Martinus: Livets Bog, vol. 4, sect. 1482

1482. It is, however, a "crime" to advertise "contraception" as a remedy for poverty. If the state, because of its imperfect administration of finances and the poverty that ensues from this, were indirectly to force the individuals to resort to "contraception", it would be against the law of neighbourly love and thereby an infringement of the law of life. Similarly it would be against the laws of Nature if beings who are not physically unfit to give birth or mentally unfit to bring up children or be their guardians, and who do not have any higher moral mission, resort to "contraception". If beings who are happily married, financially well off and physically and mentally suited to giving birth and creating a home, but who, for one or other egoistic, material reason such as the trouble or inconvenience connected with having children, or simply for reasons of economy, prevent fertilisation or pregnancy, this would naturally also be unloving towards one's neighbour, which here in this case means, the discarnate being who, if fertilisation and pregnancy had been allowed to take place, would have been their child. In such situations "contraception" would be an infringement of the basic law of life.
"Contraception" is thus not something that can be used by all parents or every time two people engage in sexual intercourse. It was created by the law of neighbourly love and is therefore to be used solely in the service of neighbourly love. Its use in any egoistic case would, however, be an infringement of the law of life. "Contraception" as well as "induced abortion" will always be a "crime" in situations where they cannot be said to be "necessary evils", they being the only things that can avert an absolutely "greater evil". And in this case a "greater evil" exists only in the situation where giving birth would mean certain death or mutilation for the mother concerned. Inducing "abortion" can thus be justified absolutely only in cases where it is done solely in order to save the mother's life, because, for organic or physical reasons, she is unable to give birth in the normal way. "Contraception", however, can be justified in all cases where, as Nature intended, it is solely a means of preventing the birth of children in situations where the parents cannot possibly guarantee to parent a child in a perfectly natural or normal way. Bringing a child into the world in a situation where its parents have absolutely no possibility of getting married or cannot in any other way create a protective life together around the child, and where they can live with this child as the object or focus of their common love and interest, would be the same as abandoning the little being to the discretion of complete strangers. It would be better to prevent "fertilisation" than, through one's sexual satisfaction, to bring a little discarnated being over onto the physical plane without being able to be its father or mother in the absolute sense, or to be the child's physical guardian angels appointed by Nature. If one does not have the prerequisites for being able to carry out this duty, which is absolutely inseparable from fertilisation, it would be a lesser "evil" to prevent "fertilisation" than not to do so.