This is a modern-English version of Fruits of Philosophy: A Treatise on the Population Question, originally written by Knowlton, Charles. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.









FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY

A TREATISE ON THE POPULATION QUESTION



By Charles Knowlton



Edited by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant










Contents

CHAPTER I. TO LIMIT AT WILL THE NUMBER OF THEIR OFFSPRING
CHAPTER II. ON GENERATION
CHAPTER III.   OF PROMOTING AND CHECKING CONCEPTION
CHAPTER IV. REMARKS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE INSTINCT










PUBLISHERS' PREFACE.

The pamphlet which we now present to the public is one which has been lately prosecuted under Lord Gampbell's Act, and which we republish, in order to test the right of publication. It was originally written by Charles Knowlton, M. D., whose degree entitles him to be heard with respect on a medical question. It was first published in England, about forty years ago, by James Watson, the gallant radical, who came to London and took up Richard Carlile's work, when Carlile was in jail. He sold it, unchallenged, for many years, approved it, and recommended it. It was printed and published by Messrs. Holyoake & Co., and found its place, with other works of a similar character, in their "Freethought Directory," of 1853, and was thus identified with freethought literature at the then leading freethought depot Mr. Austin Holyoake, working in con-junction with Mr. Bradlaugh at the National Reformer office, Johnson's Court, printed and published it in his turn, and this well-known freethought advocate, in his "Large or Small Families," selected this pamphlet, together with R. D. Owen's "Moral Physiology" and the "Elements of Social Science," for special recommendation. Mr. Charles Watts, succeeding to Mr. Austin Holyoake's business, continued the sale, and, when Mr. Watson died, in 1875, he bought the plates of the work (with others) from Mrs. Watson, and continued to advertise and to sell it until December 23, 1876. For the last forty years the book has thus been identified with freethought, advertised by leading freethinkers, published under the sanction of their names, and sold in the headquarters of freethought literature. If, during this long period, the party has thus—without one word of protest—circulated an indecent work, the less we talk about freethought morality the better; the work has been largely sold, and, if leading freethinkers have sold it—profiting by the sale—through mere carelessness, few words could be strong enough to brand the indifference which thus scattered obscenity broadcast over the land. The pamphlet has been withdrawn from circulation in consequence of the prosecution instituted against Mr. Charles Watts, but the question of its legality or illegality has not been tried; a plea of "Guilty" was put in by the publisher, and the book, therefore, was not examined, nor was any judgment passed upon it; no jury registered a verdict, and the judge stated that he had not read the work.

The pamphlet we are presenting to the public is one that was recently prosecuted under Lord Campbell's Act, and we are republishing it to challenge the right of publication. It was originally written by Charles Knowlton, M.D., whose qualifications give him credibility on medical issues. It was first published in England about forty years ago by James Watson, the brave radical who came to London and took over Richard Carlile's work when Carlile was imprisoned. He sold it without facing any challenges for many years, endorsed it, and recommended it. It was printed and published by Messrs. Holyoake & Co., and included alongside similar works in their "Freethought Directory" of 1853, thereby associating it with the freethought movement at the time. Mr. Austin Holyoake, working with Mr. Bradlaugh at the office of the National Reformer in Johnson's Court, printed and published it as well. This prominent advocate of freethought included this pamphlet, along with R.D. Owen's "Moral Physiology" and the "Elements of Social Science," for special recommendation in his work "Large or Small Families." Mr. Charles Watts, who took over Mr. Austin Holyoake's business, continued its sale. After Mr. Watson passed away in 1875, he purchased the plates of the work (along with others) from Mrs. Watson and kept advertising and selling it until December 23, 1876. For the last forty years, the book has been linked with freethought, promoted by influential freethinkers, published under their names, and sold at the heart of freethought literature. If, during this lengthy period, the community has circulated an indecent work without any protest, it says a lot about freethought morality; the book has sold well, and if leading freethinkers have profited from its sale out of sheer carelessness, it’s hard to find words strong enough to condemn the indifference that has spread obscenity across the country. The pamphlet has been pulled from circulation due to the prosecution of Mr. Charles Watts, but its legality has not been tested; the publisher pleaded "Guilty," so the book wasn’t examined, nor was any judgment made on it; no jury delivered a verdict, and the judge admitted he hadn’t read the work.

We republish this pamphlet, honestly believing that on all questions affecting the happiness of the people, whether they be theological, political or social, fullest right of free discussion ought to be maintained at all hazards. We do not personally indorse all that Dr. Knowles says: his "Philosophical Proem" seems to us full of philosophical mistakes, and—as we are neither of us doctors—we are not prepared to indorse his medical views; but since progress can only be made through discussion, and no discussion is possible where differing opinions are suppressed, we claim the right to publish all opinions, so that the public, enabled to see all sides of a question, may have the materials for forming a sound judgment.

We are republishing this pamphlet because we truly believe that on all issues affecting people’s happiness—whether they are theological, political, or social—the right to free discussion must be upheld at all costs. We don’t personally agree with everything Dr. Knowles says; his "Philosophical Proem" seems to us to be full of philosophical errors, and since neither of us are doctors, we’re not ready to support his medical opinions. However, we believe that progress can only come through discussion, and no discussion can happen when differing opinions are silenced. Therefore, we assert the right to publish all opinions, so that the public can see all sides of an issue and have the information needed to form a sound judgment.

The alterations made are very slight, the book was badly printed, and errors of spelling and a few clumsy grammatical expressions have been corrected; the subtitle has been changed, and in one case four lines have been omitted, because they are repeated word for word further on. We have, however, made some additions to the pamphlet, which are in all cases kept distinct from the original text. Physiology has made great strides during the past forty years, and not considering it right to circulate erroneous physiology, we submitted the pamphlet to a doctor in whose accurate knowledge we have the fullest confidence, and who is widely known in all parts of the world as the author of the "Elements of Social Science;" the notes signed "G. B." are written by this gentleman. References to other works are given in foot-notes for the assistance of the reader, if he desires to study up the subject further.

The changes made are minimal; the book was poorly printed, and spelling mistakes and a few awkward grammatical phrases have been fixed. The subtitle has been updated, and in one instance, four lines have been removed because they repeat word for word later on. We have also added some content to the pamphlet, which is clearly marked as separate from the original text. Physiology has advanced significantly over the past forty years, and since we believe it's important not to distribute inaccurate information, we had the pamphlet reviewed by a doctor whose expertise we fully trust, and who is well-known worldwide as the author of the "Elements of Social Science." The notes signed "G. B." are written by this individual. Footnotes provide references to other works for readers who want to explore the topic further.

Old Radicals will remember that Richard Carlile published a work entitled "Every Woman's Book," which deals with the same subject and advocates the same object as Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet R. D. Owen objected to the "style and tone" of Carlile's "Every Woman's Book," as not being in "good taste," and he wrote his "Moral Physiology" to do in America what Carlile's work was intended to do in England. This work of Carlile's was stigmatized as "indecent" and "immoral," because it advocated, as does Dr. Knowlton's, the use of preventive checks to population. In striving to carry on Carlile's work, we cannot expect to escape Carlile's reproach; but, whether applauded or condemned, we mean to carry it on, socially as well as politically and theologically.

Old Radicals will remember that Richard Carlile published a work called "Every Woman's Book," which addresses the same topic and supports the same goals as Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet. R. D. Owen criticized the "style and tone" of Carlile's "Every Woman's Book" for not being in "good taste," and he wrote his "Moral Physiology" to achieve in America what Carlile’s work aimed to accomplish in England. Carlile's work was labeled as "indecent" and "immoral" because it promoted, just like Dr. Knowlton's, the use of preventive measures for population control. While working to continue Carlile's efforts, we can't expect to avoid his criticism; however, whether we are praised or condemned, we intend to carry on this work, both socially and politically as well as theologically.

We believe, with the Rev. Mr. Malthus, that population has a tendency to increase faster than the means of existence, and that some checks must therefore exercise control over population. The checks now exercised are semi-starvation and preventable disease; the enormous mortality among the infants of the poor is one of the checks which now keep down the population. The checks that ought to control population are scientific, and it is these which we advocate. We think it more moral to prevent the conception of children than, after they are born, to murder them by want of food, air and clothing. We advocate scientific checks to population, because, so long as poor men have large families, pauperism is a necessity, and from pauperism grow crime and disease. The wages which would support the parents and two or three children in comfort and decency, is utterly insufficient to maintain a family of twelve or fourteen, and we consider it a crime to bring into the world human beings doomed to misery or to premature death. It is not only the hard-working classes which are concerned in this question. The poor preacher, the struggling man of business, the young professional man, are often made wretched for life by their inordinately large families, and their years are passed in one long battle to live; meanwhile, the woman's health is sacrificed and her life embittered from the same cause. To all of these we point the way of relief and happiness; for the sake of these we publish what others fear to issue; and we do it confident that if we fail the first time, we shall succeed at last, and that the English public will not permit the authorities to stifle a discussion of the most important social question which can influence a nation's welfare.

