PART VI.
The Rights of Offspring.
Children have the right to be born! Alas, that this God-given privilege should ever be called in question! That it is so, however, the testimony of modern physicians, the daily records of the newspapers, the fulminations from the pulpit, the remonstrances of philanthropists, and the forebodings of philosophers abundantly prove.
If we examine the history of abortion, we shall find that this crime, now so commonly practiced as to demand the attention it is receiving from moralists, is of extremely ancient origin, having existed among pagan nations from the earliest times; that the influence of Christianity has ever been to banish the practice, and that in proportion as Christianity becomes weakened or destroyed, the fearful evil in question re-appears and extends.
The Roman women did not scruple to disembarrass themselves of a pregnancy which might interfere with their convenience or pleasure, until Ulpian repressed the practice by attaching to it the most severe penalties. Plato and Aristotle advocated it for the avowed purpose of preventing excessive population, and taught that the child only acquires a soul at the moment of mature birth; hence, that the embryo not possessing animation, its sacrifice is not murder. This monstrous heresy against religion, science, and common sense is not without its imitators in our own time. Modern sophists pretend that before a certain period of intra-uterine existence, which they term "animation," the embryo has neither life nor soul; that, consequently, its destruction before that period is an evil, perhaps, but, in certain cases, is lawful.
The following letter was received by a certain physician, from a clergyman of great influence in the community where he resides—a gentleman of rare intellectual culture, and, withal, a shining light in his particular sect. The letter and his reply are given verbatim, the omissions being only such as are necessary to avoid the possibility of exposure:
"Dear Sir,—Since my wife returned home she has not been at all well; she has seemed very much fatigued, etc. This morning, after rising, she was taken with a severe fit of vomiting. Is not this one of the symptoms attendant upon a certain condition? We are both somewhat alarmed about the matter, and we have further firmly decided that we must have no further increase of family at present. If Mrs.——is in such a condition, it would be entirely proper now, before life or animation has commenced, that something be done to bring on the regular periods. We are both very anxious it should be done, and in her present condition there would be nothing at all wrong. But knowing her, and also our general circumstances, as I do, it seems to me a Christian duty. Had life commenced the case would be different. She may not be in this much dreaded condition, however; if not, then what does the morning nausea denote? Please drop me a line, . . . and greatly oblige,
He replied immediately to this letter. It certainly merited attention! We reproduce the reply here, as indicating, in a familiar manner, our views on this subject: "Reverend Sir,—Yours of is received. It is impossible to decide at the present stage whether your wife is pregnant or not. The morning sickness, even if often repeated, would be very far from proof, because in nearly all uterine ailments the same sympathetic phenomena as occur in pregnancy may exist—and from the same general cause, uterine irritation. In the case of intestinal worms, for example, the same rule obtains. The symptoms proceed from intestinal irritation, but this irritation may be caused by other things than worms; so we are never sure till we have physical proof. Thus the question of pregnancy in your wife's case, cannot be decided until sufficient time has elapsed to furnish the necessary physical signs. Independently of all moral considerations, to assume that she is pregnant, and to endeavor to overcome that condition, would, in case the assumption were wrong, be attended with great risk to her life. So, in any event, the necessity for waiting is inexorable. Of this, however, I am certain; she has an uterine affection entirely independent of pregnancy, capable of producing all the symptoms she has yet manifested. You seem to invite me to a discussion of another branch of the subject, and from our relative positions I cannot well avoid accepting your challenge. You are a teacher, to be sure, and so am I; but you are a teacher of religion, I, of science. It belongs to each of us to speak oracularly in his proper sphere, but in this instance the two are mutually dependent; you must base your teachings upon the clearly determined facts of science, for true science and true religion can never conflict. Now, both declare positively that the child in the womb, from the very moment of conception, has being and soul, and consequently 'life or animation.' I presume you intend by this expression, 'life or animation,' the moment when it could maintain existence independently of the mother, or 'viability,' as we term it; but, in a certain sense, it is still dependent on the mother after 'viability;' for, although capable of breathing 'on its own account,' it would perish but for the mother's care and sustenance. Why not, then, decide that it might be a 'Christian duty' to murder the infant six months or a year after birth, or, for that matter, at any time before it is old enough to defend itself? Circumstances of mother or father might be pleaded in justification. Seriously, neither you nor I can say when a being has not 'life or animation' in the sense you probably intend; and if we could determine the exact moment it would not alter the case in the least. The civil law makes some discrimination between 'viability' and 'non-viability;' but science is loudly demanding an obliteration of the absurd distinction, and religion adds her powerful voice. By 'religion' I mean simply, in this connection, the common belief of all Christendom, irrespective of sect or creed. Suppose, sir, you were to imagine that the child, whose advent you so much dread, would be in all respects the superior of the one you now possess, that your love and affection for it would exceed by a hundred-fold that which you entertain for the present; of course you would naturally wish to preserve it, and would take every means in your power to avert the catastrophe which, it so happens, you now desire. But you must not have two children, knowing your 'general circumstances,' as 'you do;' it would then become your 'Christian duty' to murder your present child, and let the other come. In some respects the morale would be in favor of the latter course, inasmuch as it would be so much more easily performed—a little strychnine would do it!—and no danger to life or health would attach to the mother. In the one case you destroy one life and jeopard a second; in the other, you destroy but one life, and hazard nothing beyond it—that is, in this world. Come, Reverend sir, I will as soon help you do the one as the other—suppose we try it? Certainly you can as well persuade me of my 'Christian duty' in the one case as in the other. It does not alter the ease that physicians can be found ready to undertake your 'little affair.' Any physician who would undertake it is a monster and a scoundrel, and would murder you and your entire family as readily, 'for a consideration,' provided the chances of detection were equal. By the Almighty God who rules in the Heaven, I conjure you do not this thing! nay, do not even contemplate it!
