The argument against Birth Control, urged by those who are opposed to the dissemination of scientific information on the subject, may be reduced to a few general points. These points of objection I shall now state, together with the rejoinder to each as given by the advocates of the proposition. I think that these points cover the main argument advanced against Birth Control, and I shall endeavor to state them as fully and as fairly as possible.
Opposed to Religious Teachings. One of the most common arguments advanced against Birth Control is the one which holds that the idea is opposed to religious teachings. The statement, however, is usually made in a vague general way, the charge of “irreligious” being hurled without explanation, and usually without any attempt to show any proof of the accusation.
As a matter of fact, as the advocates of Birth Control have pointed out, there is nothing whatsoever in the New Testament which in fairness may be construed as indicating Birth Control as sinful; in fact, it has been frequently asserted by authorities on the subject that there is nothing to be found in either the Old Testament or the New Testament which directly or indirectly prohibits the limitation of offspring, or which encourages the production of an unlimited number of children regardless of all other conditions.
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 thedirection 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 isunnatural, 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.