OCR Interpretation


The day book. (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917, December 14, 1914, LAST EDITION, Image 11

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1914-12-14/ed-1/seq-11/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

gi"t!, mm g'unmifflm(pnp
n Kmwmmwmwimj
wwMKmw,w "!
trip to Europe and salary thrown in,
to help out in the work during the
cruel winter ahead of them .
There is no question but that the
visiting nurse is one of the useful
among the charity group. She has it
in her power to do an immense
amount of good; and she usually
does it.
Visiting nursing is the most worthy
charity that the general public ig
called upon to support, but it should
support it intelligently and critically
and not allow a criminal waste of its
funds to go on. Mrs. Wm. P. Bos
senberger, Williams, la. ,
BOOZE ADS
Editor Day Book Extra!! Found
another liquor "ad" in our true anti
liquor paper, the Chicago American.
You will find it on page 19 of Dec.
12, 1914. I am a constant reader of
your Day Book and am more than
pleased to see some people waking
up to the facts, what paper to read,
when true and no hidden articles can
be found, and that's the good, honest
Day Book. Hoping you will remind
our dear readers of this "ad" and
then tell them to read the ads of
that true and honest (supposed to
be) Chicago Evening American.
Hans A. Jahn, 3830 N. Whipple st
A READER REPLIES
Editor Day Book I wish to say a
word in reply to the article in The
Day Book of Dec. 3, headed, "So
called Charity Questions a Woman's
Right to Have Babies."
The case presented was indeed pa
thetic and its treatment by the Jew
ish Charities most deprecatory.
Most of us who have come in touch
with charity organizations as at pres
ent conducted are very certain that
they are demoralizing to both the
giver and recipient They act as an
opiate on both, soothing the - con
science and deadening- the sense of
justice of the former and destroying
thought and independence in the
latter, keeping bothhhndfolded to the
1 real issue of creating a social condir
tion which will not degrade men,
women and children, as our present
system does.
But on one issue I differ from the
writer. I think the questions Miss
Frank and Miss Brackenstein put to
Mrs. Goodman were most pertinent.
"Why do you have babies? What"
right have you to have babies?"
Mrs. Goodman is a nervous wreck
Mr. Goodman a victim of tubercu
losis a helpless father and mother
and four helpless children, supported
by others, and a fifth baby expected!
111 admit the injustice of their
having to depend on others when all
they ask is the chance to work. The
strongest indictment of such a con
dition will have my support, but this
is a situation they find themselves
in, a situation that has not come
upon them suddenly.
Handicapped by hideous poverty,
disease, indescribable misery and
wretchedness, they expect another
Lbaby! They knowingly accept this
heritabe for their child, before and
after birth. Poor little innocent.vic
tim! To me this seems nothing short
of a crime and I too say to Mrs. Good
man: "What right have you to have
this baby?"
I believe in a child's inalienable
right to be well born. I believe that
women must take the stand of re
fusing to bear children except un
der the most favorable conditions
that 20th century civilization can
create.
Many modern women are doing
this. In spite of criticism and con
demnation they are freeing them
selves of the old social and religious
dogmas that made women virtually
slaves. These dogmas have mili
tated against an intelligent and vol
untary motherhood.
Intelligent and voluntary mother
hood does it not seem that in this
age it should be granted as one of
the great fundamentals?
Alas we are not yet intelligent'
I enough as a community to demand
mrnHt JMWM:Wr AvM
HBaaaal

xml | txt