Writers of Teutonic sympathies have asserted that the aggressive attitude of Germany at the beginning of the Great War was to be legitimately explained and apologized for on the ground that the War was the inevitable expansive outcome of the abnormally high birth-rate of Germany in recent times. Dr. Dernburg, the German statesman, said not very long ago: "The expansion of the German nation has been so extraordinary during the past twenty-five years that the conditions existing before the war had become insupportable." Another writer has said: "Of later years there has arisen a movement among German women for bringing abortion into honor and repute, so that it may be carried out openly and with the aid of the best physicians. This movement has been supported by lawyers and social reformers of high position."

Thus, it would seem that a birth-rate stimulated by unusual circumstances or by deliberate State encouragement, seemingly draws upon it the operation of natural laws which tend to increase its death-rate by War, as well as by an increased number of abortions, and an increased death-rate. It would seem as natural laws operate to bring down the population to normal by war if the other factors do not operate sufficiently rapidly and efficiently.

Havelock Ellis makes the following interesting statement: "If we survey the belligerent nations in the war we may say that those who took the initiative in drawing it on, or at all events were most prepared to welcome it, were Germany, Austria, Serbia, and Russia—all nations with a high birth-rate, and in which the fall of the birth-rate has not yet had time to permeate. On the other hand, of the belligerent peoples of today, all indications point to the French as the people most intolerant, silently but deeply, of the war they are so ably and heroically waging. Yet the France of the present, with the lowest birth-rate, was a century ago the France of a birth-rate higher than that of Germany today, and at that time the most militarist and aggressive of nations, a perpetual menace to Europe."

Finally, let us quote Havelock Ellis once more; he says: "When we realize these facts we are also enabled to realize how futile, how misplaced and how mischievous it is to raise the cry of 'Race Suicide.' It is futile because no outcry can affect a world-wide movement of civilization. It is misplaced because the rise and fall of the population is not a matter of birth-rate alone, but of the birth-rate combined with the death-rate, and while we cannot expect to touch the former we can influence the latter. It is mischievous because by fighting against a tendency which is not only inevitable but altogether beneficial, we blind ourselves to the advance of civilization and risk the misdirection of our energies. How far this blindness may be carried we see in the false patriotism of those who in the decline of the birth-rate, fancy they see the ruin of their own particular country, oblivious of the fact that we are concerned with a phenomenon of world-wide extension. The whole tendency of civilization is to reduce the birth-rate. We may go further, and assert with the distinguished German economist, Roscher, that the chief cause of the superiority of a highly civilized state over lower stages of civilization is precisely a greater degree of forethought and self-control in marriage and child-bearing. Instead of talking about Race Suicide, we should do well to observe at what an appalling rate, even yet, the population is increasing; and we should note that it is everywhere the poorest and most primitive countries, and in every country (as in Germany) the poorest regions, which show the highest birth-rate."

The same authority says: "One last resort the would-be patriotic alarmist seeks when all others fail. He is good enough to admit that a general decline in the birth-rate might be beneficial. But, he points out, it affects social classes unequally. It is initiated, not by the degenerate and unfit, with whom we could well dispense, but by the very best classes in the community, the well-to-do and the educated. One is inclined to remark, at once, that a social change initiated by its best social class is scarcely likely to be pernicious. Where, it may be asked, if not among the most educated classes, is any process of amelioration to be initiated? We cannot make the world topsy-turvy to suit the convenience of topsy-turvy minds. All social movements tend to begin at the top and to permeate downwards. This has been the case with the decline of the birth-rate, but it is already well marked among the working classes, and has only failed to touch the lowest stratum of all, too weak-minded and too reckless to be amenable to ordinary social motives. The rational method of meeting this situation is not a propaganda in favor of procreation—a truly imbecile propaganda, since it is only carried out and only likely to be carried out, by the very class which we wish to sterilize—but rather by a wise policy of regulative eugenics. We have to create the motives, and it is not an impossible task, which will act even upon the weak-minded and reckless lowest social stratum."

LESSON XII
THE ARGUMENT FOR BIRTH CONTROL

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.

