{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26837/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26837","id":"gutenberg_26837","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26837","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Parenthood & Family Relations","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Sexuality & Erotica","Contraception","Sexual ethics","Sociology"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Markus Brenner and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                            LOVE--MARRIAGE--\n                             BIRTH CONTROL\n\n\n                Being a Speech delivered at the Church\n                Congress at Birmingham, October, 1921:\n\n\n                            WITH A FOREWORD\n\n                                  BY\n                          LORD DAWSON OF PENN\n\n\n                         [Illustration: logo]\n\n\n                                London\n                           NISBET & CO. LTD.\n                        22 BERNERS STREET, W.1\n\n\n\n    _First Published January, 1922_\n    _Reprinted January, 1922_\n    _Reprinted February, 1922_\n    _Reprinted April, 1922_\n\n    _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n                               FOREWORD\n\n\nAt the Church Congress held this autumn at Birmingham I was honoured by\nan invitation to speak on \"Sexual Relationships.\"\n\nThe subject-matter of that speech has aroused widespread interest and\nsome controversy. It is being published in response to numerous requests\nand because most of the reports, being of necessity condensed,\ninadequately and even in some instances incorrectly set forth the views\nI endeavoured to champion; for any speech on a subject so difficult to\nhandle needs to be read in its entirety if misapprehensions are to be\navoided.\n\nAnd first, may I thank numerous correspondents; and those in\ndisagreement equally with those in agreement with me. One and all they\nbear testimony, if indeed such were needed, to how widespread and\nresponsible is the interest on this question, and therefore to the\nwisdom of its full consideration. Amongst the letters are intimate human\ndocuments which pathetically disclose, as does professional experience,\nhow frequently happiness is marred by ignorance of either the principles\nor the methods which should condition the true conception of sexual\nrelationships.\n\nI elected to deal with these relationships in their healthy rather than\ntheir morbid aspects, because the study of health is a sure way to\nlessen disease. Mere denunciations of evil serve but small purpose. The\naim of statesmanship is rather to seek out causes and ponder over\nremedies, and prominent among remedies is surely the study of the\nsignificance and purport of sex love in a well-ordered and Christian\ncommunity and provision for its healthy outlet. To this the first part\nof my speech was devoted. The view there upheld has brought forth a\nlarge measure of agreement and no reasoned disagreement.\n\nThe second part of my speech dealing with birth control (or what in\nstrict accuracy should be called conception control) has aroused more\ncontroversy, but I venture to think that some, at least, of the\ncriticism directed against my argument will disappear with a perusal of\nthis full text of my speech. Therein will be found condemnation of\ninfertile marriages and a strong plea that children are essential to the\nhealth and happiness of man and woman, are necessary to each other and\nof vital importance to the nation.\n\nThe difference between my critics and myself is not as to the vital\nnecessity of the family following marriage, but rather this--they would\nlike to see the large families prevalent fifty years ago restored (and\nwhere means and circumstances are favourable, such large families may be\nthe source of much happiness); whereas under present-day conditions I\nshould regard them as seldom attainable and desirable, and would favour\nsmaller families of children born at predetermined intervals.\n\nA married couple who have produced four children in twenty years cannot\nbe said to have ignored the precept \"be fruitful and multiply and\nreplenish the earth\" because they have so selected the times for the\nconceptions of their children as to enable them to give those children a\nbetter upbringing rather than have selfishly left the sequence of their\noffspring to blind chance.\n\nThe argument that the nation should foster large families in order more\nquickly to people the untenanted portions of the Empire, and so add to\nthe strength and wealth of the British Dominions, requires serious\nattention, not in isolation, but in conjunction with other\nconsiderations, and calls forth varying opinions from economists.\n\nOn the other hand, emigration into _foreign_ lands would seem to be a\nsource of weakness to a nation. The feeding, clothing and educating of a\nyoung Briton cost the nation a definite sum of money, say, L400; if at\nthe age of twenty, when he is ready to produce, that young Briton\nemigrates to a foreign state, he is a definite loss to the country of\nhis birth and the country of his adoption is the gainer.