QUESTIONS CONCERNING OFFSPRING.
It is natural that parents should long for children, and it is only
proper that those who are barren should seek by all judicious and proper
means to secure fruitfulness. But we are sorry to say that there is a
widely prevalent and unnatural desire upon the part of many wives, and
sometimes of their husbands also, to evade conception. This desire
oftentimes leads these unnatural parents to seek the destruction of
unborn human life. If the testimony of medical authority upon this
subject is to be believed, this mania for child-murder is verily the
"terror that walketh in darkness and the destruction that wasteth at
noonday."
It is the duty of parents to protect the lives of their children, and
the mother who desires or even consents to the murder of the infant in
the cradle where God has placed it preparatory to its birth is as truly
a murderer as when she strangles or stabs or poisons her infant in the
cradle in which she has placed it after it is born. That the law
recognizes the gravity of this crime is manifest by the fact that in
nearly all the States of the Union this crime is regarded as murder, and
punished accordingly. In some States, if the mother is proven guilty,
the penalty is death, and in nearly all the States all who participate,
have knowledge of, or assist, directly or indirectly, in producing such
a result, are punished with imprisonment ranging from five to twenty
years.
It has been supposed by some that where the beginnings of life are
destroyed before the period of quickening, no crime is committed. This
is a great mistake. From the moment that the spermatozoAśn penetrates the
ovum and unites with it, life is present, and the destruction of that
life is murder. The proposition is a very simple one. The only condition
upon which the ovum may remain in the womb is by possessing life. As
soon as it becomes dead it is rejected and cast out. If impregnated,
while life continues in it, during its period of development, if nature
is not interfered with, it is retained and nourished because it has
life. The facts are simple enough: the germ is either dead or alive. If
dead, nature casts it out; if alive, nature retains it. If nature
retains it, and it is destroyed or removed by artificial means, the
person or persons who produce such a result are guilty of murder.
There is no middle ground in this matter. Dr. H. S. Pomeroy, in his
excellent book entitled "Ethics of Marriage," aptly says: "She who
obtains a miscarriage at the earlier months of pregnancy feels
comparatively virtuous because she draws the line at 'quickening.' This
is moral jugglery and ethical hair-splitting; what evidence is there of
soul at five months which may not be found at four? True, the unborn
child of the latter age does not appear to move its legs and arms, while
the other usually does. Is the spirit situated in the extremities, or is
the movement of a muscle evidence of a soul? Considered from the low
plane of physical life only, what reason is there for the distinction?
There has been _life_ from the first; there is no _independent life_
until birth. It is reasonable to suppose that the Creator, who has been
steadily at work for four months and fifteen days on one of the most
delicate and complicated pieces in his whole laboratory, and has made no
mistake thus far--the work being absolutely perfect as far as
carried--considers it of little or no consequence to-day, but of the
utmost importance and value when it shall have been in his hands a few
hours longer!"
Dr. Napheys, in "Physical Life of Woman," says: "_From the moment of
conception_ a new life commences; a new individual exists; another child
is added to the family. The mother who deliberately sets about to
destroy this life, either by want of care, or by taking drugs, or using
instruments, commits as great a crime, is just as guilty, as if she
strangled her newborn infant, or as if she snatched from her own breast
her six months darling and dashed out its brains against the wall. The
blood is upon her head, and as surely as there is a God and a judgment
that blood will be required of her. The crime she commits is _murder_,
_child-murder_--the slaughter of a speechless, helpless being, whom it
is her duty, beyond all things else, to cherish and preserve."
There is no division of opinion upon this subject. The world may hold up
its hands in holy horror at the crime of Herod, but his crime is being
perpetrated to-day in thousands of homes by "the slaughter of the
innocents" at the hands of their own mothers. Dr. Pomeroy says: "We meet
in our practice women who would hesitate to harm a fly, but who admit to
having destroyed a half dozen or more of their unborn children, speaking
of it as they would of the drowning of superfluous kittens." How are
these thoughtless mother-murderesses to confront the souls of their
unborn children on the day of Judgment? What of the declaration of
Scripture, "Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him"?
While this passage of Scripture does not say that even a murderer may
not be saved, yet it does say that one who commits murder is unsaved,
and that salvation is not possible to him or her until they have
sincerely repented.
The results of abortion are not only future and spiritual, but they are
present, and affect serious temporal and physical results. Dr. Napheys
says: "If they have no feeling for the fruit of their womb, if maternal
sentiment is so calloused in their breasts, let them know that such
produced abortions are the constant cause of violent and dangerous womb
diseases, and frequently of early death; that they bring on mental
weakness and often insanity; that they are the most certain means to
destroy domestic happiness which can be adopted. Better, far better,
bear a child every year for twenty years than to resort to such a wicked
and injurious step; better to die, if need be, in the pangs of
childbirth than to live with such a weight of sin on the conscience."
