Morality and Reality

Mauritius Times – 70 Years

By Observer

One of the most important solutions to our population problems is planned parenthood. Other remedies that must go hand in hand with it are (a) economic reforms (b) emigration. While many people admit that in the end a programme of population control will do good, they do not agree with the means to be adopted.

The arguments for and against contraceptives have been advanced ad nauseam, great minds have debated the question threadbare long ago and have given a verdict in its favour; there has been a scientific verdict as well. And yet we find people and newspapers debating this question today as if something new had just been discovered. The ignorance and heat the contestants display and generate on this question are almost unbelievable.

The argument against contraceptives is that it is “unnatural”. The term “unnatural” in this traditional objection means interference with a natural process by an outside human agency. But then in this sense, the whole life of man from the cradle to the grave is unnatural. What is civilisation after all? All civilisations can be summed up as a bold interference with nature. Our morning shave, clipping of fingernails, cropping of hair, bridges, boats and aeroplanes, dams and reservoirs, rockets and satellites not to mention clothes and cooking are all interferences with nature.

A Caesarian section to remove a baby, application of forceps during childbirth, a tooth extraction, etc., are all interferences with nature. More than that, we take pride in having conquered the blind forces of nature and having harnessed them in the service of man. Should we allow nature to take her own course, we should go naked, let our hair grow without cropping them, eat raw food, refrain from taking medicine, in short revert to the most primitive level of existence. Man has progressed beyond the animal level precisely by his ” interference” with nature. Why should human reproduction be left without interference, when it is known what harm uncontrolled fertility is doing?

On the contrary, this interference with nature should be welcome as it is based on planning, foresight and control. It is a victory for human intelligence, given by God, over nature.

Birth control will not promote self-indulgence and licentiousness. We have proofs that in countries encouraging family planning, the amount of licentiousness is actually less than in others, and this for many reasons. Today in most civilized countries a certain number of young men and women often refrain from marriage for economic reasons (This reminds me of our ségas: jeunes gens Zoredi pas lé marier, jeunes gens Zordi pa éna travail, etc.) They feel their financial position not strong enough to warrant the arrival of children which a married life normally entails. Such young men are sometimes forced to seek other channels as outlets for their normal cravings. In these circumstances, birth-control will be a positive help, because young people can get married, lead normal and happy lives and regulate the arrival of children in accordance with their economic resources.

In fact, the wide adoption of birth control will increase legal, normal marriages and reduce vice.

It is contended however that continence, complete or partial is not immoral. The method known as Ogino is considered moral by some people as it is a natural method as opposed to “artificial” methods. It is not considered immoral either to have coitus with one’s wife even if it is known that she is pregnant, nor even after menopause although one of the main arguments against birth-control is that the primary aim of the sexual act is the begetting of children.

As regards the so-called natural method of ogino, it must be pointed out that “to regulate the sexual life of marriage by the calendar is to introduce a strictly extraneous factor which involves interference with nature” of another kind. To disallow a method of contraception because it prevents semen from entering the womb and to sanction a method where semen can get inside the body when there is no ovum (egg cell female) to be fertilised, and where desire is least, in a conception of nature in purely physical terms.

Mahatma Gandhi’s attitude towards birth control is well-known. To him “there can be no two opinions about the necessity of birth-control.” However, the only method he would advise was “moral restraint”. Gandhiji said: “If I can drive home to women’s minds that they are free, we will have no birth control in India. If only they will learn to say “NO” to their husbands.” It is clear that Gandhiji believed in the need of controlling births but did not approve of contraceptives. He granted the ends as desirable but objected to the scientific means. Gandhiji advised the wives in India to say “NO” when husbands in India as husbands all over the world are even eager to assert their so-called rights. Gandhiji seemed to forget that women have the feelings as fine, deep and amorous as men and that there are times when wives desire union as much as their husbands.

The Mahatma himself took thirty years, on his own admission, to sublimate his passions into nobler causes and successfully practised continence, In 1936, Mrs Margaret Sanger asked Gandhiji if it was not surprising that he could ask the millions of India who are so humble and weak, to follow this advise of moral restraint when the so much wiser and stronger Gandhi himself took years to bring that self-control into his own life. It is well-nigh impossible for a healthy married couple living together and who cannot afford to have another child, to abstain from intimacy for any long period. Lord Dawson in that connection writes: “I maintain that a demand is being made which for the mass of people, is impossible to meet, that at the endeavours to meet it would impose a strain hostile to health and happiness and carry with them grave dangers to morals. The whole thing is preposterous. You might as well put water by the side of a man suffering from thirst and tell him not to drink it. No, birth-control by abstention is either ineffective or if effective, pernicious.”

There is also the medical opinion which contends that continuous abstinence on the part of married people leads to undesirable results – both physical and psychological.

It is significant that the spiritual heir of Gandhi, Mr Nehru has come out strongly in favour of family planning. He must have realised that it is better to be realistic than to be idealistic.

7th Year – No 288
Friday 26th February 1960

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 15 November 2024