\n\nFrom another standpoint the criticism is made that I have not urged the\nparamount necessity of diminishing the population of these islands. With\nthe economic soundness of this view others are better fitted to deal,\nbut no economic considerations would outweigh the importance of child\nlife inspiring the homes of the land, and if the number and sequence of\nchildren can be regulated by the parents' circumstances, these homes\nwill increase in number, will start when parents are younger and confer\ngreater benefits alike on the family and the State. If need be, the\nState could grant a progressive rebate of taxation, and educational\nfacilities for each of three children born after the second and where\nthe father is twenty-five years of age or upwards.\n\nIt is held by some that artificial birth control is contrary to\nChristian morals. This is the view firmly held by the Roman Catholic\nChurch, and since the governance of the Roman communion is based on\n\"authority,\" its decisions are binding on its members and command our\nrespect. But pronouncements of Protestant communions do not owe their\nforce to \"authority,\" but to the conviction they carry in the minds and\nconsciences of their people, and no clear scriptural sanction for the\ncondemnation of birth control has been given, nor does the report of the\nLambeth Conference vouchsafe any reasons why it is physically and\nmorally harmful.\n\nA distinguished prelate of our Church has characterised the views herein\nset forth as \"very unguarded.\"[1] If by that expression he means\n\"careless,\" he cannot have done me the honour of reading my speech,\nwhich, whatever its demerits, bears ample evidence of carefully\nconsidered thought and expression. If by \"unguarded\" he means\n\"outspoken,\" I will plead justification. For is it not time that a\nquestion which deeply concerns not only the thought, but the practice of\nthe thinking portions of communities should be fully considered and its\nstrength and its weakness disclosed by full discussion? The world looks\nto its leaders for reasoned guidance, not for assertion which may be but\nthe husk of a thought that has gone. What is wanted is reasoned\nconsideration, not unreasoned condemnation. For churchmen and statesmen\nalike, opportunism helps in situations which are small, but never in\nthose which are large; there clarity of principle alone stands forth as\na beacon to light the path.\n\n    [Footnote 1: Diocesan Conference at York.]\n\nThe fear that discussion of this vital problem will endanger morality\nsurely loses sight of the fact of knowledge being so fundamental to our\nwell-being, that incidental dangers encountered along its path must not\ndeter us from its continued pursuit.\n\nMoreover, it will be noticed that I have discriminated between the\nprinciple of birth control and the methods of its application, the\nlatter being preferably determined by the advice of the family doctor\nrather than by the perusal of books in general circulation.\n\nThe attitude of mind of the Church towards the problems of sexual\nrelationships is part of a larger question, viz., the ever-widening gap\nbetween the formal teaching of the Church and the actual belief of the\npresent generation, including many who by baptism and early training\nbelong to her fold.\n\nThis gap between authority and actuality of belief imposes a strain on\nintellectual integrity and weakens the foundations of a real allegiance.\nFor those of us who are of mature years the gap is bridged by the tender\nassociations of our childhood and the memory of parents, for whom no\nsuch gap existed, and whose faith and character have left indelible\nimpressions on our lives. But for the youth of to-day no such bridge\nexists. The War has caused a hiatus and thought has broken with\ntradition. Thus, youth is no longer willing to accept forms and formulae\nonly on account of their age. So it has set out on a voyage of inquiry,\nand finding some things which are doubtful and others which are\ninsufficient, is searching for forms of expression more in harmony with\nthe realities of life and knowledge. Although becoming estranged in\nthought from the Church, it is possessed of deep religious feeling and,\nfirm on the rock foundation of faith, is trying to build a\nsuperstructure more in accord with the progress of revelation, not only\nin religion, but in science, and the needs of the world in which it\nmoves and has its being.\n\n\n    Far be it, that I should write thee sin or blame,\n    Or think thee unbefitting holiest place,\n    Perpetual fountain of domestic sweets,\n    Whose bed is undefiled and chaste pronounced,\n    Present, or past, as saints and patriarchs used.\n    Here Love his golden shafts employs, here lights\n    His constant lamp, and waves his purple wings,\n    Reigns here and revels; not in the bought smile\n    Of harlots, loveless, joyless, unendeared,\n    Casual fruition; nor in court-amours,\n    Mixed dance, or wanton mask, or midnight ball,\n    Or serenate, which the starved lover sings\n    To his proud fair, best quitted with disdain.