"Now, let us take the lower view, and regard the question as one of expediency merely. There is no medicine known to the profession which possesses the specific property of inducing miscarriage; many will do it in some cases, but only secondarily; that is, in proportion as they shatter the constitution, ruin the health, and produce a state of the system which renders it incompetent, through debility, to sustain pregnancy. Medicines, then, are out of the question if a man loves his wife, and values her health or her happiness. There remains the mechanical method, in which various instruments are used, according to the taste of the operator. All of these are more or less dangerous in themselves, and none of them can avert the dangers incidental to abortion. These are numerous, and to one who knows them, frightful. I will enumerate a few:
"First, flooding. She may flood to death before your very eyes, and many cases do happen altogether beyond the control of the most skillful practitioners.
"Second, inflammations. Escaping the dangers of flooding, inflammation may attack the womb, or its appendages, or the surrounding organs, and she may die in horrid delirium. "Third, insanity. By reflex action the brain not unfrequently takes on disease, and in place of a prattling baby, you may be saddled for the remainder of your life with a mad woman.
"Fourth, barrenness—a most common result. 'Circumstances' may change; it may seem the most desirable thing in the world that your family should 'increase,' but violated nature defies you. Pregnancy occurs often enough, but the womb gives up its contents at precisely the same term as you forced it to do before, and no art can come to your relief.
"Fifth, 'female weaknesses.' The long train of sad and tedious phenomena indicated by this popular term, is absolutely multifarious—congestions, ulceration, and prolapsus uteri, diseases of the bladder, urethra, and rectum, incontinence of urine, spinal irritation, sciatica, and other things, of which the greatest misfortune is that they do not kill, but simply render life insupportable. Now, Reverend sir, I have hastily and imperfectly scribbled off some of the prominent objections to your intended course. Pardon me if I have seemed severe. I have taken the trouble for two reasons: first, to save the life of a human being, and, second, to rescue you, but above all your excellent wife, from the commission of a sin of damnation.
It is due to these parties to mention that the arguments set forth in the response, had the full effect intended, and that they now rejoice in the possession of the mature product of that pregnancy—a living refutation of the assertion that man can ever usurp the functions of Divine Providence. The health of the mother has been fully restored through the very process which, in the fallible judgment of man, appeared most calculated to destroy it. Were this the place, or did space permit we could adduce many remarkable facts. A few must suffice:
The same physician submits the following : A lady who, in a former pregnancy, had suffered so intensely from a serious complication of diseases that her life was long despaired of by several distinguished physicians, they declared she could never hope to survive another pregnancy, nevertheless again she became pregnant, and by the concurrent advice of the regular number of physicians submitted to the operation for abortion. She subsequently passed successfully through another term of pregnancy, and now rejoices in the possession of excellent health and a splendid daughter.
Another, who, in view of an anticipated summer tour, vainly sought to obtain relief from an inconvenient pregnancy, and succeeded in "having it done for her" by an infernal rascal, lay helpless and suffering through the weary months of spring and summer, losing not only her baby and her journey, but her health, and all that makes life endurable.
A third had "children enough," rebelled at the prospect of an acquisition, tried every known means to disembarrass herself of the unwelcome incumbent—happily without success—and, a few days before the birth of a beautiful boy, had to mourn the loss of her only son, killed, in the midst of exuberant health, but a most horrible accident.