There can be no question but that many women are rendered incurable
invalids by the violence which they do to nature by interrupting its
work, destroying the growing life, and causing its expulsion in an
unnatural way. Dr. Pomeroy aptly says: "Go into the orchard where there
are ripe apples and others but half grown; try to pluck one of the
latter; you pull, but it does not come; you twist this way and that way,
and finally you secure a bruised apple with a torn and mutilated stem,
and you leave behind a branch which bears unmistakable evidence of a
violent and unnatural act. Turn now to the apples that are fully ripe;
you put out your hand to take one, and as you touch it it falls gently
and willingly into your open palm. If you now examine the stem and the
branch from which it came you find no marks of violence; on the
contrary, both will clearly show that nature had prepared for the
separation.
"The two great dangers of childbearing are hemorrhage and fever; the
first is caused directly and the second often indirectly by one and the
same thing--the failure of the torn blood-vessel to close properly at
the time of separation between mother and child. By the time the fruit
is fully ripe Nature has so well arranged for this matter that the
danger is small, but at an earlier period it is very considerable."
This attempt upon the part of parents to interfere with the order of
nature has not only its terrible physical results for those who seek its
perpetration, but it heaps upon the helpless unborn child terrible
consequences from which it is powerless to escape. The attempt to
destroy life is oftentimes a double failure. In spite of their murderous
efforts, children are oftentimes born to such parents under
circumstances which entail the most terrible and lifelong penalties.
Children that might have been lovable in temper, companionable in
disposition, healthy and happy, are born nervous, fretful and
ill-tempered; and, because they were unwanted before they were born, the
mother inflicts upon them a disposition which causes her ever after to
wish they never had been born.
Something of what this result is will appear from a paragraph taken from
an account by Helen H. Thomas, in "The Mothers' Journal," entitled
"Unwanted," in which she thus narrates a visit to a friend:
"I found my friend half sick, and extremely nervous from lack of sleep,
caused by her crying baby.
"But the child looked well, and the young mother assured me that it was
constitutionally restless and out of sorts. She also said that she had
lost more sleep since his advent--five months previous--than with all
her other children--there are three of them--combined.
"After I had queried and wondered as to the why of it, for a time, the
mother, with tears in her eyes, looked down at the little upturned face
of the one cradled in her arms, and said:
"'It is all mother's fault, darling! She felt that her hands and heart
were so full she had no room for you.' And then, looking me full in the
face, she added, remorsefully: He is my only unwanted child! And so the
dear little innocent suffers continually for my rebellious spirit prior
to his birth. He seems restless and unhappy all the time; not at all
like my other babies, who found a welcome awaiting them; and I realize
now the mistake I made, in rebelling as I did, during those wearisome
months, which I had planned so full of things which had to be put aside;
and I am being punished for it, too. But I did not dream that by so
doing I should bring suffering on my unborn child, as well as on
myself."
Terrible as this picture may be, there is another thought which is still
more terrible. When we remember that the mental condition of the mother
during the period of gestation stamps itself upon the character of the
child, what must be the character of a child who is born of a
murderess--one who has either desired, planned for, or possibly
undertaken and failed in the effort to murder her unborn child? How many
of the murderers of to-day have inherited from their own mothers the
predisposition to destroy human life? There is but little doubt that if
the veil could be thrown off and the influence disclosed which molded
the character and shaped the destiny of many of the children who are
arraigned in the courts for the awful crime of murder, who seem
possessed of an otherwise unaccountable predisposition to destroy human
life, the terrible revelation would be made that during the period while
their body was being formed and bent was being given to their character,
prior to their birth, their mother was contemplating murder, and
imparted this disposition to her own offspring.
Such thoughts not only mold the character of the unborn child, but they
also affect the character of the parents themselves. The crime of
child-murder must haunt them, and even if they do not suffer from the
lashings of conscience, the moral character suffers irreparable damage.
But few persons are aware of the grave dangers which threaten health,
and even life, when an abortion is performed. They are apt to think that
it occasions only temporary inconvenience, from which they may recover
in a few days, but all this is a very grave mistake.
Where accidental or unintentional miscarriage occurs, it is important
both for the wife and for the husband to know that quite as much care
needs to be exercised, and oftentimes for even as long a period, as for
convalescence after confinement. A period of strict separation between
husband and wife should be observed for a period of from six weeks to
three months, according to circumstances. A failure to observe these
necessities often results in serious and sometimes permanent disability
upon the part of the wife.
The influences which prepare and pave the way in the minds of young
women for the awful crime of child-murder are not difficult to find. One
writer says: "The real beginning is in early life, when young people are
taught, directly or by implication, that reproduction is a matter
concerning which speech is indelicate, of which it is proper, even, to
feel ashamed; as they grow older, and the period of marriage draws near,
they learn to look upon parenthood as a responsibility and a burden
which they may properly avoid if possible."
