FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105  
106   107   108   109   110   >>  
rate income can allow himself. Four is an outside number, but it is worth making some sacrifices to attain it. Professor E. A. Ross has recently stated in _The American Journal of Sociology_ that although restriction 'results in diffusion of economic well-being; lessens infant mortality; ceases population pressure, which is the principal cause of war, mass poverty, wolfish competition and class conflict,' yet there are 'disquieting effects, and in one-child or two-child families both parents and children miss many of the best lessons of life; the type to be standardised is not the family of one to three but the family of four to six.' The German scientist, Moebius, has also stated his opinion that the general adoption of the two-children system would lead to deterioration of the race. But whether the family numbers one or six, it is all one to Father Bernard Vaughan, who in his violent attack on modern parents draws no distinction between the rich man who has but one child and the hard-working professional man who has several. To limit one's family at all is in his eyes a heinous and revolting sin, 'a vile practice,' and people who do it are 'traitors to an all-important clause in the sacred contract which they called upon God to witness they meant to keep.' This last is hardly logical--none of us are responsible for the wording of the marriage service, and we cannot very well interrupt the recital of its barbaric formulae to explain that there are limitations to our desire for multiplication. Father Vaughan also says that this disinclination to multiply means 'the extinction of Christian morality,' and constitutes 'defiance of God.' It is not clear to me why a respectable middle-class couple who decide that three children is a more suitable number than twelve or fourteen for an income of, say, L300 a year, should be accused of defying God by this exercise of common-sense and self-control. Is the idea that the children will only be sent if the Almighty wishes us to have them, and it is therefore impious to regulate the number? It would be just as fair to accuse a young woman who refuses several offers of marriage of defying God, since He clearly wishes her to marry. Bodily ills and accidents presumably come from the same divine agency, yet no one thinks it sinful to seek to remedy these with the means science has provided for the purpose. Why are the means of regulating families made known to us if we are not to use
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105  
106   107   108   109   110   >>  



Top keywords:
family
 

children

 

number

 
defying
 

Father

 

parents

 

wishes

 

Vaughan

 

families

 

income


marriage

 
stated
 

interrupt

 
recital
 
barbaric
 

constitutes

 

service

 

defiance

 

responsible

 

fourteen


twelve

 

wording

 

suitable

 

middle

 

couple

 
disinclination
 

multiply

 

Christian

 

extinction

 

respectable


multiplication

 

decide

 
explain
 

formulae

 

desire

 

limitations

 

morality

 

divine

 

agency

 

accidents


Bodily
 
thinks
 

sinful

 

regulating

 

purpose

 
provided
 

remedy

 
science
 
Almighty
 

control