who do not recognize moral control would be far
more significant than the fact that venereal prophylactics might
encourage immorality. Those who would use prophylactics would be no
worse morally than they were before, but society would gain
hygienically.

[Sidenote: Ethics of contraception.]

Regarding the morality of prevention of fertilization, the best of
people hold opposing views. A great specialist in tuberculosis who
entered the discussion of Dr. Cabot's paper convinced most of his
hearers that hygienic prevention of fertilization of tubercular women
is a very moral act for a physician to advise. The real question of
morality involved in the problem of contraconception is not whether it
is immoral that sperm-cells should be prevented from swimming on
towards an egg-cell, but whether there is morality in a sexual union
that has its meaning only in affection and is not definitely intended
for propagation. It is obviously a complicated problem of hygiene,
psychology, ethics, aesthetics, religious beliefs, social traditions,
and personal prejudice; and it is absurd to allow it to become
entangled in the general propositions of sex-education. As I have often
said in this series of lectures, the larger sex-education aims at
making the best possible adjustments of sex and life. If the aesthetic
demands of affection are in real conflict with the animal function of
propagation, then a pragmatically ethical solution is found in
intelligent control of the original function. Ideally, the animal
function of propagation should be associated with the possibilities of
affection that have developed in the highest human life; but there are
numerous cases in which there must be dissociation of the functions of
affection and propagation, or the alternative is sexual asceticism.
Which is moral? This is a question concerning which the individual must
weigh his personal views and decide. Only the bigoted victims of
arrogance will see immorality in the one who disagrees with him on this
question. I insist, then, that even if advanced sex-education for
adults should some day come to involve the problem of contraconception,
there will be no conflict between hygienic knowledge and ethics, if the
teaching leads to more perfect adjustment of sex and life.

[Sidenote: Dr. Neumann's view.]

Probably the great majority of workers in the sex-education movement do
not in the least agree with Dr. Cabot's attempts to dissociate hygienic
and mo