[To the Editor of THE SrourKr0a.1 must protest against the
implications contained in paragraph four of Bishop Carey's letter under the above
heading in your issue of February 2nd. He here implies' • that the use of contraceptives is incompatible with delicacy and refinement of mind. In its individual application; I deny utterly the truth of this, and can only conclude that the Bishop's experience of human nature has been very limited, or his observation faulty if such is his conclusion. '
In its wider aspects, it would appear that the Bishop' prefers a delicacy of mind which is offended by' the use of contraceptives to one which is offended by the contemplation of slums, over-crowding and unemployment—conditions against which even he admits that contraceptives may be aptly directed. Our delicacy may be shocked at the idea of "mechanical prevision" hut not at the spectacle of human misery and degradation such prevision may alleviate.
Finally, when he says '' We are all sick of the subject," what does he mean ? Who, exactly, are " We ? " Let each one speak for himself. And why is the Bishop " sick " of the subject? Does lie think that the last word has been said upon it, in all its vital bearings on the Welfare of humanity?-
Or is it merely an expression of personal irritation am,
Sir, &c., E. HORSFALL ERTZ. Dalton House School, 23-25 Elmwood Avenue, Kenton, Middlesex.
Previous page