Parents are to blame for the total absence, during the education of
their daughters, of proper instruction upon this subject. In the schools
for the education of young women the course of study which has been
especially arranged for the intellectual training and equipment of young
men has been followed without being adapted to the special necessities
of intelligent young women. They are taught many things which may serve
a good purpose in securing mental discipline, but which are in every
other respect impracticable, and, so far as the great purposes of their
life are concerned, wholly useless. All the subjects which are best
calculated to fit them for their intended position of wife and mother
are studiously avoided; they are kept in profound ignorance on all
subjects of special physiology, and the question of maternity dare not
so much as be mentioned by the professors in the class-room. What adds
to this condition is the sad fact that parents do not supplement by
personal instruction this lack of teaching in the school. Hundreds of
young women are married who are so stupid as never to have asked where
children come from, have no idea of the marital relation and the
legitimate purpose for which God instituted the relation. When
conception takes place, they do not know how to take care of themselves
or prepare for the event which could be robbed of its terrors by
intelligence. The birth of their first child is attended with such
anguish and agony that forever after the marital relation becomes to
them one of great dread, and to escape the condition which is so full of
terror to them they resort to the destruction of unborn human life.
To correct this great wrong, the first and most essential step is the
widespread dissemination of intelligence upon this subject. Marriage
needs to be lifted into the light of a sacred and divine institution.
The tenderest and most sacred relations of human life need to be
preserved in their purity, so that pure-minded parents may speak of
these relations without shame and blushing. Young women of mature years
should be made familiar with the physiological conditions which attend
conception and maternity, and they need to know that from the moment of
conception life exists in the embryo, and that from the moment the
spermatozoAśn enters and assimilates with the ovum a separate individual
life is really begun, and that she is, at that very moment, the mother
of this life within her as truly as when, in the later months, she feels
the quickening within her, or after its birth experiences the joy of a
mother who clasps her newborn infant in her arms.
But the crime of abortion does not rest wholly with the mothers. A large
part of the guilt also belongs to the fathers. We may warn the wives
against the terrible sin and awful physical consequences of abortion,
but so long as husbands are unwilling to govern their passions, or to
regulate their marital relations in harmony with the teachings of
Scripture, but insist upon unlimited self-indulgence, the evils cannot
be wholly corrected. Husbands need to be taught to look at the question
from the wife's standpoint. The wrong is not all upon one side.
In a meeting of women only, after an address by a physician upon these
subjects, a woman rose and said substantially as follows: "After I was
married two years I became the mother of a puny, sickly baby. It
required incessant care and watching to keep it alive. When it was only
seven months old, to my surprise, astonishment and horror, I felt
quickening, and for the first time I knew I was pregnant again. I was
abased, humiliated! The sense of degradation that filled my soul cannot
be described. What had been done? The babe that was born and the babe
that was unborn were both to be robbed of their just inheritance. In
tears and shame I told my mother, but she said: 'My child, why should
you grieve and go on as you do? Don't you know that your children are
legitimate?' My whole being rose in rebellion. I stamped my foot and
almost screamed: 'Although my husband is the father of my children, they
are not legitimate. No man-made laws, no priestly rites, can make an act
legitimate that deprives innocent children of their right to life and
health.' And then, with sobs and moans, reaction came, and I fainted in
my mother's arms. What was the sequel? Two years later both of these
children, after a brief existence, were lying side by side in the city
of the dead, and until my husband and I learned the great laws which God
has written deep in our being, we were not able to have children that
could live."
The following somewhat lengthy but impressive quotation is from
"Chastity," by Doctor Dio Lewis:
"Before we married I informed my husband of my dread of having children.
I told him I was not prepared to meet the sufferings and
responsibilities of maternity. He entered into an arrangement to prevent
it for a specified time. This agreement was disregarded. After the legal
form was over, and he felt he could now indulge his passion without loss
of reputation and under legal and religious sanctions, he insisted on
the surrender of my person to his will. He violated the promise at the
beginning of our united life. That fatal bridal night! It has left a
cloud on my soul and on my home that can never pass away on earth. I can
never forget it. It sealed the doom of our union as it has done of
thousands.
"He was in feeble health; so was I; and both of us mentally depressed.
But the sickly germ was implanted, and conception took place. We were
poor and destitute, having made no preparations for a home, ourselves
and child. I was a stricken woman. In September following we came
to----, and settled in a new country. In the March following, my child,
developed under a heart throbbing with dread and anguish at the thought
of its existence, was born. After three months' struggle I became
reconciled to my first unwelcome child. But the impress of my impatience
and hostility to its existence previous to its birth was on my child,
never to be effaced, and to this hour that child is the victim or an
undesired maternity.