We agree with Rev. Mr. Malthus that the population tends to grow faster than the resources available to support it, and that some form of checks must be in place to manage population growth. Currently, the checks in place are semi-starvation and avoidable diseases; the high mortality rate among infants from poor families is one of the factors that helps keep the population down. The checks we propose should be scientific, and that’s what we support. We believe it is more ethical to prevent the conception of children than to let them suffer from a lack of food, air, and clothing after they are born. We advocate for scientific methods to control population growth because as long as poor people have large families, poverty will be unavoidable, leading to crime and illness. The wages that would allow parents to support two or three children comfortably are completely inadequate for a family of twelve or fourteen, and we think it is wrong to bring children into the world who are destined for hardship or early death. This issue affects more than just the working-class families. The struggling preacher, the challenged businessperson, the young professional often suffer lifelong distress from having too many children, spending their lives in constant struggle to get by; meanwhile, the health of women is compromised, and their lives are made harder for the same reason. We offer them a path to relief and happiness; we publish what others hesitate to share for their sake; and we do so with the belief that even if we don't succeed at first, we will eventually, and that the English public will not allow authorities to suppress a discussion on this crucial social issue that impacts the welfare of the nation.

Charles Bradlaugh.

Charles Bradlaugh.

Annie Besant.

Annie Besant.





PHILOSOPHICAL PROEM

Consciousness is not a "principle" or substance of any kind, nor is it, strictly speaking, a property of any substance or being. It is a peculiar action of the nervous system, and the system is said to be sensible, or to possess the property of sensibility, because those sentient actions which constitute our different consciousnesses may be excited in it. The nervous system includes not only the brain and spinal marrow, but numerous soft white cords, called nerves, which extend from the brain and spinal marrow to every part of the body in which a sensation can be excited.

Consciousness isn't a "principle" or substance of any sort, and it's not really a property of any substance or being either. It's a unique function of the nervous system, which is considered sensible, or to have the quality of sensibility, because the various sentient actions that make up our different states of consciousness can be triggered within it. The nervous system includes not just the brain and spinal cord, but also many soft white cords known as nerves, which reach from the brain and spinal cord to every part of the body where a sensation can be felt.

A sensation is a sentient action of a nerve and the brain; a thought or idea (both the same thing) is a sentient action of the brain alone. A sensation or a thought is consciousness, and there is no consciousness but that which consists either in a sensation or a thought.

A sensation is a feeling produced by the nerves and the brain; a thought or idea (which are essentially the same) is a feeling that happens in the brain alone. Both sensations and thoughts represent consciousness, and there is no consciousness apart from what is experienced as either a sensation or a thought.

Agreeable consciousness constitutes what we call happiness, and disagreeable consciousness constitutes misery. As sensations are a higher degree of consciousness than mere thought, it follows that agreeable sensations constitute a more exquisite happiness than agreeable thoughts. That portion of happiness which consists in agreeable sensations is commonly called pleasure. No thoughts are agreeable except those which were originally excited by or have been associated with agreeable sensations. Hence, if a person never had experienced any agreeable sensations, he could have no agreeable thoughts, and would, of course, be an entire stranger to happiness.

Agreeable awareness is what we call happiness, while disagreeable awareness is what we refer to as misery. Since sensations are a more advanced form of awareness than simple thoughts, it follows that enjoyable sensations create a deeper happiness than enjoyable thoughts. The part of happiness that comes from enjoyable sensations is usually referred to as pleasure. No thoughts are enjoyable unless they were originally triggered by or linked to enjoyable sensations. Therefore, if someone has never experienced any enjoyable sensations, they wouldn’t have any enjoyable thoughts and would, of course, be completely unfamiliar with happiness.

There are five species of sensations—seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. There are many varieties of feeling—as the feelings of hunger, thirst, cold, hardness, etc. Many of these feelings are excited by agents that act upon the exterior of the body, such as solid substances of every kind, heat, and various chemical irritants. These latter feelings are called passions.

There are five types of sensations—sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. There are many different feelings, like hunger, thirst, cold, and hardness, among others. Many of these feelings are triggered by things that impact the outside of the body, such as solid objects of all kinds, heat, and various chemical irritants. These latter feelings are known as passions.

Those passions which owe their existence chiefly to the state of the brain, or to causes acting directly upon the brain, are called the moral passion. They are grief, anger, love, etc. They consist of sentient actions, which commence in the brain and extend to the nerves in the region of the stomach, etc. But when the cause of the internal feeling of passion is seated in some organ remote from the brain, as in the stomach, genital organs, etc., the sentient action which constitutes the passion commences in the nerves of such organ and extends to the brain, and the passion is called an appetite, instinct, or desire. Some of these passions are natural, as hunger, thirst, the reproductive instinct, the desire to urinate, etc. Others are gradually acquired by habit A hankering for stimulants, as spirits, opium and tobacco, is one of these.

Those feelings that mainly come from the brain's condition or from direct influences on the brain are known as moral passions. They include grief, anger, love, and so on. These feelings start in the brain and connect to the nerves in areas like the stomach. However, when the source of a feeling is located in an organ away from the brain, like the stomach or reproductive organs, the feeling begins in the nerves of that organ and extends to the brain, and it's referred to as an appetite, instinct, or desire. Some of these passions are natural, like hunger, thirst, the reproductive drive, and the urge to urinate. Others develop over time through habit, such as a hankering for stimulants like alcohol, opium, and tobacco.

Such is the nature of things that our most vivid and agreeable sensations cannot be excited under all circumstances, nor beyond a certain extent under any circumstances, without giving rise in one way or another to an amount of disagreeable consciousness or misery, exceeding the amount of agreeable consciousness which attends such ill-timed or excessive gratification. To excite agreeable sensations to a degree not exceeding this certain extent is temperance; to excite them beyond this extent is intemperance; not to excite them at all is mortification or abstinence. This certain extent varies with different individuals, according to their several circumstances, so that what would be temperance in one person may be intemperance in another.

The way things are, our most intense and enjoyable feelings can't be experienced in every situation and, to some degree, doing so will lead to feelings of discomfort or unhappiness that can outweigh the pleasure of that overindulgence. Enjoying good feelings within the right limits is called temperance; going beyond those limits is intemperance; and not enjoying them at all is mortification or abstinence. This limit varies from person to person, depending on their individual circumstances, so what feels moderate for one person might feel excessive for another.

To be free from disagreeable consciousness is to be in a state which, compared with a state of misery, is a happy state; yet absolute happiness does not exist in the absence of misery, if it does, rocks are happy. It consists, as aforesaid, in agreeable consciousness. That which enables a person to excite or maintain agreeable consciousness is not happiness; but the idea of having such in one's possession is agreeable, and of course is a portion of happiness. Health and wealth go far in enabling a person to excite and maintain agreeable consciousness. That which gives rise to agreeable consciousness is good, and we desire it. If we use it intemperately, such use is bad, but the thing itself is still good. Those acts (and intentions are acts of that part of man which intends) of human beings which tend to the promotion of happiness are good, but they are also called virtuous, to distinguish them from other things of the same tendency. There is nothing for the word virtue to signify, but virtuous actions. Sin signifies nothing but sinful actions, and sinful, wicked, vicious, or bad actions are those which are productive of more misery than happiness.

To be free from unpleasant feelings means you're in a better place than if you were suffering; however, true happiness doesn't exist without some misery—if it did, rocks would be happy. Happiness is actually related to positive feelings. What allows a person to create or sustain those positive feelings isn't happiness itself; instead, the thought of having those feelings is pleasant and contributes to happiness. Good health and wealth help a lot in maintaining those positive feelings. Anything that creates positive feelings is considered good, and we want it. If we misuse it, that misuse is bad, but the thing itself remains good. The actions that promote happiness are good and are also called virtuous to differentiate them from other similar actions. The term virtue only applies to virtuous actions. Sin refers solely to sinful actions, and sinful, wicked, or bad actions lead to more misery than happiness.

When an individual gratifies any of his instincts in a temperate degree, he adds an item to the sum total of human happiness, and causes the amount of human happiness to exceed the amount of misery farther than if he had not enjoyed himself, therefore it is virtuous, or, to say the least, it is not vicious or sinful for him to do so. But it must ever be remembered that this temperate degree depends on circumstances; that one person's health, pecuniary circumstances, or social relation may be such that it would cause more misery than happiness for him to do an act which being done by a person under different circumstances would cause more happiness than misery. Therefore, it would be right for the latter to perform such act, but not for the former.

When a person satisfies any of their instincts in a moderate way, they contribute to the overall happiness of humanity, making the level of human happiness greater than the level of misery more than if they hadn't enjoyed themselves. So, it's virtuous, or at least not wrong or sinful, for them to do so. However, it's important to remember that this moderate level depends on the situation; one person's health, financial situation, or social connections may be such that it would result in more misery than happiness for them to take an action that, under different circumstances, would bring more happiness than misery. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the latter to take such action, but not for the former.

Again: owing to his ignorance, a man may not be able to gratify a desire without causing misery (wherefore it would be wrong for him to do it), but with knowledge of means to prevent this misery, he may so gratify it that more pleasure than pain will be the result of the act, in which case the act, to say the least, is justifiable. Now, therefore, it is virtuous, nay, it is the duty, for him who has a knowledge of such means, to convey it to those who have it not, for by so doing he furthers the cause of human happiness.

