BIRTH CONTROL AND HYPOCRISY. [To the Editor of the SpEcrAzoa.]
Sia,--1 do not know whether Mr. Julian Huxley himself is responsible for the heading " Birth Control and Hypocrisy " to his article in the Spectator of April 19th, but as you give special prominenee to the article, one seems justified in supposing that he, or you, or both regard all those who do not share the views therein expressed about birth control as hypocrites. Be it so. I am one of those hypocrites. But as you like, I believe, to hear the other side perhaps you will be willing to do so in this instance.
I have no authority or competence whatever to speak either- for the Church or for the Ministry of Health. I am just an isolated hypocrite wha can speak only for himself
and who, after having studied life objectively and subjectively for an ordinary life time, has, in all sincerity, reached conclusions differing from those of Mr. Huxley.
All human problems must be settled, if settled at all, on the basis of some general principle, the " outcome of the distilled wisdom of the ages," which shall be the solid bedrock on which alone human progress can be built up. In this particular case, I hold and I believe that in varying degrees humanity in the mass has always held, ever since the human race emerged from animalism, that the sexual act is essentially unlike any other act of physical life. It cannot be compared with eating, or drinking, or walking, or running, or sleeping. It is not an individual act in respect of which an individual concerned can take full and complete responsibility. It is not something which is naturally complete in itself. It is simply one phase of the whole process of procreation. When the normal course of nature is not interfered with by some accidental circumstance, it is followed inevitably by the creation of a new being. This gives it a significance which no other act of physical life possesses. Now, the whole difference, or shall we say the primary difference, between the animal and homo sapiens is this fact that the latter has become conscious of the significance of the sexual act while the former has not. When some being, or race of beings, became actually conscious that tk►e birth of a child was the consequence of the sexual act humanity emerged from animalism. The first pair to be conscious that their union would be productive of progeny were the veritable Adam and Eve, the father and mother of humanity.
It is, therefore, of the utmost importance to civilization that the special significance of this act be proclaimed and respected at whatever cost to individuals. If by the author- ized teachings of the land the act is officially, as it were, deprived of this special significance and reduced to the same status as other physical acts, to be permissibly regarded as a mere pleasure or as a convenient physical relief, which can be indulged in without any sense of responsibility, then must inevitably commence a retrograde movement back to animalism. No scientific opportunism, no consideration of momentary expediency should be allowed to prevent those in authority from continuing to maintaiu the bedrock principle on which human sexual relations have been, are, and must be based.
I think I am as capable as. Mr. Huxley of sympathizing with the hardships of the women mentioned in his article ; I also sympathize with all those helpless animals which col- leagues of Mr. Huxley (and possibly Mr. Huxley himself) have submitted to the tortures of vivisection on the grounds that such suffering is necessary for the welfare of the human race.
That humanity is confronted by a problem is evident. Was humanity ever not confronted by a. problem ? But I can feel no hope that Mr. Huxley's superficial and purely mater- ialistic suggestions can ever do anything towards solving it. If pursued to their logical conclusion they could only result in racial sterility. This is first and foremost a great spiritual question and until some bedrock principle, involving the triumph of mind over matter, has been established and proclaimed and taught, the salvation of the human race will not be effected by the free distribution of contraceptives with scientifically worded instructions as to their use.—I am, Mn. ARNOLD Lurropr writes :—In your issue of April 19th, Mr. Julian Huxley advocates the teaching of the use of contraceptives by Medical Officers of Health, who are practically Government Officials. If this is permitted or ordered, we are likely to have continual changes of policy. First, if we have a Maithusian Government, we shall have vigorous advocacy of contraceptives by these Medical Officers, and probably a law enabling them to enforce their teaching by severe penalties. This, of course, will lead to reaction ; then we shall have a Government imbued with the doctrines of Henry George, the law will be repealed and Government Officials forbidden to teach the use of contraceptives. Mr. Huxley asserts that the lowering birth-rate is due to contraceptives. Mr. Pell in an able book gives powerful arguments to show that the birth-rate falls naturally as comfort, ease of life, good feeding increase. Surely we had better wait a little before asking the Government to interfere. Let us have some accurate statistics to prove that our breed
is deteriorating for want of contraceptives before we ask the Government to take the matter up. I hear and read lots of rhetoric on the subject that is easy to utter, but statistics carefully analyzed are more difficult to produce.
" H. G. A." writes :—Reading an interesting article re birth control in the Spectator of April 19th, and much correspondence both before and since, it has struck me that one most important aspect has been to a great extent ignored, namely, that the broadcast knowledge of the use of contra- ceptives would most assuredly lead to a greater looseness as regards pure living amongst our young people. It is over and over again the fear of the consequences of the sin that deters undisciplined youth from yielding to what is termed " natural impulses," for the girl the social slur and the awful- ness of " nine months' hard labour and tried for your life at the end," and for the youth the knowledge that a possible paternity would involve lasting obligations. Alas ! that this should be so, but our Christianity bids us safeguard our frail nature with every possible weapon, so let us hesitate before removing barriers to knowledge which, though doubtless benefiting many poor creatures, might bring terrible con- sequences generally for the young people of our Empire.
THE ETHICS OF MARRIAGE.—" H. W. H. H." writes :—If " Theologian " really understands the attitude of the Christian Church towards marriage and sex relations, as apparently he claims to do, will he explain why it is that the " remedy against sin " is provided for men only ? For it is evident that while practically every man can find a wife somewhere or other, many women, owing to the disparity of numbers be- tween the sexes, must go without husbands. Will " Theologian " explain whether there is any justification, either natural or theological, for this differentiation ? Those of us who hope that society is gradually growing out of the nasty sexual ethics taught till recently by the churches can only be grateful to " Theologian " for exposing them in all their repulsive nakedness.
Previous page
