Fundamentally, then, nearly all men and women marry with the purpose and hope of having a family of children. They may not put it that way, may not even acknowledge it, even to each other or to themselves; but if married people find that they _cannot_ produce, it is a source of unspeakable regret to them both. In such cases, the inherent desire for parenthood will "cry aloud and spare not." A "barren" woman greatly mourns her inability, and will shed bitter tears over the fact, if she be truly human; and an "impotent" man will be practically despised by all who are aware of his incompetence. And yet, though all normal men and women desire to have children, it is only right that they should desire to have them _as they want them_, and _when_ they want them, and not _whenever they may happen to come!_ That is, sensible and thoughtful people, who plan definitely for the future, want to make the coming of children to them an affair of _deliberate_ arrangement, and not of _chance_. This is not only as it should be, but is really the only right way that children should be begotten and born. Which statement calls for a few special words on the right of parents to regulate the production of progeny. There is much talk, in some quarters, about "race suicide," and the wickedness of deliberately limiting the number of children in a family. Such talking and writing arouse anxious questionings in the minds of conscientious young married men and women who are desiring to do the right thing in the premises, but are uncertain as to what the right thing is, and for such are the following words: Many years ago, an English philosopher and statesman, Malthus by name, discovered and announced the fact that the rate of natural increase in the human race was several times greater than that of the possible rate of production of food supply for their support. Scientifically phrased, his statement was that "the rate of increase in humanity is in geometrical ratio, while the rate of increase of possible food supply is in arithmetical ratio." And from this basis, he reasoned that, unless the surplus of human production was in some way cut off and destroyed, the whole human race would ultimately demand more food supply than could possibly be produced; and so, in due course of time, the whole race would perish from starvation! Then he proceeded to reason that the purpose of disease, plague, pestilence, famine, poverty and warfare was to cut off and destroy the _surplus_ of humanity, and hence all these alleged evils were in reality blessings in disguise, and that _it would be wrong to interfere_ with their really beneficent workings! Volumes could be written, and they could not tell the half of the misery and evil that the promulgation of this doctrine has done for the civilized world, but there is no space here for giving any such details; nor need this be done, though the statement of the doctrine had to be made to make ready for what is to follow.