Once again, because of his ignorance, a man might not be able to satisfy a desire without causing suffering (which is why it would be wrong for him to do it). However, with knowledge of ways to prevent this suffering, he can fulfill that desire in a way that results in more pleasure than pain, in which case the action, at the very least, is justifiable. Therefore, it is virtuous, and indeed, it is the duty, of someone who knows such means to share that knowledge with those who don’t have it, as doing so promotes human happiness.

Man by nature is endowed with the talent of devising means to remedy or prevent the evils that are liable to arise from gratifying our appetites; and it is as much the duty of the physician to inform mankind of the means to prevent the evils that are liable to arise from gratifying the productive instinct as it is to inform them how to keep clear of the gout or dyspepsia. Let not the old ascetic say we ought not to gratify our appetites any further than is necessary to maintain health and to perpetuate the species. Mankind will not so abstain, and if any means to prevent the evils that may arise from a farther gratification can be devised, they need not. Heaven has not only given us the capacity of greater enjoyment, but the talent of devising means to prevent the evils that are liable to arise therefrom, and it becomes us, "with thanksgiving," to make the most of them.

Humans naturally have the ability to come up with ways to address or prevent the problems that can come from satisfying our desires; and it’s just as important for doctors to educate people on how to avoid the issues that can arise from reproductive instincts as it is to teach them how to stay clear of gout or indigestion. Let’s not have the old ascetic claim that we should only satisfy our appetites enough to maintain health and ensure the continuation of the species. People won’t hold back like that, and if there are ways to prevent the problems that might come from further indulgence, they don’t need to. Not only has heaven given us the ability to enjoy more, but also the skill to come up with ways to avoid the problems that might arise from that enjoyment, and it’s our duty, "with thanksgiving," to make the most of it.





FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY.





CHAPTER I. TO LIMIT AT WILL THE NUMBER OF THEIR OFFSPRING

Showing how desirable it is, both in a political and a social point of view, for mankind to be able to limit at WILL THE NUMBER OF THEIR OFFSPRING, WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE PLEASURE THAT ATTENDS THE GRATIFICATION OF THE REPRODUCTIVE INSTINCT.

Showing how beneficial it is, both politically and socially, for humanity to have the ability to control the number of their children at will, without giving up the enjoyment that comes with satisfying the reproductive instinct.

First.—-In a political point of view.—If population be not restrained by some great physical calamity, such as we have reason to hope will not hereafter be visited upon the children of men, or by some moral restraint, the time will come when the earth cannot support its inhabitants. Population unrestrained will double three times in a century. Hence, computing the present population of the earth at 1,000 millions, there would be at the end of 100 years from the present time, 8,000 millions.

First.—-From a political standpoint.—If the population isn’t limited by some huge disaster, like the ones we hope won’t happen to future generations, or by some moral limitations, the day will come when the earth can't sustain its inhabitants. An unrestricted population could double three times in a century. So, if we estimate the current population of the earth at 1 billion, there would be 8 billion at the end of 100 years from now.

     At the  end of 200 years,  64,000  millions.

     "         "    300    "   512,000       "
     At the end of 200 years, 64,000 million.

     "         "    300    "   512,000       "

And so on, multiplying by eight for every additional hundred years. So that in 500 years from the present time there would be thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty eight times as many inhabitants as at present. If the natural increase should go on without check for 1,500 years, one single pair would increase to more than thirty-five thousand one hundred and eighty-four times as many as the present population of the whole earth!

And so on, increasing by eight for every additional hundred years. So that in 500 years from now, there would be thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight times as many people as there are now. If the natural growth continues unchecked for 1,500 years, one single pair would grow to more than thirty-five thousand one hundred and eighty-four times the current population of the entire earth!

Some check then there must be, or the time will come when millions will be born but to suffer and to perish for the necessaries of life. To what an inconceivable amount of human misery would such a state of things give rise! And must we say that vice, war, pestilence and famine are desirable to prevent it? Must the friends of temperance and domestic happiness stay their efforts? Must peace societies excite to war and bloodshed? Must the physician cease to investigate the nature of contagion, and to search for the means of destroying its baneful influence? Must he that becomes diseased be marked as a victim to die for public good, without the privilege of making an effort to restore him to health? And in case of a failure of crops in one part of the world, must the other parts withhold the means of supporting life that the far greater evil of excessive population throughout the world may be prevented? Can there be no effectual moral restraint, attended with far less human misery than such physical calamities as these? Most surely there can. But what is it? Malthus, an English writer on the subject of population, gives us none but celibacy to a late age. But how foolish it is to suppose that men and women will become as monks and nuns during the very holiday of their existence, and abjure during the fairest years of life the nearest and dearest of social relations, to avert a catastrophe which they and perhaps their children will not live to witness. But, besides being ineffectual, or if effectual, requiring a great sacrifice of enjoyment, this restraint is highly objectionable on the score of its demoralizing tendency. It would give rise to a frightful increase of prostitution, of intemperance and onanism, and prove destructive to health and moral feelings. In spite of preaching, human nature will ever remain the same; and that restraint which forbids the gratification of the reproductive instinct will avail but little with the mass of mankind. The checks to be hereafter mentioned are the only moral restraints to population known to the writer that are unattended with serious objections.

Some kind of control has to exist, or we will reach a time when millions are born only to suffer and die from lack of basic needs. Just think about the unimaginable amount of human misery that would cause! Do we really have to say that vice, war, disease, and famine are necessary to prevent it? Should advocates of sobriety and family happiness abandon their efforts? Should peace organizations encourage war and violence? Should doctors stop studying diseases and searching for ways to eliminate their harmful effects? Should sick individuals be seen as sacrifices for the greater good, without any chance to regain their health? And if crops fail in one region, should the rest of the world withhold resources to avoid the much larger problem of overpopulation globally? Can’t we find effective moral restraints that cause a lot less human suffering than those physical disasters? Certainly, we can. But what are they? Malthus, an English thinker on population issues, only suggests staying single until later in life. But it’s naive to think that people will live like monks and nuns during the best years of their lives, giving up close and cherished relationships to prevent a disaster that they and maybe their children will never see. Besides being ineffective—or if effective, requiring a huge sacrifice of happiness—this restraint is very problematic because it can lead to a frightening rise in prostitution, substance abuse, and other harmful behaviors, damaging both health and moral values. Despite all the preaching, human nature will always stay the same; that restraint which denies the fulfillment of basic human instincts won't hold much power over most people. The methods I'll mention next are the only moral restraints on population that I know of that don't come with serious downsides.

Besides starvation, with all its accompanying evils, overpopulation is attended with other public evils, of which may be mentioned, ignorance and slavery. Where the mass of the people must toil incessantly to obtain support, they must remain ignorant; and where ignorance prevails, tyranny reigns.*

Besides starvation, with all its associated problems, overpopulation brings other social issues, such as ignorance and oppression. When most people have to work nonstop just to survive, they cannot stay informed; and where ignorance exists, tyranny prevails.*

     * The scientific part of Malthus' Doctrine of Population is
     not very clearly or correctly given in the above passages.
     His great theory, now or generally held by the most eminent
     political economists, is that the increase of population is
     always powerfully checked in old countries by the difficulty
     in increasing the supply of food; that the existing evils of
     poverty and low wages are really at bottom caused by this
     check, and are brought about by the pressure of population
     on the soil, and the continual overstocking of the labor
     markets with laborers; and hence that the only way in which
     society can escape from poverty, with all its miseries, is
     by putting a strong restraint on their natural powers of
     multiplication. "It is not in the nature of things," he
     says, "that any permanent and general improvement in the
     condition of the poor can be effected without an increase in
     the preventive checks to population."—G. R.
* The scientific part of Malthus' Doctrine of Population isn't very clearly or accurately explained in the passages above. His major theory, now widely accepted by leading political economists, is that population growth is always significantly limited in developed countries by the challenges of increasing food supply; that the current issues of poverty and low wages are fundamentally caused by this limitation, which results from the pressure of population on resources and the ongoing oversupply of labor in job markets; and that the only way for society to escape from poverty and its associated suffering is to implement strong restrictions on their natural ability to reproduce. "It is not in the nature of things," he states, "that any lasting and widespread improvement in the condition of the poor can happen without an increase in the preventive checks to population." —G. R.

Second—In a social point of view.—"Is it not notorious that the families of the married often increase beyond which a regard for the young beings coming into the world, and the happiness of those who give them birth, would dictate. In how many instances does the hard-working father, and more especially the mother, of a poor family remain slave throughout their lives, tugging at the oar of incessant labor, toiling to live, and living to toil; when, if their offspring had been limited to two or three only, they might have enjoyed comfort and comparative affluence? How often is the health of the mother, giving birth every year to an infant—happy if it be not twins—and compelled to toil on, even at those times when nature imperiously calls for some relief from daily drudgery,—how often is the mother's comfort, health, nay, even her life, thus sacrificed? Or if care and toil have weighed down the spirit, and at length broken the health of the father; how often is the widow left unable, with the most virtuous intentions, to save her fatherless offspring from becoming degraded objects of charity, or profligate votaries of vice!