LESSON XIII
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL

Nor do the majority of the various religious denominations seem to have in their statements of doctrine and living anything in the nature of prohibition along the lines indicated above. It is true, however, that the Roman Catholic Church does quite positively, and vigorously, condemn and prohibit the use of contraceptive methods among its members; and I have been informed that its priests place such methods in the category of methods producing abortion, both being regarded as practically identical with infanticide. I have been informed, however, that in this Church the restriction of marital relations to certain periods of the month in which conception is held to be not so likely to be effected, with abstinence at other periods, is a method of limiting offspring that does not come under the ban, particularly if there be a reasonable excuse offered for the desire to limit the size of the family; though, as a rule, even such method is frowned upon unless the reasonable excuse be forthcoming.

In the case of members of the Catholic Church—and these only—there may seem to be warrant for the objection to Birth Control as "contrary to religion," it being assumed that the teachings and rules of the Church constitute the true measure of "religion." To such there is, of course, only one answer, and that is that if the teaching or practice of Birth Control methods be held by them to be "contrary to religion" (according to their definition of "religion") then they have merely to adhere to the said religious teachings, and to refuse to learn anything about Birth Control. The matter undoubtedly is one entirely for the exercise of their own judgment and conscience. There is no desire on the part of the advocates of Birth Control to insist that such people must limit the size of their families—or for that matter that there is any "must" about it for anyone whatsoever.

But we must not lose sight of the fact that the laws and customs of society in general are not based upon, or bound up with, the teachings and rules of this particular Church. On the contrary, particularly in the instance of Marriage and Divorce, many of our customs sanctioned by our laws permit and sanction things which are not countenanced or approved of by the Church in question. But just as persons outside of that Church are in no way bound by the teachings or rules thereof in the matter of Marriage and Divorce, so are they in no way bound by the teachings and rules of the said Church concerning the limitation of the size of families. The Church in question does not regard "civil marriages" as true marriages at all—yet our laws, and general public opinion, countenance such marriages; and it is extremely probable that within a comparatively short time the status of Birth Control will likewise manifest the same conflict between State and Church. But just as no Catholic is compelled to accept or practice civil marriage, so no Catholic will be compelled to accept or practice Birth Control.

Religion is entirely a matter of individual belief and faith, and binds no one not agreeing with its precepts. There is no union of Church and State in this country, or in most other modern civilized countries; and we are not under the jurisdiction of the Church in matters of conscience or conduct, unless we voluntarily so place ourselves under such jurisdiction and control. The argument that Birth Control which is based upon the assertion that it is opposed to the edicts or dogmas of some particular Church organization, is found to be no true argument for the reasons given above; and such argument must be dismissed as fallacious by those who base their judgments and conduct upon the dictates of science, reason, and common-sense, rather than upon the dogmas or decrees of any Church organization. The answer to those who urge that "Birth Control is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church" is: "Well, what of it? if you are not a Catholic!"

The force of the above objection to Birth Control becomes important when we find that those who are opposed to Birth Control merely because their Church condemns it do not content themselves with letting alone the subject, but would also endeavor to fasten the rule of their Church upon the rest of society. While such persons are undoubtedly acting in good faith, and inspired by motives which seem good to them, they should stop to remember that general society refuses to accept the rules of their Church in the matter of Marriage and Divorce, and is likely to refuse a like attempt to fasten upon it the rules of the Church in the case of Birth Control. The general public, here and in the first mentioned cases, will insist upon entering a plea of "lack of jurisdiction."

In the cases of persons outside of the Church in question who may consider Birth Control to be contrary to their religious convictions and teachings, there is to be made the same answer given above, namely, that the advocates of Birth Control are not trying to force anything upon those who entertain such religious or conscientious scruples—they would leave such persons free to follow the dictates of their own conscience or the religious teachings favored by them. But at the same time they would demand the legal and moral right to follow the dictates of their own conscience and reason, and would insist upon their right to receive legal protection for the dissemination of their scientific teachings. All that the advocates of Birth Control are claiming is the right of free speech and free knowledge concerning this subject which they deem concerned with the future progress and well-being of the race.

The argument against Birth Control which is based upon the claim that it is "irreligious," arises from the general tradition based upon the Hebrew conception of a Deity who bade the legendary first families of the race to "increase and multiply." According to the scriptural narrative this authoritative command was addressed to a world inhabited by eight people. From such a point of view a world's population of a few thousand persons would have seemed inconceivably great. But the old legendary command has become a tradition which has survived amid conditions totally unlike those under which it arose.

