1841 to 1843, in towns 1 to 16.1
1841 to 1843, in country 1 to 29.4
The apparent discrepancy between city and country, noticed as equally
obtaining in Belgium and France, is chiefly owing to greater negligence
of the country officials in registering the still-births, and to
the fact, as we have seen in Paris, that the ratio of births to the
population is greater in the city than in the country at large.
Finally, while the proportion of still-births to the whole number is
greatly increasing in Paris, so is the number of known abortions.
We omit, for the present, the evidence afforded by arrests and trials,
which we might here have turned to account. At the Morgue, which
represents but a very small fraction of the fœtal mortality of Paris,
and in this matter almost only crime, there were deposited during the
eighteen years preceding 1855, a total of 1115 fœtuses,[27] of which 423
were at the full term, and 692 were less than nine months; and of these
last, 519, or five-sixths, were not over six months, a large proportion
of them showing decided marks of criminal abortion.
Again, of the 692 fœtuses of less than nine months, deposited at the
Morgue during these eighteen years, 295 were between 1836 to 1845, an
average, at that time, of 32.7 yearly; and from 1846 to 1855 there were
397, an average of 44.1. During the means of these periods the births in
France were as follows[28]:—In 1841, 1,005,203, and in 1851, 1,037,040,
from which it is evident that there was deposited at the Morgue, in 1841,
one infant, dead from abortion, to every 30,700 births; and in 1851, one
to every 23,500. The increased ratio is seen to be striking; it will
hereafter become apparent that the increase is far greater in reality.
We turn now to our own country, to which the City of New York holds much
the same relation, as respects public opinion no less than in other
matters, that Paris holds to France.
Since 1805, when returns were first made to the Registry of New York,
the number, proportionate as well as actual, of fœtal deaths, has
steadily and rapidly increased. With a population at that time (1805) of
76,770, the number of still and premature births was 47; in 1849, with
a population estimated at 450,000, the number had swelled to 1320.[29]
Thus, while the population had increased only _six_ times since 1805,
the annual number of still and premature births had multiplied over
_twenty-seven_ times.
The following table shows the rapidity of this increase:—The ratio of
fœtal deaths to the population, was in
1805 1 to 1633.40
1810 1 to 1025.24
1815 1 to 986.46
1820 1 to 654.52
1825 1 to 680.68
1830 1 to 597.60
1835 1 to 569.88
1840 1 to 516.02
1845 1 to 384.68
1849 1 to 340.90
In the three years preceding 1849, there were registered in New York
400 premature births, and 3139 children still-born; a total of 3539,
representing at that time a yearly average of some 1200 fœtal deaths.
While it will be shown hereafter that a large proportion of the reported
premature births must always be from criminal causes, and that though
almost all the still-births at the full time, even from infanticide,
are necessarily registered, but a small proportion of the abortions and
miscarriages occurring are ever reported to the proper authorities, it
will immediately be made apparent that at the present moment the abortion
statistics of New York are far above those of 1849.
In the three years preceding 1857, there were registered in New York 1196
premature, and 4735 still-births,[30] a total of 5931, representing a
yearly average of some 2000 fœtal deaths; showing that in the short space
of seven years, the number of fœtal deaths in New York, already enormous,
had very nearly doubled.
Again, in 1856, the total number of births at the full time in New York,
was 17,755; of these, 16,199 were living;[31] proving that of children at
the full time alone, setting aside the great number of viable children
born prematurely, and the innumerable earlier abortions not recorded, one
in every 11.4 is born dead.
From foreign statistics on a large scale, it is found that the proportion
of still-births, even allowing a wide margin for criminal causes, does
not, in those countries, drop below 1 in 15, and this in France, ranging
from that number up to 1 in 30 or 40 of the whole number of births
reported. We have already given a table upon this point.
In Geneva, out of 10,925 births occurring from 1824 to 1833, 1221 of them
being _illegitimate_, and therefore to be supposed liable to a large
percentage of deaths from criminal causes, there were only 646 fœtal
deaths; a proportion of 1 in 17.
In Belgium there were 29,574 _illegitimate_ births from 1841 to 1843, and
of these, 1766 were born still;[32] 1 in 16.8.
