NASCITE, CONTROLLO (Birth-Control) of. — A form of voluntary or coercive regulation that seeks to subordinate the procreation of individuals to social, hygienic, economic, and racial requirements.
Birth control, regardless of the reasons that may motivate it, is not in itself reprehensible, as though it constituted an evasion of the divine command: Crescite et multiplicamini (Gen. 1:28); for this command, even if it was a true precept of natural law or of positive divine law at the origin of humanity and so long as the human race had not achieved an adequate propagation throughout the earth, subsequently lost its individual obligatory force, remaining only as a general precept directed to the community and not to the individual; as is clearly demonstrated by the same divine invitation to absolute chastity (Mt. 19:10 ff.; I Cor. 7) and by the particular esteem in which celibacy (v.), which has even been made obligatory for particular categories of persons. The morality of birth control must therefore not be considered in an absolute sense, but rather in relation to the intention and the means employed.
Historically, the biblical Onan (Gen. 38:9) may be regarded as the progenitor of the limitationists; Aristotle likewise appears to have been the first to want to plan birth control, with his limitationist concerns. But the true theorists of birth control are economists of much more recent periods, whether one wishes to go back to Giammaria Ortes (Riflesioni sulla popolazione, Venice 1700), Adam Smith (An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of Nations, completed for publication in 1770), MALTHUS, THOMAS ROBERT (v.) for the first organized plan of concerns and methods of birth control. The limitationist movement gained new impetus and a different direction in its methods with Francis Place and his book (Diabolical hand bill: Illustrations and proofs of the principle of population (Manchester 1822–1823), thereby initiating the neo-Malthusian movement.
The reasons advanced in justification of birth control are various:
1. Demographic motivation. — MALTHUS, THOMAS ROBERT (v.) emphasized that the relationship between “number of men—means of subsistence” appears seriously disproportionate, because while the second element grows in arithmetical proportion, the first grows at the same time in geometrical progression. Today no one any longer accepts such a schematic formulation of the relationship; nevertheless, present-day limitationists remain, albeit in general terms, attached to the Malthusian concern over the saturation of the world by humanity (W. Vost, A. P. Chew, F. Obsborn, R. Wietzsch). But the data supplied by statistics show that from 1800 onward the increase in population has not followed Malthus’s law at all, and has not even increased by 1%. In addition to repressive means (war, pestilence, birth control), other causes must therefore be acknowledged that retard the upward curve of population growth. Thus, even while admitting a gradual increase in the population of the globe, one may conclude that the progression is not such as to culminate in the near future in the tragic conclusion predicted by Malthus and his disciples.
2. Economic motivation. — The other question raised by Malthus and his followers concerns the insufficiency and exhaustion of the means of subsistence provided by the world; but this postulate, too, does not hold. Even taking into account only the present possibilities for exploiting the earth’s resources, one may conclude that the earth is already capable of supporting from 8 (Penck) to 13.3 (Hollstein) to 22.4 (Ballod) billion people, depending on the standard of living adopted as the basis. Moreover, if one considers the difference between the methods of exploiting the earth’s resources today and even only 100 years ago, one must conclude that it is erroneous to measure the earth’s future subsistence potential by the standard of past and present expenditures. Indeed, there has been a continuous increase in the percentage of land devoted to cultivation, together with advances in mechanical means and in methods for exploiting the sea and the subsoil.
Although these conclusions appear negative for a Malthusian worldwide formulation of the balance between “demographic development—means of subsistence,” one must acknowledge, on the other hand, that in reality a clear and often very serious imbalance currently exists in the aforementioned relationship in certain areas (the so-called “depressed” areas), whether national, regional, or pertaining to social classes or family groups. Such a state of affairs is generally connected with an inequitable distribution of wealth; with a lack of goodwill, particularly at the international level, whereby barriers of particular interests are maintained against the free movement of people from more densely populated areas to more sparsely populated ones, and against the free flow of the earth’s goods from better-endowed areas to poorer ones, while the exchange of assistance and technical means between peoples that have achieved greater perfection in methods of exploitation and those more backward remains obstructed and slow.
3. Racial and national motivation. — Peoples who are infatuated with their real or supposed superiority, or who occupy a privileged position in the world, are inclined to impose birth control upon peoples regarded as racially inferior, or as more prolific or hungry, particularly when they have been defeated in their attempts to expand by occupying the territories of others that are less populated and economically more promising.
4. Eugenic motivation. — Birth control has a eugenic motivation when it seeks to eliminate hereditary morbid defects or attempts, over the course of several generations, to eradicate defective lineages through a selection of pairings. Apart from the immorality of such a procedure, it is scientifically unfounded, fallacious, and ineffective in practical application (v. EUGENICA).
5. Hygienic motivation. — Hygienic and medical motivation assumes particular importance, especially for individuals. The succession, for the mother, almost without interruption throughout her sexual maturity, of pregnancies, births, and periods of breastfeeding, although it may be compatible with excellent health and indeed, as experience teaches, may in particular cases become a means of physical flourishing and excellent psychological balance, can damage her health or even bring upon her the threat of death from obstetric causes or illnesses occurring before or during pregnancy (v. ABORTO). Moreover, numerous offspring require that they be watched over, cared for, and supervised, particularly by the mother during the years of infancy and childhood; this often does not happen under our present social conditions in certain large families among the people, in which the parents are occupied with outside work and the mother cannot afford the luxury of someone to help her, where the home is inadequate and inhospitable, and the street serves as the children’s continual training ground. This condition, however, is largely determined by other problems of a social nature, particularly by the selfishness of those who possess more and oppose a more equitable distribution of goods, and it represents a very grave responsibility of present-day society; therefore, rightly, remedies should bear upon this latter element. Thus, although there are no compelling causes that inevitably drive people toward birth control, justifying causes may be admitted in particular cases.
Ma qui sorge il problema del valore morale dei mezzi proposti per il c. delle n. Questi si possono dividere in due gruppi: a) mezzi che di per sé attentano alla vita dell'individuo (aborto ed uccisione del neonato) o viziano intrinsecamente l'essenza dell'atto coniugale (interruzione dell'atto, antifecondativi chimici o meccanici, sterilizzazione), proposti e propagati dai neomalthusianisti. Questi mezzi sono illeciti (v. NEO-MALTHUSIANESIMO). b) Mezzi che sono rappresentati dalla prima astensione dell'atto coniugale per sempre (continenza assoluta) o per un tempo determinato (continenza temporanea) o soltanto periodicamente nelle presunte epoche di fecondibilità, secondo il metodo Ogino-Knaus. Questi mezzi, quando sono accompagnati da « motivi morali sufficienti e sicuri, rendono lecita una regolazione della prole » (Pio XII, Discorso alle ostetriche del 29 ott. 1951, in Civ. Catt., 1951, IV, p. 53 sgg. e ai partecipanti al Convegno del « Fronte della Famiglia » del 25 nov. 1951, ibid., p. 693 sg.).
Altra forma di c. delle n. si ha quando questo è imposto dall'autorità. Questa forma è sempre illecita, perché lesiva degli attributi della persona umana; nessuna autorità, infatti, può privare l'uomo dei suoi diritti naturali, nel caso particolare del diritto potenziale alla procreazione, qualunque mezzo venga usato e qualsiasi motivo venga addotto.
demografica italiana, ibid., pp. 60-75; M. Berri, Un piano per il c. delle n. in Inghilterra, in Orizzonte medico, 6 (1951), 9-10; La scuola cattolica, 79 (1951), pp. 283-373. Giuseppe De Ninnio