Under this old traditionary conception reproduction was regarded as a process in which men's minds and wills had no part. To those holding it, knowledge of Nature was still too imperfect for the recognition of the fact that the whole course of the world's natural history has been an erection of barrier against wholesale and indiscriminate reproduction. Thus it came about that under the old dispensation, which is now forever passing away, to have as many children as possible and to have them as often as possible—providing that certain ritual prescriptions were fulfilled—seemed to be a religious duty.

Today the conditions have altogether altered, and even our own feelings have altered. We no longer feel with the ancient Hebrew who bequeathed his ideals, though not his practices, to Christendom, that to have as many wives and concubines and as large a family as possible is both natural and virtuous and in the best interests of religion. We realize, moreover, that such claimed Divine Commands were the expression of the prophets and rulers of the people to whom they were addressed, and in accordance with the ideals concerning race-betterment which were held by these self-constituted authorities.

To the educated men and women of today, it is seen that these ideals of human-betterment (no longer imposed upon the people under the guise of Divine Commands, but rather by an appeal to their reason and judgment) are no longer based upon the sanctification of the impulse of the moment, but rather involve restraint of the impulse of the moment as taught by the lessons of foresight and regard for the future which the race has received. We no longer believe that we are divinely ordered to be reckless, or that God commands us to have children who, as we ourselves know, are fatally condemned to disease or premature death. Matters which we formerly believed to be regulated only by Providence, are now seen to be properly regulated by the providence, prudence, foresight, and self-restraint of men themselves. These characteristics are those of moral men, and those persons who lack these characteristics are condemned by our social order to be reckoned among the dregs of mankind. Our social order is one in which the sphere of procreation could not be reached or maintained by the systematic control of offspring.

More and more is Religion perceived to be more than a mere matter of the observance of certain ritual and ceremonies, or the belief in certain dogmas. More and more is true religion seen to be vitally concerned and bound up with the relations of man to man, and the welfare of society in general. More and more is it being perceived that anything which is decidedly anti-social, or opposed to the best interests of human-betterment, is not truly "religious," no matter how sanctified by tradition, or bound up with ritual and ceremonies it may be.

The spirit of modern Christianity is seen to consist of two fundamental principles, viz.: (1) the love of God; and (2) the Golden Rule. The conscientious Christian who uses head and heart in harmony and unison, cannot avoid the conclusion that the avoidance of the bringing into the world of offspring destined by social and economic conditions to misery, poverty, and sin, is more in accordance with the true spirit of Christianity than opposed to it—the ancient dogmas and traditions of the Church to the contrary notwithstanding. Modern religion is based upon Reason as well as upon Faith, and it is safe to predict the time when Birth Control will not only be sanctioned by "religion," but also encouraged by it.

Is It Immoral? Akin to the objection urged against Birth Control on the score of conflict with religious teachings, we find the one which states that "it is immoral." Morality means "quality of an action which renders it right or good; right conduct." Right conduct or "good" action depends upon the effect of the conduct or action upon the individual, other individuals, or society in general. The standards of morality, right conduct, and good actions have changed from time to time in the history of the race, and are not fixed. Reason teaches that that which is for the benefit of the individual and the race is and must be "moral," and that which is harmful to the individual and the race is and must be "immoral."

As to whether Birth Control is helpful or harmful to the individual and the race—moral or immoral—the individual student of the question must decide for himself after having given the subject careful and unprejudiced consideration. The advocates of Birth Control hold that every fair argument and consideration of the question must bring the unprejudiced person to the conviction that the ideals advanced by them are in the direction of the betterment of the race, and the increased happiness of the individuals composing the race. If such be the case, then Birth Control must be regarded as positively "moral" in character and principles, and its teachings directly in the interests of "morality."

So true is the above statement that every argument of the advocates of Birth Control is based upon the assumption of its "morality," in the sense of making for human betterment. If it be shown that the teachings are in anywise "immoral," in the sense indicated, then no one would be quicker to condemn them than the intelligent and conscientious advocate of Birth Control, for the reason that his whole case is based upon the inherent "morality" of his ideals.