In New York, from 1854 to 1857, there were 48,323 births, and 5931
still-births, at the full time and prematurely; or in other words, 1 to
every 8.1 was born dead.
The ratio of still-births in New York, including, as we have seen,
abortions, is steadily increasing, as seen by the following table,[33] in
which we have compared the still-births, supposable perhaps of accidental
value, with the general mortality, whose value is at least as accidental,
if not more so. The evidence, like that already furnished, is astounding.
Total mortality. Still-births. Ratio.
1804 to 1809 13,128 349 1 to 37.6
1809 to 1815 14,011 533 1 to 26.3
1815 to 1825 34,798 1,818 1 to 19.1
1825 to 1835 59,347 3,744 1 to 15.8
1835 to 1855 289,786 21,702 1 to 13.3
1856[34] 21,658 1,943 1 to 11.1
The frequency of abortions and premature births reported from the
practice of physicians, and thus to a certain extent, but not entirely,
likely to be of natural or accidental origin, is as follows:—
In 41,699 cases registered by Collins, Beatty, La Chapelle, Churchill,
and others,[35] there were 530 abortions and miscarriages. Here all the
abortions were known; their proportion was 1 in 78.5.
In New York, from 1854 to 1857, there were 48,323 births at the full time
reported, and 1196 premature. Here all the abortions were not known,
probably but a very small fraction of them; the proportion was 1 in 40.4.
Finally, we compare the recorded premature still-births of New York, with
those still at the full time.
In the seventeen years from 1838 to 1855,[36] there were reported 17,237
still-births at the full time, and 2710 still prematurely; the last
bearing the proportion of 1 to 6.3.
In the nine years, from 1838 to 1847, omitting 1842 for reasons stated
below, there were 632 premature still-births, and 6445 still at the full
time; a yearly average of 1 in 10.2.
In the eight years, from 1848 to 1855, there were 2078 premature
still-births, and 10,792 still at the full time; an average of 1 in 5.
While in 1856 there were 387 still prematurely, and 1556 at the full
time; or 1 in 4.02.
From these figures there can be drawn but one conclusion, that criminal
abortion prevails to an enormous extent in New York, and that it is
steadily and rapidly increasing. “We cannot refer,” was well said by a
former inspector of that city,[37] “such a hecatomb of human offspring
to natural causes.” We shall now endeavor to prove this point by other
reasoning.
That our deductions concerning the population and births of France are
perfectly legitimate, is admitted beforehand by the leading political
economists of the day; ignorant as they were in its various relations of
much of the evidence now brought forward, and of the conclusion to which
the whole matter, directly and with almost mathematical exactness, is
proved to tend.
“In France,” remarks De Jonnés,[38] “the fecundity of the people is
restrained within the strictest limits.”
“The rate of increase of the French population,” says Mill, “is the
slowest in Europe;[39] the number of births not increasing at all,
while the proportion of births to the population is considerably
diminishing.”[40]
We have seen, moreover, that in France the actual ratio of living births
is constantly and rapidly diminishing, while the still-births, actual and
proportional, are as fast increasing; that the premature births progress
in similar ratio, and by deduction and actual statistics, the criminal
abortions; and that these facts obtain not merely in the metropolis, but
throughout the country.
What are the causes of these remarkable facts, need it now be asked? Let
all allowances be made for certain conjugal habits extensively existing
among the French, and by no means rarely imitated in this country,
but the proportionate decrease of living births is too enormous, the
actual and proportionate increase of premature and still-births is too
frightful to be wholly explained thus, or as West,[41] Husson,[42] and De
Jonnés[43] have thought, to be attributed to a mere progressive lack of
fecundity. Reason and the evidence alleged compel us to believe that in
great measure they are owing to criminal abortion.
Political economists allow the facts in France to be as we have stated.
Their interpretation of the causes, unwilling as they would be to confess
its ultimate bearing, we now compel to serve as evidence.
“They depend,” according to one writer,[44] “either on physical agents,
especially climate, or on the degree of civilization of a people, their
domestic and social habits.” “In France the climate is favorable to an
increase of population, and this obstacle, this restraint, is found in
its advanced civilization.”[45]
“This diminution of births,” says Legoyt,[46] “in the presence of a
constant increase of the general population and of marriages, can be
attributed to nothing else than wise and increased foresight on the part
of the parent.”
