Forces Adverse to Reproduction

Royal Commission on the Decline of the Birth-Rate (1904)

“It is clear also, however, that forces adverse to reproduction had invaded and were operating, not only in many of the older countries of the world, some of which have had to face the problem of over-population, but also in the other States of the Australian Commonwealth and New Zealand, which resemble New South Wales in never having felt the stress of too many inhabitants.”

“The benefits of large families to the members of those families and to the nation composed of them cannot be over-estimated.”

“This mass of evidence amply proves that the practice of preventing conception, no matter what method is adopted, is the cause of many dire evils, far worse than any bad consequences that could naturally result from the bearing and rearing of a family.”

— NSW Royal Commission, 1904

Declining Australian fertility? Led by cities? Amidst declining global fertility? Driven by “selfishness” and women who want comfort, luxury, and to “avoid the physical discomfort of lactation”? Welcome to 1904. A Royal Commission in NSW found a 30% drop in births and blamed it on godlessness, gossip, and contraception propaganda.

Maybe it’s due to a decline in the quality of women? Nope.

There is no proof that any decadence has occurred in the physique of women in New South Wales, as suggested by the Government Statist of Victoria. On the other hand, from the evidence before us, and from our own knowledge, we are of opinion that there has been no physical deterioration of the female population.

The Commission concluded that the decline must be due to a force over which people have control. Medical consensus was that women were preventing conception and inducing miscarriage — and that the practice was spreading across all classes, married and unmarried alike.

When I asked Tyler Cowen why fertility was declining around the world, he basically said it’s a wonder it ever worked at all. I think this report supports that claim. Women have borne children forever out of a mix of violent realities (male brutishness, high infant mortality), boredom, lack of alternatives, lack of birth control, and social technologies. All of these have unwound over the past century.

People didn’t believe they could afford more kids then either — a concern the Commission dismissed.

VI. — THE DESIRE TO RESTRICT FERTILITY.

(82.) The desire to keep fertility within such limits as each one for himself deems reasonable has generally been characteristic of a decadent state of society. It must not be assumed to have had its origin in modern times, for the contrary is thoroughly well established by history; nor is it, in modern times, peculiar to the State into whose social condition, in respect of population, it has been our special duty to inquire. Though we have found that the free play given to this desire has been the main factor in the decline of birth-rate in New South Wales, it must be borne in mind that in all the countries, including France, England, and the United States, where a decline of natural increase due to scarcity of births has been studied, the prominence of the same factor has been recognised.

(83.) Witnesses one after another, in the course of this Inquiry, have testified to the exercise of this desire; they have also referred to the readiness, and even spontaneity, of married people in admitting a deliberate restriction in the number of their children by recourse to artificial checks. In addition to this, we recognise that there may be a certain number of instances in which the restraint of natural impulse is effective in marriage as well as in postponing marriage. The reason almost invariably given by people for restricting procreation is that they cannot conveniently afford to rear more than a [illegible] number of children. In some instances we believe the people are sincere in stating this as their reason; and that they honestly, though mistakenly, believe want of adequate means to be a sufficient justification for interference with the course of nature. The witnesses themselves, however, suggest that, in the majority of cases, this is not the true reason; they say that there are—

i. An unwillingness to submit to the strain and worry of children;
ii. A dislike of the interference with pleasure and comfort involved in child-bearing and child-rearing;
iii. A desire to avoid the actual physical discomfort of gestation, parturition, and lactation; and
iv. A love of luxury and of social pleasures, which is increasing.

(84.) It will be seen that the reasons given for resorting to limitation have one element in common, namely: selfishness. They are, in fact, indicative of the desire of the individual to avoid his obligations to the community. They exemplify the observation that “the effort of the race towards its increase in numbers is in inverse ratio to the effort of the individual towards his personal development.”

(My emphasis in bold throughout.)

But why had this all accelerated in the past 20 years, the report wondered?

Not because the future prospects are unfavourable, but rather because restraints operating “against the desire to regulate the size of families” have been “weakened or removed”. These being a decline in religion and Neo-Malthusian propogandists disseminating information about contraceptives and abortatives.