Any one who has made a careful and unprejudiced study of the subject of Birth Control will discard the idea that a tendency so deeply rooted in Nature as is Birth Control can ever be in opposition to morality. It can only be so held as contrary to morality when men confuse the eternal principles of morality, whatever they may be, with their temporary applications, which are always becoming modified in adaptation to changing circumstances.

The old ideals of morality placed the whole question of procreation under the authority (after God) of men. Women were in subjection to men, and had no right of freedom, no right to responsibility, no right to knowledge, for, it was believed, if they were entrusted with any of these they would abuse them at once. This view prevails even today in some civilized countries, and middle-aged Italian parents, for instance, will not allow their daughters to be conducted by a man even to Mass, for they believe that as soon as they are out of their sight they will be unchaste. That is their morality.

Our morality today is different. It is inspired by different ideas, and aims at a different practice. We are by no means disposed to rate highly the morality of a girl who is only chaste so long as she is under her parents' eyes; for us, indeed, that is much more like immorality than morality. We, today, wish women to be reasonably free; we wish them to be trained in a sense of responsibility for their own actions; we wish them to possess knowledge, more especially in the sphere of sex, once theoretically opposed to them, which we now recognize as peculiarly their own domain.

Our ideal woman today is not she who is deprived of freedom and knowledge in the cloister, even though only the cloister of her own home; but rather the woman who being instructed from early life in the facts of sexual physiology and sexual hygiene, is also trained to exercise judgment, will, self-restraint, and self-responsibility, and able and worthy to be trusted to follow the path which is right according to the highest ideals of the society of which she is a part. That is the only kind of morality which now seems to us to be worth while.

And, as any unprejudiced intelligent person is forced to admit, there is nothing in the policy of scientific Birth Control to run contrary to such an ideal of moral womanhood.

But the relation of Birth Control to morality is, however, by no means a question which concerns women alone. It equally concerns men. Here we have to recognize, not only that the exercise of control over procreation enables a man to form a marriage of faithful devotion with the woman of his choice at an earlier age than would otherwise be possible, but it further enables him, throughout the whole of his married life, to continue such relationship under circumstances which might otherwise render them injurious or else undesirable to his wife.

That the influence exerted by a general knowledge of scientific methods of Birth Control would suffice to entirely abolish prostitution it is foolish to maintain, although it would undoubtedly tend to decrease the social evil. And even the partial elimination of prostitution would be in the interests of general morality, not only in the direction of lessening the brutal demand of women to serve in the ranks of prostitution, but also in many other ways of importance to society as a whole. The decrease of venereal disease would follow a decrease in prostitution caused by a general knowledge and practice of scientific methods of Birth Control on the part of married people; and it must be remembered that venereal disease spreads far beyond the patrons of prostitution and is a perpetual menace to others who may become innocent victims. And any influence that serves to decrease prostitution and the spread of venereal disease, must be placed in the category of "moral," and certainly not in the opposite one.

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 assumes 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 assumes that mentally and in spirit these women are already unchaste, but are restrained from physical unchastity 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 asserts that the chastity 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 passing 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 class 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. Chastity 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 chastity.

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 assertion 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 assertions 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 sexual 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 sexual 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, bastardy, etc.—but man, himself, has asserted 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 classes of society who (to use the expressive but somewhat inelegant term) persist in "breeding like pigs." All other classes exercise a greater or less degree of "control" of some kind in the matter of limitation of offspring. In making this broad assertion 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 cocoons, snails build shells—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, assumed, 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" class 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 class.

LESSON XIV
RACE SUICIDE

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 assert 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 asserted 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 passu, 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 constitution 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.:

Dr. Hamilton sums up her investigation as follows:

"Our study of the poorer working class 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 mass 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 mass of eels. As we approach the higher forms of life, reproduction gradually dies down. The animals nearest to man produce few offspring, but they surround them with parental care, until they are able to lead independent lives with a fair chance of surviving. The whole process may be regarded as a mechanism for slowly subordinating quantity to quality, and to promoting the evolution of life to even higher stages.

This process, which is plain to see on the largest scale throughout living nature, may be more minutely studied, as it acts within a narrower range, in the human species. Here we statistically formulate it in the terms of birth-rate and death-rate; by the mutual relationship of the two courses of the birth-rate and death-rate we are able to estimate the evolutionary rank of a nation, and the degree in which it has succeeded in subordinating the primitive standard of quantity to the higher and later standard of quality.