\n    These, lulled by nightingales, embracing slept,\n    And on their naked limbs the flowery roof\n    Showered roses, which the morn repaired.\n\n                                        _Paradise Lost,_\n                                                    Book IV.\n\n\n\n\n                      LOVE--MARRIAGE--BIRTH CONTROL\n\n\nMay I make certain preliminary observations? Painters and poets depict\nLove to us in golden hues and arouse in us happy and sympathetic, and, I\ntrust, reminiscent response, helping us to realise that life without the\nlove of man and woman would be like the world without sunshine.\n\nThough, therefore, the social student in his approach to the subject is\nnot helped by the beauties of colour and song, it behoves him to avoid\nundue solemnity, and still more an air of portentous foreboding.\n\nIn each age customs have been deplored as heralds of evil, but the evils\nhave seldom materialised.\n\nOne of the difficulties of this subject is that those who are called\nupon to give counsel are apt to forget the strength of the forces to be\ndealt with, for it is during youth especially that sex attractions are\nso powerful, and, may I add, so delightful. Middle-aged people may be\ndivided into three classes.\n\nThose who are still young.\n\nThose who have forgotten they were young.\n\nThose who were never young.\n\nAnd it is with the first class before my eyes that I am privileged to\naddress this audience.\n\nI will confine my attention to the sexual relationships between\nunrelated adult people in youth and prime.\n\nIt is common ground that sex love between such people should be the\nphysical expression of a lasting affection, and be so intimately blended\nwith the feelings of helpfulness, sympathy, and intimate friendship as\nto form a union of body, mind and spirit. It further should be\nassociated with the love of and desire for children.\n\nThis complex is best secured by the institution of marriage.\n\nAll its constituent features, except two, are vividly realised in\nintimate friendship, and above all, in that unique bond between mother\nand son which with some of us is the most wonderful thing in our lives.\n\nIts two exclusively distinctive features are: _sex love_ and _child\nlove_.\n\nThese are the real problems before us to-day, particularly the former,\nand if in these remarks I seem to concentrate on the problems of sex\nlove, be it understood I do so from a desire to save the time of the\nmeeting and not because I think sex love should reign alone in\nunbalanced supremacy.\n\nAnd by sex love I mean that love which involves intercourse or the\ndesire for such.\n\nIt is necessary to my argument to emphasise that sex love is one of the\nclamant dominating forces of the world. Not only does history show the\ndestinies of nations and dynasties determined by its sway--but here in\nour every-day life we see its influence, direct or indirect, forceful\nand ubiquitous beyond aught else.\n\n\n                        AN IMPERIOUS INSTINCT.\n\nAny statesmanlike review, therefore, will recognise that here we have an\ninstinct--so fundamental, so imperious--that its influence is a fact which\nhas to be accepted: suppress it you cannot. You may guide it into\nhealthy channels--but an outlet it will have, and if that outlet is\ninadequate or unduly obstructed, irregular channels will be forced.\n\nWe uphold the control of sex love outside marriage by the individual--and\nthat we are right in so doing is incontestable. But let us realise that\nin practice self-control has a breaking point, and that if in any\ncommunity marriage is difficult or late of attainment, an increase of\nirregular unions will inevitably result.\n\nThat the Church recognises this is shown by the statement that marriage\nwas instituted to prevent sin. In considering the problem of illicit\nintercourse and its attendant evils the social conditions that make for\na wholesome life are of more efficiency than Acts of Parliament to\nsuppress vice.\n\nMy desire, however, on this occasion is rather to consider sex love in\nrelation to marriage. The first point I wish to make is that people need\nmore knowledge of the scientific bearings of sex relations and more\nclearly defined guidance of their rightful purport and practice. They\nare imperfectly provided with both. We talk about instructing the young\nwhen we are neither clear nor agreed amongst ourselves, and the young\nare endangered as much by crudity as by absence of instruction.\n\nAll are agreed that union of body should be in association with union of\nmind and soul; all are agreed that the rearing of children is a\npre-eminent purpose. But what purport is there beyond these? Here there\nis a lack of precision.\n\n\n                       THE CHURCH AND MARRIAGE.\n\nWhat does the Church service say? It says \"Marriage was ordained for a\nremedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have\nnot the gift of continency might marry and keep themselves undefiled\nmembers of Christ's body.\"\n\nNow this is a very negative blessing. It implies that where\nunfortunately people cannot be continent that marriage gives the best\nway out--enables them to get relief within the pale of virtue. This\nattitude affords to sex love no positive purport or merit of its own,\nand is in striking conflict with the facts of life through the\nages--facts which carry social approval.