Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
CONTENTS
LESSON-1-2
LESSON-3
LESSON-4.1
LESSON-4.2
LESSON-5.1
LESSON-5.2
LESSON-6.1
LESSON-6.2
LESSON-7.1
LESSON-7.2
LESSON-7.3
LESSON-8
LESSON-9
LESSON-10.1
LESSON-10.2
LESSON-11
LESSON-12
LESSON-13.1
LESSON-13.2
LESSON-14
LESSON-15.1
LESSON-15.2
Contraception
The Sex Life of the Gods. Michael Knerr. CHAPTER-1
CHAPTER-2-3
CHAPTER-4
CHAPTER-5-6
CHAPTER-7-8
CHAPTER-9-10
CHAPTER-11-12
CHAPTER-13-14
CHAPTER-15-16
CHAPTER-17-18-19

of the individual; and that its dissemination should be permissible and 

as respectable as is the dissemination of any hygienic, sanitary or 

eugenic knowledge. 

 

"There is no element of force in our teachings; that is, we would not 

force any family to limit the number of children against their will, 

though we would endeavor to create a public opinion which would consider 

it a disgrace for any family to have more children than they can bring 

up and educate properly. We would consider it a disgrace, an anti-social 

act, for any family to bring children into the world which they must 

send out at an early age into the mills, shops, and streets to earn a 

living, or must fall back upon public charity to save them from 

starvation. 

 

"Public opinion is stronger than any laws, and in time people would be 

as much ashamed of having children whom they could not bring up properly 

in every sense of the word, as they are now ashamed of having their 

children turn out criminals. Now, no disgrace can attach to any poor 

family, no matter how many children they have, because they have not got 

the knowledge, because society prevents them from having the knowledge 

of how to limit the number of children. But if that knowledge became 

easily accessible, and people still refused to avail themselves of it, 

then they would properly be considered as anti-social, as criminal 

members of society. As far as couples are concerned who are well-to-do, 

who love children, and who are well capable of taking care of a large 

number, we, that is, we American limitationists, would put no limit. On 

the contrary, we would say: 'God bless you, have as many children as you 

want to; there is plenty of room yet for all of you.'" 

 

Another writer, a celebrated English thinker along these lines, has said 

of the general argument in favor of Birth Control: 

 

"It used to be thought that small families were immoral. We now begin to 

see that it was the large families of old which were immoral. The 

excessive birth-rate of the early industrial period was directly 

stimulated by selfishness. There were no laws against child-labor; 

children were produced that they might be sent out, when little more 

than babies, to the factories and the mines to increase their parents' 

incomes. The diminished birth-rate has accomplished higher moral 

transformation. It has introduced a finer economy into life, diminished 

death, disease, and misery. It is indirectly, and even directly, 

improving the quality of the race. The very fact that children are born 


Page 3 from 10:  Back   1   2  [3]  4   5   6   7   8   9   10   Forward