"In one year I found I was to be again a mother. I was in a state of
frightful despair. My first-born was sickly and very troublesome (how
could it be otherwise?) needing constant care and nursing. My husband
chopped wood for our support. Of the injustice of bringing children into
the world to struggle with poverty and misery I was then as sensible as
now. I was in despair. I felt that death would be preferable to
maternity under such circumstances. A desire and a determination to get
rid of my child entered into my heart. I consulted a lady friend, and
by her persuasion and assistance killed it. Within less than a year
maternity was again imposed upon me, with no better prospect of doing
justice to my child. It was a most painful conviction to me; I felt that
I could not have another child at that time. All seemed dark as death. I
had begged and prayed to be spared this trial again until I was prepared
to accept it joyfully; but my husband insisted upon his gratification,
without regard to my wishes and condition.
"I consulted a physician, and told him of my unhappy state of mind and
my aversion to having another child for the present. He was ready with
his logic, his medicines and instruments, and told me how to destroy it.
After experimenting on myself three months, I was successful. I killed
my child about five months after conception.
"A few months after this, maternity was again forced upon me, to my
grief and anguish. I determined again on my child's destruction; but my
courage failed as I came to the practical deed. My health and life were
in jeopardy. For my living child's sake I wished to live. I made up my
mind to do the best I could for my unborn babe, whose existence seemed
so unnatural and repulsive. I knew its young life would be deeply and
lastingly affected by my mental and physical condition. I became, in a
measure, reconciled to my dark fate, and was as resigned and happy as I
could be under the circumstances. I had just such a child as I had
every reason to expect. I could do no justice to it. How could I?
"Soon after the birth of my child my husband insisted on his accustomed
injustice. Without any wish of my own, maternity was again forced upon
me. I dared not attempt to get rid of the child--abortion seemed so
cruel, so inhuman, unnatural and repulsive. I resolved again, for my
child's sake, to do the best I could for it. Though I could not joyfully
welcome, I resolved quietly to endure its existence.
"After the birth of this child I felt that I could have no more to share
our poverty and to suffer the wrongs and trials of an unwelcome
existence. I felt that I would rather die at once, and thus end my life
and my power to be a mother together. My husband cast the entire care of
the family on me. I had scarcely one hour to devote to my children. My
husband still insisted on his gratification. I was the veriest slave
alive. Life had lost its charms. The grave seemed my only refuge and
death my only friend.
"In this state, known as it was to my husband, he thrust maternity upon
me twice. I employed a doctor to kill my child, and in the destruction
of it, in what should have been the vigor of my life, ended my power to
be a mother. I was shorn of the brightest jewel of my womanhood. I
suffered as woman alone can suffer, not only in body, but in bitter
remorse and anguish of soul.
"All this I passed through under the terrible, withering consciousness
that it was all done and suffered solely that the passion of my husband
might have a momentary indulgence. Yet such had been my false religious
and social education that, in submitting my person to his passion, I did
it in the honest conviction that in marriage my body became the property
of my husband. He said so. All women to whom I applied for counsel said
it was my duty to submit, that husbands expected it, had a right to it,
and must have this indulgence whenever they were excited, or suffer, and
that in this way alone could wives retain the love of their husbands. I
had no alternative but silent, suffering submission to his passion, and
then procure abortion or leave him, and thus resign my children to the
tender mercies of one with whom it seemed I could not live myself.
Abortion was most repulsive to every feeling of my nature, and at times
rendered me an object of loathing to myself.
"When my first-born was three months old I had a desperate struggle for
personal liberty. My husband insisted on his right to subject my person
to his passion before my babe was two months old. I saw his conduct then
in all its degrading and loathing injustice. I pleaded with tears and
anguish, for my own and my child's sake, to be spared; and had it not
been for my helpless child, I should have ended the struggle by bolting
my legal bonds. For its sake I submitted to that outrage and my own
conscious degradation. For its sake I concluded to take my chance in the
world with other wives and mothers who, as they assured me, and as I
then knew, were all around me, subjected to like outrages, and driven to
the degrading practice of abortion. But even then I saw and argued the
justice of my personal rights in regard to maternity and the relation
that leads to it, as strongly as you do now. I saw it all as clearly as
you do. I was then, amid all the degrading influences that crushed me,
true and just to my womanly intuitions. I insisted on my right to say
when and under what circumstances I would accept of him the office of
maternity and become the mother of his child. I insisted that it was for
me to say when and how often I should subject myself to the liability of
becoming a mother. But he became angry with me, claimed ownership over
me, insisted that I, as a wife, was to submit to my husband '_in all
things_,' threatened to leave me and my children, and declared I was not
fit to be a wife. Fearing some fatal consequences to my child or to
myself--being alone, destitute and far from helpful friends, in the far
West, and fearing that my little one would be left to want--I stifled
all expression of my honest convictions, and ever after kept my aversion
and painful struggles in my own bosom. In every respect, as far as
passional relations between myself and my husband are concerned, I have
ever felt myself to be a miserable and abject woman. I now see and feel
it most deeply and painfully. If I was with a child in my arms, I was
in constant dread of all personal contact with my husband lest I should
have a new maternity thrust upon me, and be obliged to wean one child
before its time to give place to another. In my misery I have often
cried out, 'O, God! is there no way out of this loathsome bondage?'