“The French peasant is no simple countryman, no downright ‘Paysan du
Danube;’ both in fact and in fiction he is now ‘le rusé paysan.’ That
is the stage which he has reached in the progressive development which
_the constitution of things has imposed on human intelligence and human
emancipation_.”[47]
“These facts are only to be accounted for in two ways. Either the whole
number of births which nature admits of, and which happen in some
circumstances, do not take place, or if they do, a large proportion of
those who are born, die. The retardation of increase results either
from mortality or prudence; from Mr. Malthus’s positive, or from his
preventive check; and one or the other of these must and does exist, and
very powerfully too, in all old societies. Wherever population is not
kept down by the prudence of individuals or of the State, it is kept down
by starvation or disease.”[48]
But on the other hand, it has been forgotten that the alternative
supposed does not exist in the case we have instanced. Marriages in
France, unlike some other continental States, are continually increasing,
and starvation and disease are yearly being shorn of their power. The
authors quoted are therefore forced to a single position; that the
lessening of births can only be owing to “prudence” on the part of the
community.
Moreover, it is allowed by Mill and by Malthus himself,[49] that so
much of the decrease as cannot thus be explained, must be attributed to
influences generally prevalent in Europe in earlier ages, and in Asia to
the present time. “Throughout Europe these causes have much diminished,
but they have nowhere ceased to exist.”[50] Several of them have been
named by the authority now quoted. Another, and greater than them all, he
leaves unspoken; we are compelled to supply for him the omission.
The practice of destroying the fœtus in utero, to say nothing of
infanticide, history declares to have obtained among all the earlier
nations of the world, the Jews alone excepted, and to a very great
extent. Aristotle defends it,[51] and Plato.[52] It is mentioned by
Juvenal,[53] Ovid,[54] Seneca, and Cicero, and is denounced by the
earlier Christians.[55] It was common in Europe through the middle ages,
and still prevails among the Mohammedans,[56] Chinese,[57] Japanese,[58]
Hindoos,[59] and most of the nations of Africa and Polynesia,[60] to such
an extent, that we may well doubt whether more have ever perished in
those countries by plague, by famine, and the sword.
It is evident, therefore, that the actual and proportionate increase of
still-births, and, by induction, setting aside all probable cases of
infanticide, of abortion, and the comparative increase of a population
reciprocally influence and govern each other so completely, that from the
one it may in any given case be almost foreseen what the other must prove.
It is impossible that the results quoted from the Registry of New York,
any more than those of France, even if so far, can in any great measure
be owing to natural causes alone. They are wholly inexplicable on any
principles, “which do not recognize an amount of guilt at which humanity
shudders.” In comparing that city with Paris, certain allowances must
indeed be made; abroad, for the effects of wars and conscription,
of despotism, and of migration outward; at home, for the effects of
governmental laxity, and of migration inward. In both cities the amount
of prostitution, an element not to be lost sight of, must be nearly
the same; and in both, under the steady progress of science, medical
and hygienic, the ratio of fœtal mortality, unless induced by criminal
causes, may year by year be supposed to have been steadily diminished.
We have seen that in New York, in the absence of all influences that
tend to keep down population in foreign countries, old and crowded, and
under the yoke of despotism, the effects, attributable elsewhere to these
causes, exist, and to a greater degree than in any other country;
That the ratio of fœtal deaths to the population had swelled from 1 in
1633, in 1805, to 1 in 340, in 1849; while in France, at a later period,
1851, they were only about 1 in 1000;
That the actual number of fœtal deaths in seven years, from 1850 to 1857,
had very nearly doubled;
That the fœtal deaths, as compared with the total of births, elsewhere in
cases of illegitimacy, where the results are the very worst, and where
crime is confessed to have produced them, being 1 in 16.8,[61] had here,
legitimate and natural, reached the frightful ratio of 1 in 8.1;
That the fœtal deaths, as compared with the total mortality, had
increased from 1 in 37, in 1805, to 1 in 13, in 1855;
That the reported early abortions, of which the greater number of course
escape registry, bear the ratio to the living births of 1 in 40.4, while
elsewhere they are only 1 in 78.5;
And finally, that early abortions, bearing the proportion to the
still-births at the full time of 1 in 10.2, in 1846, had increased to 1
in 4.02, in 1856.
