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
consequences. If unrestrained procreation will place children in a home
where the food and comfort are adequate to their healthful support and
development, then procreation is good,--good for the individual,
society, and the State.
If the conditions necessary to this healthful support and development,
can by individual or State effort be provided for all children born, it
is the duty of the individual and of the State to make that effort.
Pages:
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90