"It was not want of kindly feelings toward my husband that induced this
state of mind, for I could and did endure every privation and want
without an unkindly feeling or word, and even cheerfully for his sake.
But every feeling of my soul did then, does now and ever must protest
against the cruel and loathsome injustice of husbands toward their
wives, manifested in imposing on them a maternity uncalled for by their
own nature and most repulsive to it, and whose sufferings and
responsibilities they are unprepared and unwilling to meet."
While we would not for a moment sanction the crime which this mother
perpetrated, yet we are not prepared to say that she was the sole author
of the crime. Every thoughtful man must admit that her husband was
unreasonable, unwilling to govern his passion, cruel and unjust to his
wife, and in his beastliness measurably drove her to the commission of
the awful crime of which she was guilty.
The proper relation of husband and wife to the question of parenthood
can never be properly and satisfactorily adjusted so long as either of
these parties occupy extreme positions upon this question. It is
absolutely wrong for the wife to take the position that she is to be
wholly delivered from maternity and the care of children, and it is
equally wrong for the husband to assume that the wife is created for no
other purpose than to bear children in as rapid succession as nature
renders conception possible. Upon the one hand it is the duty of the
wife to arrange her thought and life with reference to maternity and the
bearing of such a number of children as can be brought into the world in
the highest state of physical, intellectual and moral equipment. Upon
the other hand, the husband is to regard himself under obligation to
practice such personal self-control and to bear such disadvantages as
are incident to the greatest fidelity of the wife in her duties while
the body and character of her child are being formed within her, and
while it is being nursed, nurtured and cared for after its birth.
It is the grossest of insults not only to woman, but to her Maker, to
assert that woman was created solely for reproduction. It is proper for
a man in the discharge of certain duties and in the attainment of
certain laudable ends to decline to marry and resolve to maintain a pure
and celibate life throughout his entire existence; and it is equally
right, and even commendable, for a woman with similar purposes and aims
to decline marriage in order that she may devote herself with greater
efficiency and success to some effort to elevate and bless mankind, if
those ends could not be successfully accomplished in connection with the
proper discharge of her duties as wife and mother. But when men and
women do marry, they greatly mistake the object of this divine
institution if they suppose that it was instituted solely for the
purpose of producing the largest possible number of children--if they
make _quantity_ rather than _quality_ the great purpose. Marriage was
instituted for the highest good of the parents; it was instituted for
the attainment of their best health and the largest intellectual and
moral equipment. Their lives are to be shaped for the acquisition of the
largest and best attainments. Unless they attain the best physical,
intellectual and moral developments they cannot transmit these valuable
qualities to their children. The children cannot inherit from the
parents what the parents do not possess. Parents should seek to raise
up, not the largest possible number, without regard to whether they are
good, bad or indifferent; but there is no objection to their raising up
the largest number consistent with the best possible equipment. One man
is worth an innumerable number of monkeys, and we should seek to raise
up not an innumerable horde of inferior beings, but only so large a
number as is consistent with a sincere purpose not to evade the
responsibilities and duties of parenthood, and with an earnest effort to
raise up a race of superior men and women. There should be no consenting
to deterioration, but a sincere desire and effort for the raising up of
a new generation that shall be an advance upon all the generations that
have preceded.
By what we have said it will be manifest that there is a culpable and
criminal limitation of offspring; and there is also a reasonable and
right regulation of the marital relation and a limiting of offspring--a
designed and deliberate purpose to be self-contained with a view to
intelligent, purposed parenthood.
There are times when it is positively wrong to beget and bring forth
children. This is the case when there is such physical debility upon
either the part of the husband or the wife as would render them
incapable of transmitting or bearing healthy children; when,
overburdened or broken down by excessive childbearing, nothing but puny,
sickly, short-lived offspring could reasonably be expected; when the
children are coming so rapidly that they interfere with each others'
nutrition and imperil the mother's health, or when the mother is
naturally so constituted that childbearing imperils her life. These, and
other equally weighty reasons, are a sufficient justification for a
careful study of duty and obligation in the matter of self-government,
and the limitation, or even restriction, of childbearing by right and
proper methods.
It is important, however, to say that married persons should never
decide against childbearing, or even in favor of a very restricted
parenthood, without the gravest considerations; nor is their own thought
in the matter always sufficient to arrive at a wise and righteous
conclusion. Their own judgment should always be supplemented by the
counsel and advice of a well-qualified and thoroughly conscientious
Christian physician. Where difficulties do exist, a conscientious
consideration of them may often enable the parties to remove every
barrier and secure the most blessed and gratifying results.