It must be borne in mind that these statistics are positive, proving the
existence of a certain number of pregnancies abruptly terminated. They
cannot therefore be controverted by any argument regarding means for the
prevention of pregnancy, no matter to what extent these may be used.
Nor should it be forgotten that for every registered premature birth or
abortion, innumerable ones occur that are never recorded.
Almost doubling therefore, as does New York, the worst of those fearful
ratios of fœtal mortality existing in Europe, it is not strange that our
metropolis has been held up, even by a Parisian, to the execration of the
world. “On le voit (l’avortement)” says Tardieu, “en Amérique, dans une
grande cìté comme New York, constituer une industrie véritable et non
poursuivie.”
In this description of New York, we have that of the country.[62] The
relative annual increase of the population existing throughout America,
depending as this does chiefly on immigration, must not mislead us.
The ratio of fœtal death in the metropolis surpasses what has ever
been dreamed to obtain even in old countries, where innumerable more
legitimate causes for it might be thought to exist. At Boston, which for
morals is allowed to compare favorably with any city of its size in the
Union, “undoubtedly more than a hundred still-births yearly escape being
recorded, a large proportion of which, no doubt, result from criminal
abortion.”[63] And our public prints, far and wide, even in the smaller
towns and villages, constantly chronicle deaths from the commission of
the crime.
In the State of Massachusetts at large, it has been found of late years
that “the increase of the population, or the excess of the births over
the deaths, has been _wholly_ of those of _recent foreign origin_;”[64]
this in 1850. In 1853 “it is evident that the births within the
Commonwealth, with the usual increase, have resulted in favor of foreign
parents in an increased ratio.”[65] In other words, it is found that
in so far as depends upon the American and native element, and in the
absence of the existing immigration from abroad, the population of
Massachusetts is stationary or decreasing.[66]
“This result will doubtless surprise many, who will hardly think it
possible. Is it general, or is it accidental? If it be general, how has
it happened? What causes have been in operation to produce it? How is it
to be accounted for?”[67] These questions have hitherto been unanswered.
We shall find, however, their solution only too easy.
Amid such general thrift and wealth, there has been every reason for the
native, like the foreign population, to increase. The preventive check
of the economists, though undoubtedly present, can have played but an
inferior part, as we shall prove. Emigration westward, the only apparent
positive check, though extensive, cannot wholly account for the result.
But statistics exist by whose light, if acknowledged, we may read this
important problem.[68]
In 1850, the ratio of births to the population in Massachusetts, foreign
and American combined, was 1 in 36,[69] and in 1855, 1 in 34;[70] a ratio
much smaller than that obtaining in most countries of Europe, and about
equaling that of France, which, in 1850, was 1 in 37.
In 1855, the ratio of still-births, at the full time and premature, as
compared with the living births, was 1 to 15.5.[71] In France it is 1 to
24; in Austria, 1 to 49.
In 1851, the ratio of fœtal deaths to the general mortality, was 1 to
13.3;[72] in 1855,1 to 10.4.[73] In New York City, in 1856, it was 1 to
11. In any city we should expect to find the proportion much greater than
in a State at large; we here find it less.
The ratio of premature births to those at the full time, during the
period from 1850 to 1856, was 1 to 26.1.[74] In New York, in 1857, it was
1 to 40, and in good medical practice it is found, as we have seen, to be
1 in 78.
In comparing the recorded abortions and premature births in the City of
New York, with the still-births there occurring at the full time, we
found that the former had varied from 1 in 10, in 1838, to 1 in 4, in
1856.
In the State of Massachusetts it appears, that during the fourteen years
and eight months preceding 1855, there were recorded 4570 still-births,
and 11,716 premature births and abortions,[75] the ratio being 1
abortion to .3 still-birth; or, in other words, it would appear from
the statistics quoted, that the comparative frequency of abortions in
Massachusetts is _thirteen_ times as great as in the worst statistics of
the City of New York. We are willing, however, we rejoice, to modify this
statement, as in the earliest of the years quoted, returns from the City
of Boston seem to have been imperfect or wanting,—and to confine our
calculations to a more recent period.
