brought into the world, unwanted, undesired, unprepared for, and
unprovided for before and after birth, is handicapped from the very
start of its existence upon earth. The present state of affairs works a
terrible injustice upon countless children brought into the world in
such conditions. Nothing that the present writer could put into words
would state this fact more concisely and clearly than the following
statement made by Dr. Wm. J. Robinson, a leading authority along these
lines, who has said:
"The responsibility of bringing a child into the world under our present
social and economic conditions is a very great one. The primitive savage
or the coarse ignorant man does not care. It does not bother him what
becomes of his offspring; if they get an education, if they have enough
to eat, if they learn a trade or a profession, well--if they don't,
also well; if they achieve a competence or a decent social position, he
is satisfied--if not, he can't help it. God willed it so. But, on the
other hand, the cultured, refined man and woman look at the matter
differently. The thought of bringing into the world a human being which
may be physically handicapped, which may be mentally inferior, which may
have a hard struggle through life, which may have to go through endless
misery and suffering, fills them with anguish. * * * * *
"We see about us millions of working men and women who go through life,
from cradle to grave, without a ray of joy, without anything that makes
life worth living. In the higher classes we see a constant, hard,
infuriated struggle to make a living, to make a career, and the spectre
of poverty is almost as unremittingly before the eyes of the middle and
professional classes as it is before the eyes of the laborer. And all
over we see ignorance, superstition, beliefs bordering on insanity,
hardness, coarseness, rowdyism, brutality, crime and prostitution;
prostitution of the body, and what is worse, prostitution of the mind,
the hiding or selling of one's convictions for a mess of pottage. And
our prisons, asylums, and hospitals are not decreasing, but increasing
in number and inmates.
"It is my sincerest and deepest conviction that we could accomplish
incomparably more if only a small part of the energy and money now spent
on philanthropic efforts were expended in teaching the women, the
married women of the poor, how to limit the number of their children; in
other words, how to prevent conception. It would work a wonderful reform
in the lives of the poor, and our slums would be metamorphosed in ten
years. * * * It is we who are to blame now for the large families of
the poor, and for this reason we are morally obligated to give them the
financial and medical aid that they demand. But when effectual means
are put into their hands for limiting the number of their offspring,
then they, and not we, will be to blame if they do not make use of
them. * * * *
"The rich and the upper-middle classes, those to whom several children
would be the least burden, are quite familiar with the various means of
prevention. The poorer middle classes use preventives recommended by
their friends; these preventives sometimes succeed, sometimes fail, and
sometimes ruin the woman's health. While the very poor, the
wage-earners, those who can least afford to have unlimited progeny,
knowing no means of prevention, go on breeding to their own and to the
community's detriment. The result, as you can plainly see, is a general
lowering of the physical and mental stamina of the race. For if the
cultured and the well-to-do do not breed, or have only a few children,
while the poor and the ignorant go on having a numerous progeny for
which they cannot well provide, and which they cannot afford to educate
properly, it stands to reason that the percentage of the uneducated, the
unfit and the criminal, must go on constantly increasing. And this is
something that no lover of humanity can look upon with equanimity."
Surely the above recited special points of argument in favor of Birth
Control seem to be statements of self-evident facts to the unprejudiced
mind, do they not? And the person of this kind who considers them
carefully for the first time usually finds himself wondering what
rational argument can be fairly urged on the other side of this
important question. And, when he acquaints himself with the arguments of
"the other side" he usually finds himself even more established in the
belief that scientific Birth Control is advisable, sane, and along the
lines of the mental evolution of the race. At any rate, it is difficult
to escape the conviction that the burden of proof needed to controvert a
proposition so nearly self-evident as intelligent and scientific Birth
Control, must be placed squarely upon the shoulders of those opposing
the proposition.