What we have intimated is aptly illustrated in the following instance
given by Dr. Pomeroy in "The Ethics of Marriage": "A 'love match'
resulted in the union of two persons who were of nervous temperament and
poor physique, many 'incompatibilities,' and small means. Beside this,
the wife was suffering from a difficulty which made maternity
undesirable and well-nigh impossible. Under the circumstances, they
questioned whether indefinite postponement of parenthood were not
proper, and, in fact, clearly indicated. They considered the matter
carefully, took the benefit of medical advice, and finally decided that
their only honorable and safe course would be that they should have a
family of healthy children as its objective point. The wife was placed
under medical treatment, and in the course of a few months was in
physical condition safely to undertake maternity.
"Recognizing their limitations and disadvantages from the outset, the
pair determined to make every possible effort to give their children as
good a birth as might be, under the circumstances. Each tried to
cultivate health and strength of mind and body; the laws of heredity
were studied; conscientious care was taken that the mother might have
bright and cheery objects about her and loving thoughts in her mind
during the period when each child gained all its influence from the
outside world through her. Each child was also, during this period, a
subject of prayer, that the Holy Spirit might enter into its developing
life and cause it to be so generated that the afterwork of regeneration
might, if possible, follow as the day follows the dawn.
"It would be too much to say that this course would in every case be
followed by results as marked as were those of this instance; but in
this family the children have proved to be, if not all that could be
desired, at least much better than would have been expected in the
ordinary course of events.
"They were symmetrical, sound in body, equable in temperament, and
affectionate towards the parents and each other. They have never been
more than half the trouble and care that children ordinarily are,
although possessed of high spirit and a keen sense of justice. What may
develop as they arrive at maturity no one can tell, but it is certain
that they now bear the impress of prenatal love and care, and a good
birth. This cost the parents some effort and self-denial, but they have
been repaid fourfold in the ease with which the nursery has been
managed; moreover, little differences of taste and opinion were laid on
the altar of sacrifice to the interests of the children who should be
born to them, and each, as it joined in the family circle, brought new
degrees of harmony and joy.
"I have repeatedly heard the father of that family declare that he had
no reason to believe himself a dollar poorer than he would have been if
no children had come to claim his care. Just what might have been in
that case it is impossible to tell, but it is certain that many a
childless marriage which began under apparently happier auspices than
this one ended in misery and divorce."
But the question arises, where it is found necessary to limit the number
of offspring, How shall it be properly done? There are those who seem to
think that medical science has some way by which to grant unrestricted
sexual indulgence and yet avoid the results which nature intended. Dr.
Pomeroy says: "It is surprising to what an extent the laity believe that
medical science knows how to control the birthrate. Just here let me say
that I know of but one prescription which is both safe and sure, namely,
_that the sexes shall remain apart_. So thoroughly do I believe this to
be a secret which nature has kept to herself, that I should be inclined
to question the ability or the honesty of any one professing to
understand it so as to be able safely and surely to regulate the matter
of reproduction for those living in wedlock."
Because of the moral issues, physical consequences and terrible results
which cluster about this question--one of the most delicate with which
we have to deal--we have made a most careful examination of this entire
subject. We have read a great deal more than has been pleasant to our
contemplation, but we have been compelled to return, after each new
investigation, to the conclusion which is held by all reputable
physicians that the only safe and sure way is for husband and wife to
remain strictly apart. There are methods which are sometimes suggested,
by even well-meaning physicians, to those who desire to escape the
results of the marital relation, but when pressed for the expression of
a candid and honest conviction these same physicians are always
compelled to admit that for absolute safety there is but one provision.
These various methods are not only unsatisfactory and unavailing, but
are ruinous in their effects upon the individuals who practice them. In
some instances nature does not visit her penalties immediately, but
eventually the old declaration proves true that although justice travels
with a sore foot it is sure to overtake the transgressor.
Where married people are willing to live according to the laws which are
written deep in our nature, they find what Dr. Kellogg has said is true:
"There would be less sexual enjoyment, but more elevated joy. There
would be less animal love, but more spiritual communion; less gross,
more pure; less development of the animal and more fruitful soil for the
cultivation of virtue, holiness and all the Christian graces."
An entire renunciation of all conjugal privileges is, however, only
perfectly just and proper when it meets with the mutual consent of both
husband and wife.
Concerning such a rigid course, Dr. Napheys, in "Transmission of Life,"
says: "The objection nowadays urged against it is that it is too severe
a prescription, and consequently valueless. This ought not to be. A man
who loves his wife should, in order to save that life overwork and
misery, and danger of death and wretchedly constituted children, be able
and willing to undergo as much self-denial as everyone of his contingent
bachelor acquaintances does, not out of high devotion, but for motives
of economy, or indifference, or love of liberty. The man who cannot do
this, or does not care to do it, does not certainly deserve a very high
position.