From 1850 to 1855, the registration being much more accurate than
before, and its results compiled with the greatest care, three years of
the five by a noted statistician, Dr. Shurtleff, there were recorded
in Massachusetts, 2976 still-births, and 5899 premature births and
abortions,[76] the ratio being 1 abortion to .5 still-birth; in other
words, the frequency of abortions as compared with still-births at the
full time, seems at least eight times as great in Massachusetts as in the
worst statistics of the City of New York.[77]
It must not be forgotten that while nearly every still-birth at the full
time is necessarily recorded, there must be but very few registrations of
the premature births and abortions actually occurring; that though the
contrary seems here the case, such occurrences are generally, as they
would be supposed, far more frequent in crowded cities than in country
districts, or in a State at large; and that however great may be the
influence of the prevention of pregnancy in repressing a population,
these constitute proofs of pregnancies actually occurring, and frequently
criminally terminated.
Few persons could have believed possible the existence of such frightful
statistics, the result toward which they must be confessed inevitably to
tend, or the dread cause from which they spring. Either these statistics
must be thrown aside as utterly erroneous and worthless, or they must be
accepted with their conclusions. We would gladly do the former, but they
present too many constant quantities, in other respects,[78] for this to
be allowed. Our own calculations have been made with care, and we have
presented the elements on which they rest. In asserting the results, at
once so awful and astounding, we desire to fix upon them the attention
and scrutiny of the world.
We have seen that the increase of the population of Massachusetts by
living births, is almost exclusively among its resident foreigners,
Catholics, the rules of whose church will hereafter be shown to exercise
an important influence in preventing the destruction of fœtal life. The
conclusion cannot therefore well be avoided, that in these facts there
exists the evident relation here intimated, of effects to cause.
With some certainty, then, even though statistics are as yet so
imperfect, can we assert this conclusion, that frightful as is the extent
to which the crime of abortion is perpetrated abroad, there is reason to
believe that it prevails to an equal, if not even greater extent at home.
The frequency of arrests or trials for abortion afford, save indirectly,
no criterion of the actual frequency of the crime. Our laws on this
subject are at present so easily evaded, that officers of justice find
it useless to trouble themselves with its prosecution; it is indeed “non
poursuivie.” During the eight years from 1849 to 1858, no report for 1853
being rendered by the Attorney-General, there were 32 trials for abortion
in Massachusetts; and in these there was not a single conviction.[79]
An estimate that for every arrest for this crime, a thousand instances
of its commission escape the vigilance or at least the hand of the law,
would probably be within the truth. That such is the fact, is shown by
the statistics of France, where, from 1846 to 1850, out of 188 cases that
came to the knowledge of the police, for lack of decisive evidence, only
22 went to trial,[80] or about one-ninth of those legally investigated.
From 1826 to 1853, there were in France 183 trials for abortion. At the
above ratio this will give about 1700 cases judicially examined, a yearly
average throughout the empire of between 50 and 60. Comparing this fact
with the statistics of the Morgue already given, and with those of the
actual decrease of the rate of increase of the population in Paris and
in New York, and the increase of premature births, our statement of its
frequency will not seem exaggerated.
The number and success of professed abortionists is notorious. If
arrested, they are always ready with bribes or abundant bail. Hardly
a newspaper throughout the land that does not contain their open and
pointed advertisements, or a drug-store whose shelves are not crowded
with their nostrums, publicly and unblushingly displayed: the supply
of an article presupposes its demand. From these facts we may fairly
estimate the extent of their nefarious traffic.
That families are seldom now found of the size formerly common, is also
a matter of general remark. It were foolish to attempt to explain this
by supposing that the present is an age of more moderate desire, or less
unbridled lust; there is too much collateral proof against any such plea.
Nor is it reasonable to think that women are generally becoming less
productive of offspring than formerly, from any natural cause; or that
the mass of our population, whatever the exceptions, are already so far
advanced in knowledge, physiological or mechanical, or in practice, as
in most cases to be able to regulate impregnation at will. The number
of pregnancies must be nearly as abundant as ever; who can doubt what
becomes of the offspring? We deny, simply and decidedly, the statement
of some writers, that of every seven pregnancies, at least one always
_naturally_ terminates in abortion; this is uncorroborated by any
reliable evidence, and is without doubt untrue.