Second—From a social perspective.—"Isn’t it obvious that married families often grow larger than what concern for the young ones entering the world—and the happiness of those who bring them into it—would suggest? In how many cases does the hardworking father, and especially the mother, of a struggling family remain trapped their whole lives, rowing in the endless cycle of labor, working just to survive, and surviving just to work? If they had chosen to limit their children to only two or three, they might have enjoyed comfort and relative wealth. How often does the mother’s health suffer from giving birth every year, fortunate if it’s not twins, and forced to keep working even when her body desperately needs a break from the daily grind? How often is the mother’s comfort, health, and even life, sacrificed? Or if the burden of hard work has worn down the father’s spirit and finally broken his health, how often is the widow left unable, despite her best intentions, to prevent her fatherless children from becoming pitiful objects of charity or reckless participants in vice!"

"Nor is this all. Many women are so constituted that they cannot give birth to healthy, sometimes not to living children. Is it desirable, is it moral, that such women should become pregnant? Yet this is continually the case. Others there are who ought never to become parents; because, if they do, it is only to transmit to their offspring grievous hereditary diseases, which render such offspring mere subjects of misery throughout their sickly existence. Yet such women will not lead a life of celibacy. They marry. They become parents, and the sum of human misery is increased by their doing so. But it is folly to expect that we can induce such persons to live the lives of Shakers. Nor is it necessary; all that duty requires of them is to refrain from becoming parents. Who can estimate the beneficial effect which a rational moral restraint may thus have on the health and beauty and physical improvement of our race throughout future generations?"

"That’s not all. Many women are unable to give birth to healthy, and sometimes even living, children. Is it desirable or moral for such women to get pregnant? Yet this happens all the time. There are others who should never become parents because, if they do, they will only pass on severe hereditary diseases, which cause their children to suffer throughout their sickly lives. Still, these women do not choose to live a celibate life. They get married. They become parents, and their actions contribute to the overall misery of humanity. But it’s unrealistic to expect that we can persuade such individuals to live like the Shakers. Nor is it necessary; all that’s required of them is to avoid becoming parents. Who can measure the positive impact that responsible moral choices could have on the health, beauty, and physical well-being of our race in future generations?"

Let us now turn our attention to the case of unmarried youth.

Let’s now focus on the situation of unmarried young people.

"Almost all young persons, on reaching the age of maturity, desire to marry. That heart must be very cold, or very isolated, that does not find some object on which to bestow its affections. Thus, early marriage would be almost universal did not prudential consideration interfere. The young man thinks, 'I cannot marry yet; I cannot support a family. I must make money first, and think of a matrimonial settlement afterwards.'

"Almost all young people, when they reach adulthood, want to get married. It takes a really cold or isolated heart not to find someone to care about. So, early marriage would be almost everywhere if it weren't for practical concerns. The young man thinks, 'I can't marry yet; I can't support a family. I need to earn money first and think about settling down later.'"

"And so he goes to making money, fully and sincerely resolved in a few years to share it with her whom he now loves. But passions are strong and temptations great. Curiosity, perhaps, introduces him into the company of those poor creatures whom society first reduces to a dependence on the most miserable of mercenary trades, and then curses for being what she has made them. There his health and moral feelings are alike made shipwreck. The affections he had thought to treasure up for their first object are chilled by dissipation and blunted by excess. He scarcely retains a passion but avarice. Years pass on—years of profligacy and speculation—and his wish is accomplished, his fortune is made. Where now are the feelings and resolve of his youth?

"And so he starts making money, completely committed to sharing it with the woman he loves in a few years. But strong emotions and temptations are everywhere. Curiosity might lead him to the company of those unfortunate souls whom society first forces into the most degrading trades and then condemns for becoming what it has made them. There, both his health and moral compass completely break down. The feelings he intended to save for her are numbed by indulgence and dulled by excess. He hardly feels anything anymore except greed. Years pass—years filled with reckless behavior and speculation—and he achieves his goal; he amasses wealth. But where are the feelings and determination of his youth now?

     'Like the dew on the mountain,
     Like the foam on the river,
     Like the bubbles on the fountain,
     They are gone—and forever.'
     'Like the dew on the mountain,  
     Like the foam on the river,  
     Like the bubbles on the fountain,  
     They are gone—and forever.'

"He is a man of pleasure, a man of the world. He laughs at the romance of his youth, and marries a fortune. If gaudy equipage and gay parties confer happiness, he is happy. But if these be only the sunshine on the stormy sea below, he is a victim to that system of morality which forbids a reputable connection until the period when provision has been made for a large expected family. Had he married the first object of his choice, and simply delayed becoming a father until his prospects seemed to warrant it, how different might have been his lot. Until men and women are absolved from the fear of becoming parents, except when they themselves desire it, they will ever form mercenary and demoralizing connections, and seek in dissipation the happiness they might have found in domestic life.

"He is a man of pleasure, a worldly man. He laughs at the romance of his youth and marries for wealth. If flashy cars and lively parties bring happiness, then he is happy. But if these are just the shiny surface hiding the stormy sea beneath, he is a victim of a moral system that prevents a respectable relationship until one is financially ready for a large family. If he had married the first person he loved and just waited to become a parent until his situation was right, his life might have been very different. Until men and women are free from the fear of becoming parents unless they truly want to, they will continue to enter mercenary and morally questionable relationships and look for happiness in partying instead of domestic life."

"I know that this, however common, is not a universal case. Sometimes the heavy responsibilities of a family are incurred at all risks; and who shall say how often a life of unremitting toil and poverty is the consequence. Sometimes, if even rarely, the young mind does hold its first resolves. The youth plods through years of cold celibacy and solitary anxiety, happy if, before the best hours of his life are gone and its warmest feelings withered, he may return to claim the reward of his forbearance and his industry. But even in this comparatively happy case, shall we count for nothing the years of ascetic sacrifice at which after happiness is purchased? The days of youth are not too many, nor its affections too lasting. We may, indeed, if a great object require it, sacrifice the one and mortify the other. But is this, in itself, desirable? Does not wisdom tell us that such a sacrifice is a dead loss—to the warm-hearted often a grievous one? Does not wisdom bid us temperately enjoy the springtimes of life, 'while the evil day come not, nor the years draw nigh, when we shall say we have no pleasure in them?'

"I know that while this may be common, it’s not universal. Sometimes, the heavy responsibilities of a family are taken on at any cost; and who can say how often a life of constant hard work and poverty is the result? Sometimes, though it’s rare, a young person makes their first serious commitments. The young person struggles through years of loneliness and anxiety, feeling fortunate if, before the best years of their life are over and their deepest feelings fade, they can return to reap the rewards of their patience and hard work. But even in this somewhat fortunate scenario, should we overlook the years of self-denial that come before happiness is achieved? Youth is short, and its emotions don’t last long. We may, indeed, if a significant goal demands it, sacrifice one and suppress the other. But is that really desirable? Doesn’t wisdom tell us that such a sacrifice is a total loss – often a painful one for those with big hearts? Doesn’t wisdom encourage us to enjoy the springtime of life moderately, 'before the difficult days come, or the years approach when we will say we find no pleasure in them?'”

"Let us say, then, if we will, that the youth who thus sacrifices the present for the future, chooses wisely between the two evils, profligacy and asceticism. This is true. But let us not imagine the lesser evil to be good. It is not good for man to be alone. It is for no man or woman's happiness or benefit that they should be condemned to Shakerism. It is a violence done to the feelings and an injury to the character. A life of rigid celibacy, though infinitely preferable to a life of dissipation, is yet fraught with many evils. Peevishness, restlessness, vague longings and instability of character, are amongst the least of these. The mind is unsettled, and the judgment warped. Even the very instinct which is thus mortified assumes an undue importance, and occupies a portion of the thoughts which does not of right or nature belong to it, and which, during a life of satisfied affection, it would not obtain."

"Let’s say, then, that the young person who sacrifices the present for the future is making a wise choice between two evils: excess and strict self-denial. This is true. But let’s not think of the lesser evil as being good. It is not good for anyone to be alone. It is not for anyone's happiness or benefit to be forced into a life of extreme self-denial. It hurts feelings and damages character. A life of strict celibacy, while much better than a life of excess, comes with many drawbacks. Irritability, restlessness, vague desires, and instability in character are just a few of these. The mind becomes unsettled, and judgment is distorted. Even the very instinct that is suppressed takes on an exaggerated importance, occupying thoughts that don’t naturally belong there, and which would not arise in a life filled with fulfilling connections."

In many instances, the genital organs are rendered so irritable by the repletion to which unnatural continency gives rise, and by the much thinking caused by such repletion, as to induce a disease known to medical men by the name of Gonorrhoea Dormientium. It consists in an emission or discharge of the semen during sleep. This discharge is immediately excited in most instances by a lascivious dream, but such dream is caused by the repletion and irritability of the genital organs. It is truly astonishing to what a degree of mental anguish the disease gives rise in young men. They do not understand the nature, or rather, the cause of it. They think it depends on a weakness—indeed, the disease is often called a "seminal weakness"—and that the least gratification in a natural way would but serve to increase it. Their anxiety about it weakens the whole system. This weakness they erroneously attribute to the discharges; they think themselves totally disqualified for entering into or enjoying the married state. Finally, the genital and mental organs act and react upon each other so perniciously as to cause a degree of nervousness, debility, emaciation and melancholy—in a word, wretchedness that sets description at defiance. Nothing is so effectual in curing this diseased state of a body and mind in young men as marriage. All restraint, fear and solicitude should be removed.