"But while all this is granted, the question is still constantly put: Is
this all? Is there no means by which we can limit our families without
either injuring the health or undergoing a self-martyrdom which not one
man in a thousand will submit to?"
In meeting the perplexities of this situation, Dr. Pomeroy, in "Ethics
of Marriage," says: "There are circumstances under which means for the
_temporary_ avoidance of conception may be desirable and proper, as, for
instance, to prevent too rapid childbearing on the part of women who
cannot nurse their infants, or who have their usual periods while
nursing--conditions which, I believe, our artificial life are
responsible for--and so are liable to too frequent conception.
"For such and other legitimate causes nature has herself provided a
means which, with the practice of a little self-denial, will give a
reasonable degree of safety; beyond this it is neither safe nor proper
to act without the advice of some physician who has sound judgment, both
in medicine and in morals."
There is a Scriptural provision which is doubtless designed to meet this
very condition, and which may be properly mentioned here because
authorized by the Inspired Word. The law concerning this matter will be
found in the fifteenth chapter of Leviticus, beginning with the
nineteenth verse. In this passage a period of strict separation is
prescribed for the woman during the period of her monthly issue, and the
injunction is, that when "she is cleansed from her issue then she shall
number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean." On the
eighth day she was to appear before the priest with her offerings, when
she was to be declared clean.
In this Old Testament provision God manifestly intended to make the
children of Israel intelligent, not for the purpose of enabling them to
avoid any reasonable and right increase in their families, but
measurably to limit the number of offspring, so that the very best type
of human life might be the fruitage of their homes. When literally
followed, it would doubtless in a large majority of cases afford all
necessary relief, and properly limit the number of offspring.
This passage also clearly indicates the importance of separation during
the periodic sickness; and the basis for this Old Testament teaching of
separation during such times is based not only upon the sense of
delicacy and propriety upon the part of the wife, but also upon the
physiological and sanitary principles of medical science.
It is neither necessary nor proper for us to go into a further
discussion of this subject at this place. Those who find themselves
laboring under the burdens, infirmities and unfitness we have indicated,
should be free to seek such medical counsel and advice as will afford
them what relief may be available in their particular case. We would
warn all, however, that "those who take active measures to prevent
conception are apt to carry the matter further than they intended; at
the best they are tampering with Nature, and that is a dangerous thing
in itself." In seeking medical counsel, let us carefully advise all to
exercise the utmost caution in selecting a competent, conscientious,
Christian physician. If, however, you expect that your interview will
bring you such information as will enable you to indulge your passion
unrestrained and avoid all consequences, allow us to say, before such an
interview takes place, that you are expecting information which medical
science does not possess. Dr. Pomeroy, in writing upon this subject,
says: "As before noticed, it is surprising to what extent the laity
believe that the course of Nature can be safely interfered with, even by
those who understand her laws the least. Those who fear to turn back the
hands of a watch lest they injure the complicated and delicate
machinery do not hesitate to use violent means to interfere with the
natural workings of the human mechanism, which is a thousandfold more
complicated and delicate. Nature is tenacious of her rights; she resists
grandly, but if forced to yield, she visits the offender with punishment
which is no less sure because it is sometimes long-delayed. Few seem to
know this; many act as though they considered Nature a sort of clever
idiot, too stupid to recognize an injury or too amiable to resent it if
discovered; while others seem to look upon Nature as rather intelligent
and able, but a servant amenable to guidance and assistance in
co-ordinating the forces of her laboratory. This is absurd, and even
impious, for Nature is but another term for the Creator of all things,
and He is infinitely wise. Nature cares more about correcting _us_ than
our mistakes and follies. Were she to go on indefinitely and patiently
undoing our work we should go on indefinitely and persistently doing it,
and our wrongdoing would be righted, but we should remain in the mental
or moral or physical sin which had prompted it. Indeed, if the obvious
results of our sin were promptly removed we should scarcely be aware
that we were not in harmony with Nature's plans, and the race would
deteriorate, and finally become extinct."
Where you do not obtain from a reputable, intelligent Christian
physician the information you desire, or the relief you seek, do not
make the fatal mistake of resorting to some quack or impostor who
advertises only to beguile, deceive and rob you, and subsequently to
leave you humiliated, with purse depleted and health ruined. Reputable
physicians do not advertise, and the very fact that a man advertises may
be accepted as sufficient evidence that he is not an accredited and
reliable physician, and that you will most assuredly be subjected to
deception and imposture.
Persons who recognize the propriety of limiting the number of offspring
are seriously exposed to the danger of deferring and procrastinating to
such an extent as to err greatly in the direction of too few rather than
too many children. With most women the time for childbearing is quite
like the time and location of a boil--any other time than the present,
and any other place than where it is. A purposed parenthood is in
_danger_ of becoming a purpose to evade parenthood.