Of the experience of physicians, there can be but one opinion. If each
man of the profession were honestly to investigate this matter, and as
honestly to avow the result, the mass of evidence would be overwhelming.
This statement is in nowise invalidated by the experience alleged by
many, especially among older practitioners; their evidence, based chiefly
on lack of inquisition, or on the acknowledged less prevalence of the
crime in former years, is merely negative, and as such only to be valued.
“We blush,” says Prof. Hodge, “while we acknowledge the fact, that in
this city, (Philadelphia,) where literature, science, morality, and
Christianity are supposed to have so much influence; where all the
domestic and social virtues are reported as being in full and delightful
exercise, even here” it prevails.[81]
Dr. Blatchford, of Troy, N. Y., writes me thus: “A crime which forty
years ago, when I was a young practitioner, was of rare and secret
occurrence, has become frequent and bold.” But why multiply instances of
what must be the almost universal experience?
Applications for abortion are in many neighborhoods of constant
occurrence, by no means among the poorer classes alone; and few women,
unless also convinced by their physician of the enormity and guilt of
that they intend, are deterred by his refusal from going elsewhere for
aid, or from inducing abortion upon themselves.
But far greater proof than this we all possess, or can, if we desire.
In but few of the abortions criminally induced is an application ever
made to the physician in regular standing. He is oftener called upon
after the crime has already been committed, to treat its acute and
immediate effects. If he choose to take for granted in every case, that
it has occurred from a perfectly natural cause, even where attending
circumstances clearly point to the contrary, or to ask no questions,
or to shut his eyes and his ears to evident and patent facts, he can of
course do so, and perhaps persuade himself that the crime is rare; but if
he reflect that upon himself more than on clergyman or legislator, often
rests the standard of public morals, and act accordingly, he may arrive
at a different result.
But this is not only the fact in acute cases of abortion. The same
statement holds true, perhaps even to a greater extent, with regard to
chronic obstetric disease. It is now acknowledged that much of this is
really the consequence of past difficult or abnormal labors; that the
more complicated or improperly interfered with the labor has been, the
more certain are unfortunate sequelæ; and that the earlier in pregnancy
its occurrence, the greater, as a general rule, the danger, not merely
to the mother’s life, but to her subsequent health. In the treatment of
these results, even more marked perhaps at a late period than earlier,
the dependence of effect on cause, and their evident connection, can
often be learned by a faithful inquirer, and in no small proportion of
cases does the history go back without turn or the shadow of a doubt, to
an induction of criminal abortion.
As a mere matter of individual experience, and from a practice by no
means exceptional, the writer some time since reported no less than
fifteen such cases as occurring to himself within hardly six months; and
of these, all without exception were married and respectable women,[82]
many of them of wealth and high social standing; and subsequently he
was able, in consultation, to point out similar cases in the practice
of gentlemen who, at that time, had denied the legitimacy of his
conclusions. This experience must be a common one, only some lack the
courage, as others lack the will, to investigate the matter; should they
do so, they can come but to one result.
The frequency of maternal deaths, confessedly from criminal abortion,
as gathered from published statements and mortuary reports, is also an
item of importance in our summary of evidence. It is probable that in
but few of the fatal cases really occurring, is foul play ever thought
of, especially if the standing of the victim, and her previous history,
have been such as to prevent or disarm suspicion; and on the other
hand, while immediate death is undoubtedly a frequent result of induced
abortion, it is, in proportion to the cases of its later occurrence, or
of confirmed and chronic ill health, comparatively rare. From which it
must be granted, that for every case thus made known, very many others
must necessarily exist.
We are compelled, from the preceding considerations, to acknowledge not
merely that criminal abortion is of alarming frequency among us, but that
its frequency is rapidly increasing; this having been made apparent by
each link in the chain of evidence that has been presented. Every effort
that might possibly check this flood of guilt will, if delayed, have so
much the more to accomplish. The crime is fast becoming, if it has not
already become, an established custom, less honored in the breach than in
the observance.
* * * * *
What are the causes of this general turpitude?