Birth control laws : $b shall we keep them, change them, or abolish themDennett, Mary Ware
History
Birth control laws : $b shall we keep them, change them, or abolish them
Dennett, Mary Ware
Birth control; Birth control -- Law and legislation -- United States
We do not object to the teachings of the Catholic faith on this
subject for their own people. But we do feel that it is up to their
own priests to advise them, instruct them, and keep them in order.
They have no right to ask Federal aid to help the priests in matters
of church discipline. I would make the same reply to any other sect.
Suppose, gentlemen, that the Christian Scientists came to you and
said that they could not keep their people from using doctors. Would
you then pass legislation to do away with medical knowledge at the
request of these Christian Scientists? We have no objection to their
taking any attitude on this matter, but we do object to their method
of forcing it on others. We wish to be free to create scientific
values without their interference. This is very difficult in the
field of birth control, because under the present law the scientist
is not free to work in this particular field. In every other than
the human species there is freedom. The United States Bureau of
Fisheries have a corps of scientists who work across the road from
us in the department’s laboratories at Woods Hole. They carry on
experiments at Government expense with huge tanks of eggs and sperm.
They limit the birth of the fish until such time as the temperature,
season, and other environmental conditions are right, so that the
young fish may have a square deal. But then America wants the best
possible fish. The Bureau of Animal Husbandry is carrying on work in
fertility, and I have a letter from Doctor Cole, the chief of this
department, indorsing the Vaile Bill. Now, however, if some one is
very much interested in problems of fertilization in his own species
and wants to work in this field, to create new material for the use
of the medical profession, what happens? He goes to his laboratory;
and suppose he makes a discovery; if he then tells anybody, if he
publishes what he has discovered, or whispers it through the keyhole,
he is in the position of Galileo, about 400 years ago. He is likely
to go to jail for giving his scientific knowledge to the world. In
fact, the law tells him that it is obscene. He can, however, publish
it in any other country in the world, except the United States.
Of course, we can not agree with the point that has been made this
morning, that it is an interference with nature, nor grant that that
is a logical argument. For scientific discovery and all medicine is
an interference with nature, as are electric lights and plumbing. In
fact, it is when we do not know how to interfere with her that many
of our worst calamities befall us. The flu came so suddenly that
science could not help, and few of us enjoyed letting nature run
her course. In the case of yellow fever the Government scientists
stepped forward and through birth control of the mosquito, a rank
interference with nature, removed one of the greatest menaces to the
South.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account