\n\nThe recent pronouncement of the Church as set forth in Resolution 68 of\nthe Lambeth Conference seems to imply condemnation of sex love as such,\nand to imply sanction of sex love _only_ as a means to an end--namely,\nprocreation, though it must be admitted it lacks that clearness of\ndirection which in so vital a matter one would have expected. It almost\nreminds me of one of those diplomatic formulae which is not intended to\nbe too clear. Allow me to quote from it:--\n\n\"In opposition to the teaching which under the name of science and\nreligion encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of\nsexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always\nbe regarded as the governing consideration of Christian marriage. One is\nthe primary purpose for which marriage exists--namely, the continuation\nof the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the\nparamount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful\nself-control.\"\n\n\n                          THE FACTS OF LIFE.\n\nNow the plain meaning of this statement is that sexual union should take\nplace for the sole purpose of procreation, that sexual union as _an_ end\nin itself--not, mind you, _the_ only end--(there we should all agree), but\nsexual union as _an_ end in itself is to be condemned.\n\nThat means that sexual intercourse should rightly take place _only_ for\nthe purpose of procreation.\n\nNow the large majority of conceptions take place immediately after and\nbefore the monthly period.\n\nQuite a large family could easily result from quite a few sexual unions.\nFor the rest the couple should be celibate. Any intercourse not having\nprocreation as its intention is \"sexual union as an end in itself,\" and\ntherefore by inference condemned by the Lambeth Conference.\n\nThink of the facts of life. Let us recall our own love--our marriage,\nour honeymoon. Has not sexual union over and over again been the\nphysical expression of our love without thought or intention of\nprocreation? Have we all been wrong? Or is it that the Church lacks that\nvital contact with the realities of life which accounts for the gulf\nbetween her and the people?\n\nThe love envisaged by the Lambeth Conference is an invertebrate joyless\nthing--not worth the having. Fortunately it is in contrast to the real\nthing as practised by clergy and laity.\n\nFancy an ardent lover (and what respect have you for a lover who is not\nardent)--the type you would like your daughter to marry--virile,\nambitious, chivalrous--a man who means to work hard and love hard. Fancy\nputting before these lovers--eager and expectant of the joys before\nthem--the Lambeth picture of marriage. Do you expect to gain their\nconfidence?\n\nThey ask for bread; you give them a stone.\n\n\n                       ALLEGIANCE OF THE YOUNG.\n\nAuthority, and I include under authority the Churches, will never gain\nthe allegiance of the young unless their attitude is more frank, more\ncourageous, and more in accordance with realities.\n\nAnd to tell you the truth, I am not sure that too much prudent\nself-restraint suits love and its purport. Romance and deliberate\nself-control do not, to my mind, rhyme very well together. A touch of\nmadness to begin with does no harm. Heaven knows life sobers it soon\nenough. If you don't start life with a head of steam you won't get far.\n\nSex love has, apart from parenthood, a purport of its own. It is\nsomething to prize and to cherish for its own sake. It is an essential\npart of health and happiness in marriage. And now, if you will allow me,\nI will carry this argument a step further.\n\nIf sexual union is a gift of God it is worth learning how to use it.\nWithin its own sphere it should be cultivated so as to bring physical\nsatisfaction to both, not merely to one. The attainment of mutual and\nreciprocal joy in their relations constitutes a firm bond between two\npeople and makes for durability of their marriage tie.\n\nReciprocity in sex love is the physical counterpart of sympathy. More\nmarriages fail from inadequate and clumsy sex love than from too much\nsex love.\n\n\n                     PASSION A WORTHY POSSESSION.\n\nThe lack of proper understanding is in no small measure responsible for\nthe unfulfilment of (connubial) happiness, and every degree of\ndiscontent and unhappiness may from this cause occur, leading to rupture\nof the marriage bond itself. How often do medical men have to deal with\nthese difficulties, and how fortunate if such difficulties are disclosed\nearly enough in married life to be rectified. Otherwise how tragic may\nbe their consequences, and many a case in the Divorce Court has thus\nhad its origin.\n\nTo the foregoing contentions it might be objected you are encouraging\npassion. My reply would be, passion is a worthy possession; most men,\nwho are any good, are capable of passion.\n\nYou all enjoy ardent and passionate love in art and literature. Why not\ngive it a place in real life?