BIRTH CONTROL

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22370, 6 April 1938, Page 6

BIRTH CONTROL

TO TBS CDITOB Of C<iß PRESS. Sir—Letters appear almost daily in the pubfic press upon the above sub* Ject, with various penal suggestions relative to same. May I offer yet another? Why not give a bonus to parents for their first child, and increase the sum for each succeeding child, and impose a tax upon those childless couples who are physically and otherwise competent to have children!— Yours, etc., E. W. RELPH. Hangiora, April 5, 1938. TO TBX IDITOB OF TEX PBCIS. Sir,—l think that those who oppose birth control are apt to get a little hysterical, especially the Church representatives, and class every form of this control as murder. Tfo one has been able to say just what life is, though each one is aware that he has it, and is conscious of it in others and in its many forms in animals, plants, and cells, etc. The human body, we are told, is a mass of cells, each having its own individual cellular existence, the whole forming a single unit, and providing in its entirety a vehicle for the life of a human being. Destruction by accident and design of these cells is of daily occurrence, yet this is no crime. Biology teaches that a new body begins with the union of two incomplete cells, these forming a completeness that permits or promotes growth. Even at this union, where some people hold that life begins, hundreds of living freeswimming male cells are condemned to death. Where then lies the crime in annihilating one or two more such cells, the only right of which to live is that of being a little more favourably placed in a chancy event. The prevention of the union of two cells can only mean a complete destruction of what is already naturally foreordained for more than 90 per cent. A natural loss of ununited cells in one sex is a continuing event, at all times, and goes to show that these forms of life have not, according to nature, been deemed worthy of the same consideration as are the developed forms. Human life actually must, therefore, in its inception, be a gradual incarnation, and contraconception the closing of a gateway to this life, not murder, as would some people assert. If parents are not only the providers of the gateway, but also the providers ot •the nourishment and environment for this new life, surely where these parents decide unselfishly that the time is not opportune there can be no crime in deferring the event and destroying cell life of the low order that has been shown here before these cells have been able to unite. The heads of each home should be entitled to decide the merits of the case, in view of the needs and rights of existent life already in the home, the mother’s health and physical strength to bear and work after yet another little one, and the father’s ability to earn a living for all concerned. I hold no brief for abortion. The whole question is largely a national one, to be met in most cases by providing a readier access to this world’s goods. Parasitic religious views should not be considered.—Yours,, etc., J.S.M. April 5. 1938. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PEBBB. Sir, —P. B. Seward’s reply to “A Tired Mother” is far from helpful, but is enlightening as to the Church’s attitude. I have in mind a young couple I know with six young children. The husband earns £4 6s net a week, with no prospect of any higher wages. The wife is in indifferent health and the husband is strong and vigorous. Any further children would be an unwanted burden on the household. Should the couple Ca) refrain from intercourse for the remainder of their lives, (b) limit the family to the present number by scientific precautions, (c) continue to supply the children “as requested”? I presume the remedy in Mr Seward’s words is “not what she supposes” but a fairer distribution of wealth. It would be pertinent to ask what has the Church—the Roman Catholic Church—done to bring about this desired state of affairs. Take for instance two such countries as Spain and Mexico, which have been essentially Roman Catholic strongholds for' centuries, during which time it may fairly be assumed that the Church has had reasonable time to impress its policy upon its adherents. Do we find that during these long years the policy of the Church has resulted in the social improvement df its people? Nay, jM£xico_an4

est and most landless peasantry in the civilised world. Reliable statistics show that in 1937 over 45 per cent, of the population of Spain was illiterate. The position in Mexico was no better, and the less said about the conditions under which a great number of the people were forced to live in both Mexico and Spain the better.— Yours, etc. NEMO. April 5, 1936. [Subject to the right of reply of Mrs E. Goulding this correspondence is now closed. —Ed. “The Press.”]