In many cases, the reproductive organs become so irritable due to the buildup caused by unnatural abstinence and the excessive thinking that results from it, leading to a condition known among medical professionals as Gonorrhoea Dormientium. This condition involves the involuntary release of semen during sleep. This release is usually triggered by a sexual dream, but such dreams are caused by the buildup and irritability of the reproductive organs. It is truly shocking how much mental distress this condition causes in young men. They do not fully understand its nature or, more specifically, its cause. They believe it is due to a weakness—in fact, this condition is often referred to as "seminal weakness"—and think that even a little natural pleasure would only make it worse. Their anxiety about it weakens their entire system. They mistakenly attribute this weakness to the discharges, believing they are completely unfit for marriage or enjoyment of a marital relationship. Ultimately, the reproductive and mental faculties negatively affect each other, causing significant levels of nervousness, fatigue, weight loss, and sadness—essentially an intense state of suffering that defies description. Nothing is more effective in curing this condition of body and mind in young men than marriage. All forms of restraint, fear, and worry should be eliminated.

"Inasmuch, then, as the scruples of incurring heavy responsibilities deter from forming moral connections and encourage intemperance and prostitution, the knowledge which enables man to limit the number of his offspring would, in the present state of things, save much unhappi-ness and prevent many crimes. Young persons sincerely attached to each other, and who might wish to marry, should marry early, merely resolving not to become parents until prudence permitted it. The young man, instead of solitary toil and vulgar dissipation, would enjoy the society and the assistance of her he has chosen as his companion; and the best years of life, whose pleasures never return, would not be squandered in riot, nor lost through mortification."*

"As long as the fear of taking on heavy responsibilities keeps people from forming meaningful relationships and leads to recklessness and exploitation, the ability to control the number of children one has could, in our current situation, prevent a lot of unhappiness and stop many crimes. Young people who truly love each other and want to get married should do so early, deciding only to become parents when they are ready. The young man would, instead of working alone or engaging in mindless distractions, benefit from the companionship and support of the woman he has chosen. The best years of life, which will never come back, wouldn’t be wasted on partying or lost to disappointment."*

     * The passages quoted are from Robert Dale Owen's "Moral
     Physiology."
     * The excerpts provided are from Robert Dale Owen's "Moral Physiology."




CHAPTER II. ON GENERATION

I hold the following to be important and undeniable troths: That every man has a natural right both to receive and convey a knowledge of all the facts and discoveries of every art and science, excepting such only as may be secured to some particular person or persons by copyright or patent; that a physical truth in its general effect cannot be a moral evil; that no fact in physics or in morals ought to be concealed from the inquiring mind.

I believe the following to be important and undeniable truths: Every person has a natural right to access and share knowledge about all facts and discoveries in every field of art and science, except for those that are protected by copyright or patent for specific individuals; that a physical truth, in its overall impact, cannot be considered a moral wrong; and that no fact in science or ethics should be hidden from curious minds.

Some may make a misuse of knowledge, but that is their fault; and it is not right that one person should be deprived of knowledge, of spirits, of razors, or of anything else which is harmless in itself and may be useful to him, because another may misuse it.

Some people might misuse knowledge, but that's their issue; it's not fair for someone to be denied knowledge, substances, tools, or anything else that's harmless and could be beneficial to them just because someone else might misuse it.

The subject on generation is not only interesting as a branch of science, but it is so connected with the happiness of mankind that it is highly important in a practical point of view. Such, to be sure, is the custom of the age, that it is not considered a proper subject to investigate before a popular assembly, nor is it proper to attend the calls of nature in a like place; yet they must and ought to be attended to, for the good, the happiness of mankind require it; so, too, for like reason, the subject of generation ought to be investigated until it be rightly understood by all people, but at such opportunities as the good sense of every individual will easily decide to be proper. This, I presume to say, not simply upon the abstract principle that all knowledge of Nature's workings is useful, and the want of it disadvantageous, but from the known moral fact that ignorance of this process has in many instances proved the cause of a lamentable "mishap," and more especially as it is essential to the attainment of the great advantage, which it is the chief object of this work to bestow upon mankind.

The topic of generation is not only fascinating as a field of science, but it's also deeply connected to human happiness, making it extremely important from a practical standpoint. Nowadays, it's common to think that it's not a suitable topic for discussion in public gatherings, nor is it appropriate to address natural urges in such settings; however, these matters need attention because the well-being and happiness of humanity depend on it. Likewise, the topic of generation should be explored until everyone understands it correctly, but this should be done in settings that good sense will dictate. I'm saying this not just because understanding how nature works is inherently valuable and ignorance is a disadvantage, but also because we know that lack of knowledge in this area has often led to unfortunate outcomes. This understanding is particularly crucial for achieving the significant benefits that this work aims to provide for humanity.

People generally, as it was the case with physicians until late years, entertain a very erroneous idea of what takes place in the conception. Agreeably to this idea the "check" which I consider far preferable to any other, would not be effectual, as would be obvious to all. Consequently, entertaining this idea, people would not have due confidence in it. Hence, it is necessary to correct a long-held and widely extended error. But this I cannot expect to do by simply saying it is an error. Deeply rooted and hitherto undisputed opinions are not so easily eradicated. If I would convince any one that the steps in one of the most recondite processes of nature are not such as he has always believed, it will greatly serve my purpose to show what these steps are. I must first prepare him to be reasoned with, and then reason the matter all over with him. I must point out the facts which disprove his opinion, and show that my own is unattended with difficulties.

People generally, as was the case with doctors until recently, have a very misguided understanding of what happens during conception. According to this belief, the "check" that I think is far better than any other wouldn't be effective, which would be clear to everyone. As a result, holding onto this idea, people wouldn't have the right confidence in it. Therefore, it's necessary to correct a long-standing and widely accepted misunderstanding. But I can't expect to do this just by claiming it's wrong. Deeply ingrained and previously unchallenged beliefs are not easy to change. If I want to convince someone that the steps in one of the most complex processes of nature aren't what they've always thought, it will greatly help my case to explain what these steps actually are. I first need to prepare them to think critically, and then go through the reasoning with them. I have to highlight the facts that contradict their belief and show that my own perspective is free of complications.

But what can be more obvious than that it is absolutely impossible to explain any process or function of the animal economy, so as to be understood, before the names of the organs which perform this function have been defined, that is, before the organs themselves have been described. Now it is well known to every anatomist, and indeed it may be obvious to all, that in describing any organ or system of organs, we must always begin with some external and known parts, and proceed regularly, step by step, to the internal and unknown. As in arithmetic, "everything must be understood as you go along."*

But what could be more obvious than the fact that it's completely impossible to explain any process or function of the animal body in a way that makes sense before the names of the organs responsible for that function have been defined, meaning before the organs themselves have been described. It's well known to every anatomist, and it may be clear to everyone, that when describing any organ or system of organs, we always start with some external and familiar parts, and then carefully move step by step to the internal and unfamiliar ones. Just like in arithmetic, "everything must be understood as you go along."*

     * This is an Americanism, which appears to us to convey a
     false idea. If it refers to the cases used as illustrations,
     Dr. Knowlton is more sparing in his use of them than either
     Dr. Bull or Dr. Chavasse.—Publishers' Note.
     * This is an Americanism that seems to give a misleading impression. If it pertains to the cases used as examples, Dr. Knowlton uses them less frequently than Dr. Bull or Dr. Chavasse.—Publishers' Note.

Fully to effect the objects of this work, it is, therefore, a matter of necessity that I give an anatomical description of certain parts—even external parts—which some, but imagine what I have just said, might think it useless to mention. It is not to gratify the idle curiosity of the light-minded that this book is written; it is for utility in the broad and truly philosophical sense of the term; nay, farther, it shall with the exception of here and there a little spicing*, have confined to practical utility. I shall, therefore, endeaver to treat of the subject in this chapter so as to be understood, without giving any description of the male organs of generation; though I hold it an accomplishment for one be able to speak of those organs, as diseases often put them under the necessity of doing, without being compelled use low and vulgar language. But I must briefly describe the female organs; in doing which I must, of course, speak as do other anatomists and physiologists; and whoever objects to this will discover more affectation and prudery than good sense and good will to mankind.

To fully achieve the goals of this work, it's necessary for me to provide an anatomical description of certain parts—even external ones—which some might think is pointless. This book isn't written to satisfy the idle curiosity of those with superficial interests; it's intended for utility in a broad and truly philosophical sense. Additionally, aside from a few interesting details*, it will focus on practical utility. Therefore, I will aim to discuss the subject in this chapter in a way that is understandable, without describing the male reproductive organs. However, I believe it's useful to be able to discuss those organs, as illnesses often require it, without resorting to crude or vulgar language. I must, however, briefly describe the female reproductive organs, and in doing so, I will use the same language as other anatomists and physiologists. Anyone who objects to this is likely more affected by pretension and modesty than by good sense and goodwill toward humanity.

The adipose, or fatty matter, immediately over the share bone, forms a considerable prominence in females, which, at the age of puberty, is covered with hair, as in males. This prominence is called Mons Veneris.

The fatty tissue right above the pubic bone creates a noticeable bump in females, which, during puberty, is covered with hair, just like in males. This bump is known as the Mons Veneris.