\n\nWhy some people look askance at passion is because they are confusing it\nwith sensuality. Sex love without passion is a poor, lifeless thing.\nSensuality, on the other hand, is on a level with gluttony--a physical\nexcess--detached from sentiment, chivalry, or tenderness.\n\nIt is just as important to give sex love its place as to avoid its over\nemphasis. Its real and effective restraints are those imposed by a\nloving and sympathetic companionship, by the privileges of parenthood,\nthe exacting claims of career and that civic sense which prompts men to\ndo social service.\n\nNow that the revision of the Prayer Book is receiving consideration, I\nshould like to suggest, with great respect, that an addition be made to\nthe objects of marriage in the Marriage Service, in these terms: \"The\ncomplete realisation of the love of this man and this woman, the one for\nthe other.\"\n\n\n                            BIRTH CONTROL.\n\nAnd now, if you will permit me, I will pass on to consider the\nall-important question of Birth Control.\n\nFirst, I will put forward with confidence the view that birth control\nis here to stay. It is an established fact, and for good or evil has to\nbe accepted. Although the extent of its application can be and is being\nmodified, no denunciations will abolish it.\n\nDespite the influence and condemnations of the Church, it has been\npractised in France for well over half a century, and in Belgium and\nother Catholic countries is extending. And if the Roman Catholic Church,\nwith its compact organisation, its power of authority, and its\ndiscipline, cannot check this procedure, is it likely that Protestant\nChurches will be able to do so?--for Protestant religions depend for\ntheir strength on the conviction and esteem they establish in the heads\nand hearts of their people.\n\nThe reasons which lead parents to limit their offspring are sometimes\nselfish, but more often honourable and cogent. The desire to marry and\nto rear children well equipped for life's struggle, limited incomes, the\ncost of living, burdensome taxation, are forcible motives; and, further,\namongst the educated classes there is the desire of women to take a part\nin life and their husband's careers, which is incompatible with\noft-recurring pregnancies. Absence of birth control means late\nmarriages, and these carry with them irregular unions and all the\nbaneful consequences.\n\nIt is idle to decry illicit intercourse and interpose obstacles to\nmarriage at one and the same time.\n\nBut, say many whose opinions are entitled to our respect: \"Yes--birth\ncontrol may be necessary, but the only birth control which is\njustifiable is voluntary abstention from connubial relations.\" Such\nabstention would be either ineffective or, if effective, impracticable\nand harmful to health and happiness.\n\nTo limit the size of a family to, say, four children during a\nchild-bearing period of 20-25 years, would be to impose on a married\ncouple an amount of abstention which for long periods would almost be\nequivalent to celibacy, and when one remembers that owing to economic\nreasons the abstention would have to be most strict during the earlier\nyears of married life when desires are strongest, I maintain a demand is\nbeing made which for the mass of people it is impossible to meet; that\nthe endeavours to meet it would impose a strain hostile to health and\nhappiness and carry with them grave dangers to morals.\n\nImagine a young married couple in love with each other--the parents, say,\nof one child, who feel they cannot afford another child for, say, three\nyears--being expected to occupy the same room and to abstain for two\nyears. The thing is preposterous. You might as well put water by the\nside of a man suffering from thirst and tell him not to drink it.\n\nAnd further than that, if the efforts to abstain are seriously made the\nstrain involved is harmful to the health and temper--if the efforts do\nnot succeed the minds of husband and wife are troubled by doubts and\nanxieties which are damaging to their intimate relationships. And,\nmoreover, if this harmful restraint succeeds in preventing conception\nthere eventuates the inevitable prevalence of sex excitement followed\nby abortive and half-realised satisfaction, and the enhanced risk of the\nman or woman yielding to outside sex temptations.\n\nNo--birth control by abstention is either ineffective, or, if effective,\nis pernicious.\n\n\n                      THE HOME'S TRUE INTERESTS.\n\nI will next consider Artificial Control. The forces in modern life which\nmake for birth control are so strong that only convincing reasons will\nmake people desist from it. It is said to be unnatural and intrinsically\nimmoral. This word unnatural perplexes me. Civilisation involves the\nchaining of natural forces and their conversion to man's will and uses.\nMuch of medicine and surgery consists of means to overcome nature.