A fourth, left penniless by the death of her husband, was well-nigh persuaded by a friendly though misguided acquaintance —one, alas, conspicuous for many Christian virtues, and a veritable authority in her church—to murder the child, which, to-day, is the prop and support of her declining years. A fifth had "too many children already." The son whose existence she was barely dissuaded from abolishing remains, the sole survivor of eight brothers and sisters, able and happy in supporting his aged and indigent parents throughout the last years of their afflicted life.
Numberless similar instances are within our knowledge and we could add some dozens to the list. Not all nor any of the numerous essays and monographs, remonstrances and addresses recently put forth on the subject, convey anything like an adequate idea of the enormous prevalence of child-murder. Let the reader ask any man of learning — he will verify our words.
It is not a pleasant thought that the very audience before whom a preacher fulminates against the "great crime of the twentieth century," is so far sprinkled with the criminals that he feels the powerlessness of his words. It is not a pleasant thought that the authors of the numerous treatises referred to, know that a mighty influence prevails in the culpable sentiment of the community, which shall neutralize their labors. It is not a pleasant thought that the recognized motive for postponing to another year the consideration of certain resolutions presented in the recent "Old School Presbyterian Assembly," was the fact that many of the rich and powerful of that society would be hurt.1
These thoughts are not pleasant—they are horrible! Yet such is the actual state of morality in our land. The startling truth is that in what is termed "good society," both in the city and country, it is the exception rather than the rule to find, among either ladies or gentlemen, correct "Scriptural" ideas on this subject.
A very able physician in writing on this subject says: "What physician cannot recall cases in which the most profoundly scientific men have committed the most serious blunders in diagnosis? How often has it not happened that the melancholy prediction that such or such a woman could 'never have a living child,' that another must 'die in labor,' that a third could 'never live through another pregnancy,' has been completely falsified by subsequent events; and shall precious lives be sacrificed on this mere fiat of feeble human judgment, and on a questionable ruling? Suppose the opinion were correct, who constituted man the arbiter of human life? who appointed him to decide between the relative merits and claims of human lives? Certainly not Almighty God; and without His express sanction, he must be a bold man who dares decide the issue, at least, supposing he believes in hell. The fact is, and corporate medical bodies must one day assume this ground, the distinction between 'criminal' and 'justifiable' abortion is nonsense; it is worse than nonsense, it is itself criminal. Every pregnancy must be allowed to progress to its full completion, or in well-determined cases to the period of 'viability,'2 and the issue left in the Hand which holds all our destinies. When this course is adhered to, it is wonderful to witness the extraordinary if not miraculous evolutions of nature to rescue both lives from danger, or if this may not be, the same beneficent nature kindly elects the maternal life and permits the infant to perish the earliest. It is here that science beautifully and legitimately comes to her aid, determines with accuracy the exact moment that the young life has taken its flight, and on the instant proceeds boldly to an operation which, a moment earlier, would have been murder. She has now only to deal with the dead foetus, a 'foreign body,' which it is her duty to remove with the utmost possible dispatch." We beg our fair countrywomen, those who would "walk in the knowledge and love of God," to scorn the propositions from whatever source they may come, to destroy the lives of their unborn children, and to imitate the example of the simple-minded but pious woman in our own practice, who replied to five eminent physicians, who assured her that she must assent to the destruction of her baby, or die: "What! murder my poor bairn? No! God knows which life to take!" In so doing they may hope for the same reward which was vouchsafed to her, a living child, and robust health to nurture and work for it.
Again we assert^ that science can no more decree the death of a being in the womb than out of the womb; that she must limit herself to the discharge of her whole duty in this view of the subject, and that in the vast majority of cases lives will be saved where they are now sacrificed; in other words, that were the rule here advocated enforced by the combined influence of the civil and medical codes, fewer maternal lives would perish, and a far greater number of infantile lives would be saved than under the present outrageous and unnatural system, and also that the present toleration of "justifiable" infanticide, as implied in the expression "criminal abortion," opens the door for the most frequent and frightful abuses of the "privilege," by leaving the question of legality in particular instances, impossible to be determined. On the lowest view of the subject, namely, that thousands of lives are sacrificed under the plea of necessity where one "legal" necessity exists, the decrees of law and of science should be changed.
But what do we say ? By solemn decrees the largest body of Christians has declared and rigidly maintains that the detstruction of intra-uterine life, under any and all circumstances, is murder; and as all the Christianity we possess has descended through this channel, the question should be regarded as settled without argument. Away, then, with all quibbles and sophisms, and let the laws of God be, in formal enactments at least, also the laws of man!