The exterior orifice commences immediately below this. On each side of this orifice is a prominence continued from the mons veneris, which is largest above and gradually diminishes as it descends. These two prominences are called the Labia Externa, or external lips. Near the latter end of pregnancy they become somewhat enlarged and relaxed, so that they sustain little or no injury during parturition. Just within the upper or anterior commissure, formed by the junction of these lips, a little round oblong body is situated. The body is called the clitoris. Most of its length is bound down, as it were, pretty closely to the bone; and it is of very variable size in different females. Instances have occurred where it was so enlarged as to allow the female to have venereal commerce with others; and in Paris this fact was once made a public exhibition to the medical faculty. Women thus formed appear to partake in their general form of the male character, and are called hermaphrodites. The idea of human beings, called hermaphrodites, which could be either father or mother, is, doubtless, erroneous. The clitoris is analogous in its structure to the penis, and like it, is exquisitely sensitive, being, as it is supposed, the principal seat of pleasure. It is subject to erection or distension, like the penis, from like causes.

The external opening starts just below this. On each side of this opening is a raised area that continues from the pubic mound, which is larger at the top and gradually gets smaller as it goes down. These two raised areas are called the Labia Externa, or external lips. Towards the end of pregnancy, they become a bit bigger and more relaxed, so they experience little to no damage during childbirth. Just inside the upper or front corner where these lips meet, there is a small round, oval-shaped body. This body is known as the clitoris. Most of its length is closely attached to the bone, and its size can vary widely among different women. There have been cases where it was so enlarged that the woman was able to engage in sexual intercourse with others; this fact was once publicly demonstrated for the medical community in Paris. Women with such characteristics seem to have a more masculine overall form and are called hermaphrodites. The concept of beings, known as hermaphrodites, who could act as either mother or father, is certainly incorrect. The clitoris is structurally similar to the penis and, like it, is very sensitive, thought to be the main center of pleasure. It can become erect or distended, like the penis, from similar causes.

The skin which lines the internal surface of the external lips is folded in such manner as to form two flat bodies, the exterior edges of which are convex. They are called the nymphse. They extend downward, one on each side, from the clitoris to near the middle of the external orifice, somewhat diverging from each other. Their use is not very evident The orifice of the urethra (the canal, short in females, which leads to the bladder) is situated an inch or more farther inward than the clitoris, and is a little protuberant.

The skin that lines the inside of the outer lips is folded in a way that creates two flat shapes, with the outer edges being curved. These are called the labia. They extend downwards, one on each side, from the clitoris to near the middle of the outer opening, slightly spreading apart. Their function isn't very clear. The urethra opening (the short tube in females that leads to the bladder) is located more than an inch inward from the clitoris and slightly sticks out.

Passing by the external lips, the clitoris, the nymphse and the orifice of the urethra, we come to the membrane called the hymen. It is situated just at, or a trifle behind the orifice of the urethra. It is stretched across the passage, and were it a complete septum, it would close up the anterior extremity of that portion of the passage which is called the vagina. But the instances in which the septum or partition is complete are very rare, there being, in almost all cases, an aperture either in its center, or frequently in its anterior edge, giving the membrane the form of a crescent Through this aperture passes the menstrual fluid. Sometimes, however, this septum is complete, and the menstrual fluid is retained month after month, until appearances and symptoms much like those of pregnancy are produced, giving rise to perhaps unjust suspicions. Such cases require the simple operation of dividing the hymen. In many instances the hymen is very imperfect, insomuch that some have doubted whether it is to be found in the generality of virgins. Where it exists it is generally ruptured in the first intercourse of the sexes, and the female is said to lose her virginity. In some rare instances it is so very strong as not to be ruptured by such intercourse, and the nature of the difficulty not being understood, the husband has sued for a divorce. But everything may be put to rights by a slight surgical operation. The parts here described are among those called the external parts of generation.

Passing by the outer lips, the clitoris, the labia, and the urethral opening, we come to the membrane known as the hymen. It is located just at or slightly behind the urethral opening. It stretches across the passage, and if it were a complete barrier, it would close off the front part of the passage known as the vagina. However, cases where the barrier is complete are very rare; in almost all instances, there is an opening either in the center or often at the front edge, giving the membrane a crescent shape. Menstrual fluid passes through this opening. Sometimes, though, the barrier is complete, causing menstrual fluid to be retained month after month, resulting in signs and symptoms that resemble pregnancy, leading to possibly unfair suspicions. Such cases require a simple procedure to divide the hymen. In many cases, the hymen is very imperfect, leading some to question whether it exists in most virgins. Where it does exist, it typically ruptures during the first sexual intercourse, and the female is said to lose her virginity. In some rare cases, it is so strong that it does not rupture during intercourse, and since the nature of the problem is misunderstood, the husband has filed for divorce. But everything can be resolved with a minor surgical procedure. The parts described here are among those referred to as the external reproductive organs.

The internal organs of generation consist in the female of the Vagina, the Uterus, the Ovaries and their appendages.

The female reproductive system includes the vagina, uterus, ovaries, and their appendages.

The Vagina is a membranous canal commencing at the hymen and extending to the uterus. It is a little curved, and extends backward and upward between the bladder, which lies before and above it, and that extreme portion of the bowels called the rectum, which lies behind it. The coat of membrane which lines the internal surface of the vagina forms a number of transverse ridges. These are to be found only in the lower or anterior half of the vagina, and they do not extend all round the vagina, but are situated on its anterior and posterior sides, while their lateral sides are smooth. I mention these ridges because a knowledge of them may lead to a more effectual use of one of the checks to be made known hereafter.

The vagina is a membranous canal that starts at the hymen and runs to the uterus. It has a slight curve and extends backward and upward between the bladder, which is located in front and above it, and the far end of the bowels known as the rectum, which is behind it. The membrane lining the inner surface of the vagina has several transverse ridges. These ridges are found only in the lower or front half of the vagina and do not wrap all the way around; instead, they are located on the front and back sides, while the sides are smooth. I mention these ridges because knowing about them can lead to a more effective use of one of the checks that will be explained later.

The uterus or womb is also situated between the bladder and the rectum, but above the vagina. Such is its shape that it has been compared to a pear with a long neck. There is, of course, considerable difference between the body and the neck, the first being twice as broad as the last. Each of these parts is somewhat flattened. In subjects of mature age, who have been pregnant, the whole of the uterus is about two inches and a half in length, and more than an inch and a half in breadth at the broadest part of the body. It is near an inch in thickness. The neck of the uterus is situated downward, and may be said to be inserted into the upper extremity of the vagina. It extends down into the vagina the better part of an inch. In the uterus is a cavity which approaches the triangular form, and from which a canal passes down through the neck of the uterus into the vagina. This cavity is so small that its sides are almost in contact So that the uterus is a thick, firm organ for so small a one. Comparing the cavity of the uterus to a triangle, we say the upper side or line of this triangle is transverse with respect to the body, and the other two lines pass downward and inward, so that they would form an angle below, did they not before they meet take a turn more directly downward to form the canal just mentioned. In each of the upper angles there is an orifice of such size as to admit of a hog's bristle. These little orifices are the mouths of two tubes, called the Fallopian tubes, of which more will be said presently. The canal which passes through the neck of the uterus, connecting the cavity of this organ with that of the vagina, is about a quarter of an inch in diameter. It is different from other ducts, for it seems to be a part of the cavity from which it extends, inasmuch as when the cavity of the uterus is enlarged in the progress of pregnancy, this canal is gradually converted into a part of that cavity.

The uterus, or womb, is located between the bladder and the rectum, but above the vagina. Its shape has been likened to a pear with a long neck. There's a notable difference between the body and the neck, with the body being about twice as wide as the neck. Both parts are somewhat flattened. In adults who have been pregnant, the entire uterus is about two and a half inches long and more than an inch and a half wide at its widest part. It's nearly an inch thick. The neck of the uterus points downward and connects to the upper part of the vagina, extending into it by about an inch. Inside the uterus is a cavity that resembles a triangle, from which a canal runs down through the neck into the vagina. This cavity is so small that its sides nearly touch, making the uterus a sturdy, firm organ for its size. If we compare the cavity of the uterus to a triangle, the upper side of this triangle is horizontal in relation to the body, while the other two sides angle down and inward, forming an angle below, but before they meet, they turn directly downward to create the canal mentioned earlier. Each of the upper angles has an opening large enough to fit a hog's bristle. These small openings are the entrances to two tubes called the Fallopian tubes, which will be discussed further. The canal that runs through the neck of the uterus, linking the cavity of this organ to that of the vagina, is about a quarter of an inch in diameter. It differs from other ducts, as it appears to be part of the cavity from which it extends; when the uterus expands during pregnancy, this canal gradually becomes part of that cavity.

The lower extremity of the neck of the uterus is irregularly convex and tumid. The orifice of the canal in it is oval, and so situated that it divides the convex surface of the lower extremity of the neck in two portions, which are called the lips of the uterus. The anterior is thicker than the posterior. The orifice itself is called os tincæ or os uteri, or in English, the mouth of the womb. When the parts are in a weak, relaxed state, the mouth or neck of the uterus is quite low, and in almost all oases it may be reached by a finger introduced into the vagina, especially by a second person, who carries the hand behind.