\n\nWhen anaesthetics were first used at childbirth there was an outcry on\nthe part of many worthy and religious people that their use under such\ncircumstances was unnatural and wicked, because God meant woman to\nsuffer the struggles and pains of childbirth. Now we all admit it is\nright to control the process of childbirth, and to save the mother as\nmuch pain as possible. It is no more unnatural to control conception by\nartificial means than to control childbirth by artificial means. Surely\nthe whole question turns on whether these artificial means are for the\ngood or harm of the individual and the community! Do all contraceptive\nmeasures damage the individual? The answer to that depends on the\npurpose for which they are used. If they are used to render unions\nchildless or inadequately fruitful they are harmful. There are grounds\nfor thinking that unrealisation of maternity favours sterility.\n\nGenerally speaking, birth control before the first child is inadvisable.\nOn the other hand, the justifiable use of birth control is to limit the\nnumber of children, and to spread out their arrival in such a way as to\nserve their true interests and those of their home.\n\nThat such applications of birth control produce no harm receives support\nfrom the study of the numbers and distribution of the children of the\nprofessional classes.\n\nThe advantage and disadvantage of this or that contraceptive is a\ntechnical matter for the doctors to determine.\n\nAgain, it has been stated that artificial control is harmful because it\nleads to excessive indulgence. Experience and evidence are against this\nbeing a fact.\n\nContraceptives by the time and circumstance of their application involve\nprudence and control. The proper and efficient restraints on undue\nsexual indulgence are to be found in mutual consideration, sympathy, and\ntenderness and the pressing claims of life's duties.\n\nThe sensualist who is not deterred from excess by these considerations\nwill be completely careless whether his indulgence results in children\nor not--he is moved by his selfish impulses alone.\n\n\n                         CAREFUL DISTINCTION.\n\nOnce more, careful distinction needs to be made between the use and the\nbad effects of the abuse of birth control. That its abuse produces harm\nI fully agree--harm to parents, to families, and to the nation. But abuse\nis not a just condemnation of legitimate use. Over-eating,\nover-drinking, over-smoking, over-sleeping, over-work do not carry\ncondemnation of eating, drinking, smoking, sleeping, work.\n\nBut the evils of excessive birth control are very real. There is first\nthe individual--every woman is better in body and mind for child\nbearing--the periodic completion of the maternal cycle brings out the\nbest, preserves youth and maintains vital contact with life. Maternity\ngives to woman her most beautiful attributes. Fancy being mad enough to\nsuppress it! If one watches the woman with one child and all maternity\nfinished before thirty, and compare her at forty with the woman of the\nsame age who has had, say, four children at proper intervals, who\nusually has the advantage in preservation of youth and beauty? Not the\nformer.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be admitted that baby after baby every year\nor eighteen months wears and often exhausts a woman's strength. The\ninference is that the use of birth control is good, its abuse bad.\n\nNext, the children. Is it even necessary to refer to the failure of the\nsingle-child household? Poor little thing! Surrounded by over-anxious\nparents, spoilt, no children to play with, bored stiff by adults. And\nthen, perhaps, illness, and it may be death--and when it is too late to\nproduce another.\n\nOf the many tragedies I met in the war none exceeded that attaching to\nthe loss of only children. It often means the end of all things; nothing\nto live for--just blank despair.\n\n\n                         THE WAY OF HAPPINESS.\n\nThe parents and the home both need children of varying ages. That is the\nway of happiness and enduring youth.\n\nAnd lastly, the national aspect may be stated very briefly. If England\nis not to lose her place in the world her population must be maintained.\nUnless fathers and mothers produce an average of over three children\nthat population will not be maintained.\n\nIf you say to a young husband and wife with their one or two children,\n\"Do you like to contemplate that when you both leave life your country\nwill, through your action, be worse off than when you entered life?\"\nthat is an appeal to patriotism, and likely to be a successful appeal.\n\nThere are signs of a public opinion forming which will condemn the\nselfishness of marriages without their proper heritage of children, but\nsuch public opinion will not be strengthened by an indiscriminate\ncondemnation of birth control.\n\nMay I end my speech with an appeal that the Church approaches this\nquestion, in common with certain others, in the light of modern\nknowledge and the needs of a new world, and unhampered by traditions\nwhich have outworn their usefulness?\n\n\n\n                      PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY\n          THE WHITEFRIARS PRESS, LTD., LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.","title":"Love\u2014Marriage\u2014Birth Control: Being a Speech delivered at the Church Congress at Birmingham, October, 1921","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":4862}