I despise Birth-Control first because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly word. It is also an entirely meaningless word; and is used so as to curry favour even with those who would at first recoil from its real meaning. The proceeding these quack doctors recommend does not control any birth. It only makes sure that there shall never be any birth to control. It cannot, for instance, determine sex, or even make any selection in the style of the pseudo-science of Eugenics. Normal people can only act so as to produce birth; and these people can only act so as to prevent birth. But these people know perfectly well that they dare not write the plain word Birth-Prevention, in any one of the hundred places where they write the hypocritical word Birth-Control. They know as well as I do that the very word Birth-Prevention would strike a chill into the public, the instant it was blazoned on headlines, or proclaimed on platforms, or scattered in advertisements like any other quack medicine. They dare not call it by its name, because its name is very bad advertising. Therefore they use a conventional and unmeaning word, which may make the quack medicine sound more innocuous.
Second, I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly thing. It is not even a step along the muddy road they call Eugenics; it is a flat refusal to take the first and most obvious step along the road of Eugenics. Once grant that their philosophy is right, and their course of action is obvious; and they dare not take it; they dare not even declare it. If there is no authority in things which Christendom has called moral, because their origins were mystical, then they are clearly free to ignore all difference between animals and men; and treat men as we treat animals. They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat. The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born and then let us drown those we do not like. I cannot see any objection to it; except the moral or mystical sort of objection that we advance against Birth-Prevention. And that would be real and even reasonable Eugenics; for we could then select the best, or at least the healthiest, and sacrifice what are called the unfit. By the weak compromise of Birth-Prevention, we are very probably sacrificing the fit and only producing the unfit. The births we prevent may be the births of the best and most beautiful children; those we allow, the weakest or worst. Indeed, it is probable; for the habit discourages the early parentage of young and vigorous people; and lets them put off the experience to later years, mostly from mercenary motives. Until I see a real pioneer and progressive leader coming out with a good, bold, scientific programme for drowning babies, I will not join the movement. – G K Chester, The Well and the Shallows
Always keep in mind that the people in favor of birth control – and, now, abortion – are in favor of evil, but are too cowardly to shout their evil. Except, until just recently. The “shout your abortion” people are getting to the point where they will boldly announce their support for infanticide. Remember that the most common charge leveled against witches in olden days was that they prevented the birth of children. Our modern witches are certainly in favor of that – and are only a step away from raising altars to Baal and burning children alive.
It is good, perhaps, that the liberals, starting with the disgusting “shout your abortion” movement, are taking the mask off. It is way past time that we understand that these people think of the human race as a pestilence. That they want fewer of us – or, more accurately, they want fewer of the sort of people they don’t like. You’ll never see them volunteer to off themselves to control population size. We now have a real chance to get people to understand what is really covered under the phrase “pro-choice”: an excellent bit of propaganda whereby a good-sounding phrase covers a monstrous action. But this is where it leads – this, indeed, is where the whole course of action since birth control first arose leads: to the destruction of human life. As Chesterton pointed out, what objection can you have against infanticide once you’ve asserted that there is no moral stricture against physically preventing people from getting pregnant? People laugh at the slippery slope. They laughed even a decade ago.
Anyone laughing, now? You see where this is going. You have no excuse to pretend you don’t know. It is either become Pro-Life, or participate in evil.