Experts interviewed by the Commission testified that the practice has led to:

• “deleterious in its effects on the nervous system of women, even to the extent of leading to insanity”

• Sterility

• Other disabilities

• Makes “women look old”

(92.) This mass of evidence amply proves that the practice of preventing conception, no matter what method is adopted, is the cause of many dire evils, far worse than any bad consequences that could naturally result from the bearing and rearing of a family. The nervous system is deranged; frequently distress of mind and body are caused; the general health is often impaired, and sometimes ruined; and inflammatory diseases are set up which disable the reproductive organs. Following in the train of these diseases there may be temporary, or even permanent, sterility. Thus, as those who resort to limitation are seldom desirous of being absolutely childless, but desire to postpone the fulfilment of their conjugal obligations for a few years, they are often surprised to find — on ceasing to practise prevention — that that their conduct has resulted in inability to conceive. Not only do the practices resorted to for the purpose of avoiding conception result in physical evils, but they are also productive of psychical effects not less serious. Men and women who adopt, or submit to the adoption of, such practices, must lose in self-respect and in respect for one another—they must, indeed, feel that their higher instincts are debased: and long continuance of these practices, in conjunction with their spread over a large proportion of the community, must result in a distinct degradation of character, and lowering of the moral standard of the people.

(93.) Bad as are the consequences of prevention of conception, still worse is the destruction of health and life which follows the procuring of miscarriage. Without exception the medical witnesses we have examined have, stated that its effects are disastrous.

A foreboding:

(99.) A circumstance that causes grave misgivings as to the future is that so many women do not realise the wrong involved in the practices of prevention and abortion. They converse with one another upon these subjects apparently without shame, and freely approach doctors and chemists in order to procure the means to gratify their desires, as will be seen from the following excerpts from the evidence…

The Commission had very clear views that prevention of conception is immoral and its increase indicia of social and moral deterioration. In fact, preventing conception is as grave a sin as abortion.

(101.) We recognise the grave immorality of deliberately preventing conception in marriage and the still graver immorality and criminality of inducing miscarriage. The mere fact that criminality does not attach to prevention while it does to abortion is a distinction which has in the past led to the belief that the former practice is not wrong; but we consider that, as modes of avoiding procreation, they are equally opposed to that morality upon which the welfare of the race essentially depends. The mental condition of any population, moreover, in which the avoidance of parentage is condoned, and even advocated, we regard as one which tells its own tale of social and moral deterioration. Such practices as are necessarily resorted to as alternatives for that restraint of natural impulse, which is alone justifiable for this end, we agree with the reverend witnesses and other witnesses whose evidence we have quoted, violate the sanctity of marriage, and tend to convert the marriage contract into a sexual compact. We consider that they lower the standard of right-living and right-thinking in the community, create laxity of morals, debase character, and ignore the sanctity of human life.

And that the practice has led to the decay of family life and that larger families are strictly superior:

(102.) The decay of family life is another feature involved in the disappearance of that sense of responsibility by which alone the recruiting of posterity can be maintained. The benefits of large families to the members of those families and to the nation composed of them cannot be over-estimated. It is recognised that members of large families educate one another; that “only” children and members of small families are less well-equipped for the struggle of life; they do not grow to be morally, intellectually, or physically superior to members of large families, and their social efficiency is impaired by selfishness. Arsène Dumont (in Natalité et Democratie) says: “The life of an only child is an uninterrupted lesson in egoism lasting twenty years. Honor and country ask for sacrifices, and the ‘only’ child is not courageous. The more numerous the family the more respectful the children are to the parents. Men from large families have greater social worth.” We recognise generally that large families thrive best, and that those who have none or those who have one are themselves liable to become dependent on others. We also recognise that the obligations of parentage are an inducement to the right use of health and strength, and an incentive to the preservation and development of all those qualities which strengthen individual character. And we see that the effort consciously made in support of a large family stimulates a conscientious regard for duty, and promotes good citizenship.

(105.) The suppression, however effected, of the growth of population, must ever be an impediment to progress and prosperity.

The Chamber of Manufacturers was concerned about the vitality of the race:

in view of the restriction of immigration, the importance of vitality and progression of the birth-rate cannot be too strongly emphasised… A tendency has been established which would end, unless counteracted, in the subjugation and extinction of our race within measurable time.

In conclusion:

(107.) It is thus shown that the practices involved in the limitation of families are responsible for much physical suffering, for a deadening of moral sensibility, and for a degradation of character among those who resort to them; and these effects must have an unwholesome influence on the general character of the people who move in a social atmosphere so vitiated. Defective health, defective morals, and defective character are already manifesting themselves as a warning of more marked deterioration likely to ensue. The effects on trade and commerce must be equally marked. With the proportion of births decreasing, and the natural increase of population diminishing, the demand for the products of industry must flag, and the capacity of the nation to utilise the natural resources of the State must tend to fail. Who can tell what progress New South Wales might not have made if, since 1864, 280,000 citizens had not been lost, and had performed their share in the development of the country; or what strides in prosperity Australia might have taken, in the same period, with the assistance of nearly a million more inhabitants?

Well, not quite in conclusion. The report ends in a recommendation to increase immigration to address the decline in birth rate. So here we are.

Related: