The Fertility of the Unfit by W. A. (William Allan) Chapple
page 66 of 133 (49%)
page 66 of 133 (49%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
social law, that directs a man or woman to procreate their kind if they
cannot, or have reasonable grounds to think they cannot, support their offspring without aid from others. There can be, therefore, no just law that decrees that men or women shall marry under such circumstances. In fact most philanthropists think they violate a social and ethical law if they do marry. But, if with Paul, they resolve that it is better to marry than to burn, is there any law that can or should prevent them selecting the occasions of their union, with a view to limiting fertility. Abstention is the voluntary hindrance of a desire, when that desire is strongest in both sexes; and as such it limits happiness, and is in consequence an evil _per se_. A motive that will control this desire must be a strong one; such a motive is not necessarily bad. It may be good or evil. There can be no essential ethical difference between constant continence, prior to marriage, and intermittent continence subsequent to marriage, both practices having a similar motive. If post nuptial restraint with a view to limiting offspring is wrong, restraint from marriage with the same motive is wrong. If delayed marriage in the interest of the individual and the State is right, marriage with intermittent restraint is in the same interest, and can as easily be defended. The ethics of prevention by restraint must be judged by its |
|