The lower part of the neck of the uterus is unevenly rounded and swollen. The opening of the canal is oval-shaped and located in such a way that it divides the rounded surface of the lower part of the neck into two sections, which are called the lips of the uterus. The front lip is thicker than the back lip. The opening itself is known as os tincæ or os uteri, which translates to the mouth of the womb in English. When the tissues are weak and relaxed, the mouth or neck of the uterus sits quite low, and in almost all cases, it can be reached by a finger inserted into the vagina, especially if a second person assists by guiding the hand from behind.

The Ovaries are two bodies of a flattened or oval form, one of which is situated on each side of the uterus at a little distance from it, and about as high up as where the uterus becomes narrow to form its neck. The longest diameter of the ovarium is about an inch. Each ovarium has a firm coat of membrane. In those who have not been pregnant, it contains from ten to twenty vesicles, which are little round bodies, formed of a delicate membrane, and filled with a transparent fluid. Some of these vesicles are situated so near the surface of the ovarium as to be prominent on its surface. They are of different sizes, the largest nearly a quarter of a inch in diameter.*

The ovaries are two flattened or oval-shaped organs, located on either side of the uterus, slightly separated from it, and about as high as where the uterus narrows to form its neck. The longest diameter of an ovary is about an inch. Each ovary has a firm outer membrane. In those who haven't been pregnant, it contains between ten to twenty vesicles, which are small round structures made of a delicate membrane and filled with a transparent fluid. Some of these vesicles are positioned close to the surface of the ovary, making them noticeable on its surface. They come in different sizes, with the largest being nearly a quarter of an inch in diameter.*

     * The vesicles here mentioned are the so-called Graafian
     vesicles, or ovisacs, each of which contains in its interior
     a little ovum or egg. In the human female the ovum is
     extremely minute, so as only to be visible with the aid of a
     lens. The Graafian vesicles are not limited to a certain
     small number, as was formerly thought, but continue to be
     formed in the ovaries, and to discharge at intervals mature
     ova during the whole of the fruitful period.—G. R.
     * The vesicles mentioned here are known as Graafian vesicles or ovisacs, each containing a tiny ovum or egg. In human females, the ovum is very small, only visible with a lens. Contrary to previous belief, Graafian vesicles are not restricted to a fixed number; they continue to form in the ovaries and release mature eggs at regular intervals throughout the fertile period.—G. R.

In those in whom conception has ever taken place, some of these vesicles are removed, and in their place a cicatrix or scar is formed which continues through life. However, the number of cicatrices does not always correspond with the number of conceptions. They often exceed it, and are sometimes found where conception has not been known to take place. The Fallopian Tubes are two canals four or five inches in length, proceeding from the upper angles of the cavity of the uterus, in a transverse direction in respect to the body. Having so proceeded for some distance they turn downward toward the ovaries. At their commencement in the uterus they are very small, but they enlarge as much as they progress. The large ends, which hang loose, terminate in open mouths, the margins of which consist of fimbriated processes, and nearly touch the ovaria.

In those who have ever conceived, some of these small sacs are removed, and in their place, a scar forms that lasts a lifetime. However, the number of scars doesn't always match the number of conceptions. They often outnumber them and can sometimes be found even when conception hasn't occurred. The Fallopian Tubes are two tubes, about four to five inches long, that extend from the upper corners of the uterus cavity across the body. After going a short distance, they curve downward toward the ovaries. At their start in the uterus, they are quite small, but they widen as they go along. The larger ends, which hang loosely, end in open openings, with fringed edges that almost touch the ovaries.

We are now prepared to treat of conception. Yet, as menstruation is closely connected with it, and as a knowledge of many things concerning menstruation may contribute much to the well-being of females, for whom this work is at least as much designed as for males, I shall first briefly treat of this subject.

We are now ready to discuss conception. However, since menstruation is closely linked to it, and understanding many aspects of menstruation can greatly benefit females, for whom this work is intended as much as for males, I will first provide a brief overview of this topic.

Menstruation.—When females arrive at the age of puberty they begin to have a discharge once every month, by way of the vagina, of the color of blood. This discharge is termed the menses. To have it is to menstruate. The age at which menstruation commences varies with different individuals, and also in different climates. The warmer the climate the earlier it commences and ceases. In temperate climates it generally commences at the age of fourteen or fifteen, and it ceases at forty-four, or a little later. *

Menstruation.—When females reach puberty, they start experiencing a monthly discharge from the vagina that is blood-colored. This discharge is known as the menses. Having it means they are menstruating. The age when menstruation starts varies among individuals and also depends on different climates. In warmer climates, it begins and ends earlier. In temperate climates, it typically starts around the age of fourteen or fifteen and usually stops around forty-four, or a bit later.

Whenever it commences the girl acquires a more womanly appearance. It is a secretion of the uterus, or, in other words, the minute vessels distributed to the inner coat of uterus, select as it were, from the blood, and pour out in a gradual manner the materials of this fluid. It has one of the properties, color, of blood, but it does not coagulate, or separate into different parts like blood, and cannot properly be called blood.**

Whenever it starts, the girl takes on a more womanly appearance. It's a secretion from the uterus, or in other words, the tiny vessels in the inner lining of the uterus drawing from the blood and gradually releasing the components of this fluid. It shares one property with blood: color. However, it doesn't clot or separate into different parts like blood, so it can't really be called blood.

     * Dr. Chavasse, on p. 94 of his "Advice to a Wife"
     published by W. H. Smith & Son gives instances of very
     early menstruation and consequent fecundity.—Publishers'
     note,

     ** "The menstrual discharge," says Dr. Kirkes, "consists of
     blood effused from the inner surface of the uterus, and
     mixed with mucus from the uterus, vagina, and the external
     parts of the generative apparatus. Being diluted by this
     admixture, the menstrual blood coagulates less perfectly
     than ordinary blood; and the frequent acidity of the vaginal
     mucus tends still further to diminish its coagulability."—
     Handbook of Physiology, 8th ed., p. 727, 1874.—G. R.
     * Dr. Chavasse, on p. 94 of his "Advice to a Wife" published by W. H. Smith & Son, gives examples of very early menstruation and its resulting ability to conceive. —Publishers' note,

     ** "The menstrual discharge," says Dr. Kirkes, "is made up of blood released from the inner surface of the uterus, combined with mucus from the uterus, vagina, and the external parts of the reproductive system. This mixture dilutes the menstrual blood, making it clot less effectively than regular blood; and the often acidic nature of the vaginal mucus further reduces its ability to clot." —Handbook of Physiology, 8th ed., p. 727, 1874. —G. R.

When this discharge is in all respects regular, it amounts in most females to six or eight ounces, and from two to four days' continuance. During its continuance the women is said to be unwell, or out of order. Various unpleasant feelings are liable to attend it; but when it is attended with severe pain, as it not infrequently is, it becomes a disease, and the woman is not likely to conceive until it is cured. During the existence of the "turns," or "monthlies," as they are often called, indigestible food, dancing in warm rooms, sudden exposure to cold or wet, and mental agitations, should be avoided as much as possible. The "turns" do not continue during pregnancy, nor nursing, unless nursing be continued after the "turns" recommence. Some women, it is true, are subject to a slight hemorrhage that sometimes occurs with considerable regularity during pregnancy, and which has led them to suppose they have their turns at such times; but it is not so; the discharge at such times is real blood.*

When this discharge is completely normal, it usually amounts to six or eight ounces in most females and lasts for two to four days. During this time, women are considered unwell or out of sorts. Various uncomfortable feelings can accompany it; however, when it is accompanied by severe pain, which is quite common, it turns into a medical issue, and the woman is unlikely to conceive until it is resolved. While experiencing the "turns" or "monthlies," as they are often called, women should avoid indigestible foods, dancing in warm rooms, sudden exposure to cold or wet conditions, and emotional stress as much as possible. The "turns" do not occur during pregnancy or breastfeeding unless breastfeeding continues after they start again. Some women may experience slight bleeding that happens fairly regularly during pregnancy, which leads them to believe they are having their "turns" at those times; however, that is not the case—the discharge at such times is actual blood.

     * Consult on the whole of this Dr. Chavasse's book, pp. 91-
     101, where full details are given.—Publishers' note.
     * For a complete overview, refer to Dr. Chavasse's book, pp. 91-101, where full details are provided.—Publishers' note.

The use of the menstrual discharge seems to be to prepare the uterine system for conception. For females do not become pregnant before they commence, nor after they cease having turns; nor while they are suppressed by some disease, by cold or by nursing. Some credible women, however, have said that they become pregnant while nursing, without having had any turn since their last lying-in. It is believed that in these oases they had some discharge, colorless, perhaps, which they did not notice, but which answered the purposes of the common one. Women are not nearly so likely to conceive during the week before a monthly as during the week immediately after.* But although the use of this secretion seems to be to prepare for conception, it is not to be inferred that the reproductive instinct ceases at the "turn of life," or when the woman ceases to menstruate. On the contrary, it is said that this passion often increases at this period, and continues in a greater or less degree to an extreme age.

The menstrual discharge appears to prepare the uterine system for conception. Women don’t get pregnant before they start their periods, nor after they stop having them; they also don’t conceive while suppressed by illness, cold, or while breastfeeding. However, some reliable women claim they became pregnant while nursing, without having had a period since giving birth. It’s believed that in these cases, they had some unnoticed colorless discharge that served the same purpose as a regular period. Women are much less likely to conceive in the week before their period compared to the week right after. But while this secretion seems to help prepare for conception, it doesn’t mean that the reproductive instinct stops at menopause or when a woman stops menstruating. In fact, it’s said that desire often increases during this time and can continue, to varying degrees, into old age.