There is, however, a proper and all-important preparation for
parenthood. After a careful examination of the subject no person can
help but be deeply impressed with the fact that if the parents of this
generation would realize their wonderful power to mold and fashion the
succeeding generation, the children of the next decade would rise to the
level of an entirely new plane. Some people seem to think that the
matter of begetting a child, like the matter of selecting a wife or a
husband, should be left wholly to blind chance. Neither of these two
important events can be too much safeguarded by wise and thoughtful
consideration. If conception is permitted to take place when either one
or both of the parents are in ill health; if the wife is an unwilling
mother, and the embryo is developed by her while her entire nature
rebels against the admission into the family of a child who is not
wanted, the children begotten and born under such circumstances can
never be other than sickly, nervous and fretful during their entire
childhood, and cross and uncompanionable throughout their entire lives.
In connection with childbearing there are three very important things:
First, the preparation for parenthood; second, the mental state at the
period of conjunction, and third, the mental state and physical
condition of the mother during the months while the body and character
of the child are being fashioned within her body.
The period and the character of the preparation for parenthood must
always vary according to the physical condition of the intending
parents. In some instances this preparation needs to extend over weeks,
and in other instances even over years. No man or woman should consent
to become a parent except at such times when physically and
intellectually they are at their very best--indeed, the very best that
is possible for them to attain by a course of careful preparation. Much
of what might be said here will be learned under a subsequent chapter
upon prenatal influences.
Medical authorities universally attach great importance to the mental
condition at the moment of conjunction and conception. It is quite
universally believed that this is a moment of unparalleled importance to
the welfare of the future being. Dr. Hufeland, an eminent German writer,
says: "In my opinion, it is of the utmost importance that this moment
should be confined to a period when the sensation of collected powers,
ardent passion, and a mind cheerful and free from care, invite to it on
both sides." It is an awful crime to beget life carelessly, and when in
improper and unworthy physical and mental states.
The ancients understood the importance of this moment, and frequently
surrounded the nuptial couch with statues which should charm the mother
by their beautiful outlines and physical proportions. It was claimed by
them that a man who was himself deformed might in this manner become the
father of children that were possessed of fine physical proportions.
While this statement might carry with it too much presumption, yet it
was not without a considerable element of truth.
Nearly eighteen centuries before Christ, the patriarch Jacob recognized
this principle when he arranged with Laban to accept from among the
flocks and herds "the speckled and the spotted" as the reward of his
labor in attending the flocks of the herds of his father-in-law. There
was nothing unnatural or miraculous in the result which Jacob secured.
He sought to produce such mental impressions upon the minds of the
flock at the time of conception as would secure the production of young
marked after the manner most in accord with his personal interests. We
are told that "Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and
chestnut-tree, and pilled white streaks in them and made the white
appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled
before the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs, when the
flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle
ring-streaked, speckled and spotted. And Jacob did separate the lambs,
and set the faces of the flocks toward the ring-streaked, and all the
brown in the flock of Laban: and he put his own flocks by themselves,
and put them not unto Laban's cattle. And it came to pass, whensoever
the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the
eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the
rods. But when the cattle were feeble he put them not in: so the feebler
were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. And the man increased
exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid-servants and men-servants,
and camels and asses."
Much of the differences which exist between children of the same parents
may be easily attributed to the different bodily and mental conditions
of the parents at the period of conjunction, the changed physical,
intellectual and emotional states of the parents at the different
periods of conception producing the corresponding differences in their
offspring.
The results of purposed and prepared parenthood are so great and so
desirable that a husband and wife should consider these matters
carefully, make due preparations, and approach the period when they
would beget offspring and bring immortal beings into the world with the
greatest thoughtfulness, consideration, and also with prayer.
The writer well remembers the deep impression made upon his mind in an
interview with a physician who was the first to present this phase of
the subject to our consideration. The statement was so unusual that it
made a lasting impression upon us. But why may it not be so? After a
period of preparation why should not the intending parents unite at the
throne of grace for God's blessing upon them in the act in which they
are about to engage, and in the fulfillment of their desire for an heir
who shall be possessed of the very best physical, intellectual and moral
endowments?
There are certain signs of fruitful conjunction which are often
recognized by women who are already mothers, but which may serve as no
guide to a young wife who has never had any experience. With some women
the act of conception is attended with great emotion, a sense of unusual
pleasure, and even of a tremor, in which all parts of the body may
participate. Sometimes it is followed by a sense of weakness. In
ancient times the swelling of the neck was regarded as a sign of
conception, and some modern authorities incline to the same theory.
There are instances also in which the morning sickness begins
immediately after conception.
It would be unsafe, however, to rely upon either the presence or absence
of these indications. In most instances the cessation of the menses and
the appearance of the morning sickness are the first reliable
indications that conception has taken place.