South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-08-12
THE QUESTION OF CHILDREN UP
ONCE MORE.

exception we herewith reproduce. !
says much that meets with
cur hearty appreciation Before |
we get through. perhaps. we
shall go MIN several better wei
will overlook the personal references. |
They are immaterial 10 the issue. save
TO bring forth the remark that per-
haps this writer knows quite as much
about motherhood as does his critic. |
being the husband, as ne is, of the
mother of his children; that too, in
sufficient numbers to justify his right
TO speak Our only other criticism, IN
reply. shall be- that IL Fr Carroll will
but read the editorial to which he OBJ
jects. over again, he may see in II a
defense of motherhood, as against a
rascally growing system Of Industrial
ism and militarism. that makes of
mother exactly the slave that she
should not be. and to which we most
strenuously object
II is all the outgrOwth of advice
given the wife OF a jobless man-with
no job in sight-and the mother al
ready OF a number Of children; this by
Col. Theodore Roosevelt, 10 the effect
that she should bear all the children
possible. never minding the economic
problem. and that in return for her
martyrdom, she would get along
somehow" This aroused the dignity
Of someone who thought differently,
whom We quoted. and then added to
il this comment:
Isn't the big-family gospel real
~ "A by-product Of militarism? If
''the state needs men" what does
10 need them for? The only pur-
pose for which mere numbers
count is warfare. Women in all
warIike countries have always
been urged to bear children as
their duty to the state"-sO that
the state might have plenty of
"cannon-fodder."
The modern idea preached with
sincerity and logic by women
leaders of the sex, is that human
life is a sacred thing" that life
should not be conferred lightly,
that every child born into the
world should have fair chance,
and that as long as the consmun-
ity as a whole does not guarantee
every child that fair chance,
parents should have no more chill
dren than they can provide for
decently and comfortably.
We quote ourselves thus that there
need be no misunderstanding as to
what FIR. Carroll is driving at, and we
beg to assure him that his criticism
is received in the friendliest of spirit,
reserving, of course. the right of self
defense. having said nothing. We be-
leve that modern conditions does not
Justify. And now, TO his letter, he
says:
Your editorial Children in
Shoals" is a coarse insult to every
good mother in South Bend. When
a woman is true TO her vocation
in welded life and gives birth 20
children as God intended, it
seems shameful to read of her
as bringing forth children I'm
shoals" Women of fashion.
whose mission is 10 spend and TO
enjoy, are the chief defenders of
the one child or childless home.
They clamOr about over-prOduc-
ton as If mothers were wooden
mills, and OF over population"
as II homes were stOck-farms. II
is another example OF fishing for
a scientific" reason to justify a
nastiness. Gods lowly poOr-the
mothers whose partners are in
the shops and factories-haVe
large families and God provides
for them. And neither you, sir,
nor all the deliberately Childless
married women whose cause YOU
seem To espOuse, will ever lessen
the respect which men every
where feel for those who bear the
burdens Of motherhood. The
world loves the sweet. simple
woman. who when married does
not follow the line of least re-
sistance. She may not be rich
enOugh-probabiy is MOTTO ride
in her own automobile, nor idle
enough 10 join Mothers clubs"
that make studies" of other peO-
pies children. y ct remember. si-,
that no paragraph that you can
write. nor any economic clap-trap
that indolept self-indulgent wOm-
en- can frame, viii ever cause the
good Of all the world TO love less
the mother OF the big family.
We stand with barred heads when
she passes
And he's right, 10 a degree But
We are not going TO write any such
paragraphs" as he presumes we viii.
and we never have. and neither are we
espousing the cause OF "childless
married women or "indolent self
indulgent women. This is the first
time we have been accused of late OF
espousing the cause OF the fashionable
smart set We are for the mothers.
and II FIR Carroll pleases. we propose
10 place the ballot in the hand of
those mothers ia the hope that she
will see 20 it that the slavery with
which man has enchained her IS
broken. and that her mission 10 bear
children.-not in servitude 20 her lord
and master "-man.-may be fulfilled
with some assurance against starva-
ton on the lannon's mouth for the
offspring.
These grand. good mothers OF the
world. have moral right 70 say
whether or not they raised their boys
10 be soldiers. and they ought to have
as much legal right 10 say IL, as has