     * See, however, Dr. Bull's "Hints to Mothers," pp. 31-58,
     and 127-129 (published by Longmans, Green & Co.)—
     Publishers' note.
     * See, however, Dr. Bull's "Hints to Mothers," pp. 31-58,
     and 127-129 (published by Longmans, Green & Co.)—
     Publishers' note.

Conception.—The part performed by the male in the reproduction of the species consists in exciting the organism of the female, and depositing the semen in the vagina. Before I inquire what takes place in the females I propose to speak of the semen.

Conception.—The role of the male in reproduction involves stimulating the female's body and depositing semen in the vagina. Before I discuss what happens in females, I’d like to talk about the semen.

This fluid, which is secreted by the testicles, may be said to possess three kinds of properties, physical, chemical, physiological. Its physical properties are known to every one—it is a thickish, nearly opaque fluid, of a peculiar odor, saltish taste, etc. As to its chemical properties, it is found by analysis to consist of 900 parts of water, 60 of animal muscilage, 10 of soda, 30 of phosphate of lime. Its physiological property is that of exciting the female genital organs in a peculiar manner.

This fluid, secreted by the testicles, has three types of properties: physical, chemical, and physiological. Its physical properties are known to everyone—it is a thick, almost opaque fluid with a distinct odor and a salty taste, among other characteristics. As for its chemical properties, analysis shows it consists of 900 parts water, 60 parts animal mucilage, 10 parts soda, and 30 parts phosphate of lime. Its physiological property is that it stimulates the female reproductive organs in a unique way.

When the semen is examined by microscope, there can be distinguished a multitude of small animalculæ, which appear to have a rounded head and a long tail. These animalculæ move with a certain degree of rapidity. They appear to avoid the light and to delight in the shade. Leeuwenhoek, if not the discoverer of the seminal animalculse, was the first who brought the fact of their existence fully before the public. With respect to their size, he remarked that ten thousand of them might exist in a space not larger than a grain of sand. They have a definite figure, and are obviously different from the animalculse found in any other fluid.*

When semen is looked at under a microscope, you can see a lot of tiny microorganisms that have a round head and a long tail. These microorganisms move quite quickly. They seem to shy away from the light and prefer being in the dark. Leeuwenhoek may not have been the first to discover these seminal microorganisms, but he was the first to widely share the fact that they exist. Regarding their size, he noted that you could fit ten thousand of them in an area no bigger than a grain of sand. They have a distinct shape and are clearly different from the microorganisms found in other liquids.*

     * See Dr. Carpenter's "Animal Physiology," p. 558 (published
     by H. G. Bonn); Nichol's "Human Physiology," pp. 253-255
     (published by Trubner & Co.)—Publishers' note.
     * See Dr. Carpenter's "Animal Physiology," p. 558 (published by H. G. Bonn); Nichol's "Human Physiology," pp. 253-255 (published by Trubner & Co.)—Publishers' note.

Leeuwenhoek believed them to be the beginnings of future animals—that they are of different sexes, upon which depends the future sex of the foetus. Be this as it may, it appears to be admitted on all hands that the animalculæ are present in the semen of the various species of male animals, and that they cannot be detected when either from age or disease the animals are rendered sterile. "Hence," says Bostock, "we can scarcely refuse our assent to the position that these animalculæ are in some way or other instrumental to the production of the foetus." The secretion of the semen commences at the age of puberty. Before this period the testicles secrete a viscid, transparent fluid, which has never been analyzed, but which is doubtless essentially different from semen. The revolution which the whole economy undergoes at this period, such as the tone of the voice, and development of hairs, the beard, the increase of the muscles and bones, etc., is intimately connected with the testicles and the secretion of this fluid.* "Eunuchs preserve the same form as in childhood; their voice is effeminate, they have no beard, their disposition is timid; and finally their physical and moral character very nearly resembles that of females. Nevertheless, many of them take delight in venereal intercourse, and give themselves up with ardor to a connection which must always prove unfruitful."**

Leeuwenhoek believed they were the beginnings of future animals—that they come in different sexes, which determines the future sex of the fetus. Regardless, it seems widely accepted that the animalcules are present in the semen of various male species and that they can’t be detected when the animals become sterile due to age or disease. "Thus," says Bostock, "we can hardly disagree with the idea that these animalcules play a role in the production of the fetus." Semen production starts at puberty. Before this stage, the testicles produce a thick, transparent fluid, which has never been studied but is clearly different from semen. The changes the whole body experiences during this time, like voice changes, hair growth, beard development, and increases in muscle and bone mass, are closely linked to the testicles and the secretion of this fluid. Eunuchs maintain the same appearance as children; their voices are feminine, they grow no beard, their demeanor is timid, and their physical and moral traits closely resemble those of females. Yet, many find pleasure in sexual intercourse and passionately engage in a relationship that is always unfruitful.

     * Nichol's  "Human Physiology,"  pp.    256-257.
     —Publishers' note

     ** Magendic's Physiology.—Author's note.
     * Nichol's  "Human Physiology,"  pp.    256-257.
     —Publishers' note

     ** Magendic's Physiology.—Author's note.

The part performed by the female in the reproduction of the species is far more complicated than that performed by the male. It consists, in the first instance, in providing a substance which, in connection with the male secretion, is to constitute the foetus; in furnishing a suitable situation in which the foetus may be developed; in affording due nourishment for its growth; in bringing it forth, and afterward furnishing it with food especially adapted to the digestive organs of the young animal. Some parts of this process are not well understood, and such variety of hypotheses have been proposed to explain them that Drelincourt, who lived in the latter part of the seventeenth century, is said to have collected two hundred and sixty hypotheses of generation.

The role of females in reproduction is much more complex than that of males. It starts with providing a substance that, along with the male's contribution, forms the fetus; creating a suitable environment for the fetus to develop; ensuring proper nutrition for its growth; giving birth; and afterwards supplying food that is specifically suited to the digestive system of the young animal. Some aspects of this process are not well understood, and numerous theories have been proposed to explain them. Drelincourt, who lived in the late seventeenth century, reportedly collected two hundred and sixty theories about generation.

It ought to be known that women have conceived when the semen was merely applied to the parts anterior to the hymen, as the internal surface of the external lips, the nymphæ, etc. This is proved by the fact that several cases of pregnancy have occurred when the hymen was entire. The fact need not surprise us, for, agreeable to the theory of absorption, we have to account for it only to suppose that some of the absorbent vessels are situated anterior to the hymen—a supposition by no means unreasonable.

It should be noted that women have become pregnant even when semen was only applied to areas in front of the hymen, such as the inner surface of the outer lips, the labia, etc. This is supported by the fact that there have been several instances of pregnancy when the hymen was intact. This shouldn't surprise us because, according to the theory of absorption, we can explain it by suggesting that some of the absorbent vessels are located in front of the hymen—a suggestion that is certainly not unreasonable.

There are two peculiarities of the human species respecting conception which I will notice. First, unlike other animals they are liable, and for what has been proved to the contrary, equally liable—to conceive at all seasons of the year. Second, a woman rarely, if ever, conceives until after having several sexual connections; nor does one connection in fifty cause conception in the matrimonial state, where the husband and wife live together uninterruptedly. Public women rarely conceive, owing probably to a weakened state of the genital system, induced by too frequent and promiscuous intercourse.

There are two unique aspects of humans regarding conception that I want to mention. First, unlike other animals, humans can conceive at any time of the year, and despite what some might claim, they are equally capable of doing so. Second, a woman hardly ever conceives after just one sexual encounter; in fact, one in fifty encounters might lead to conception in marriage, even when the couple lives together continuously. Public women often have a lower chance of conception, likely due to a weakened reproductive system from frequent and casual sexual activity.

It is universally agreed, that some time after a fruitful connection, a vesicle (two in case of twins) of one or the other ovary becomes so enlarged that it bursts forth from the ovary and takes the name of ovum, which is taken up, or rather received, as it bursts forth, by the fimbriated extremity of the Fallopian tube, and is then conducted along the tube into the uterus, to the inner surface of which it attaches itself.*

It is widely accepted that after a successful connection, a follicle (or two in the case of twins) from one of the ovaries becomes so enlarged that it breaks free from the ovary, becoming known as an ovum. This ovum is then collected, or rather caught, by the fringed end of the Fallopian tube as it bursts forth and is subsequently transported along the tube into the uterus, where it attaches itself to the inner lining.*

     * Since Dr. Knowlton's work was written, the very important
     fact has been discovered that ova are periodically
     discharged from the ovaries in the human female and other
     animals, not in consequence of fruitful connection having
     taken place, as was formerly believed, but quite
     independently of intercourse with the male. Such a discharge
     of ova occurs in the lower animals at the time of heat or
     rut, and in women during menstruation. At each menstrual
     period, a Graafian vesicle becomes enlarged, bursts, and
     lets the ovum which it contains escape into the Fallopian
     tube, along which it passes to the uterus. "It has long been
     known," says Dr. Kirke, "that in the so-called oviparous
     animals, the separation of ova from the ovary may take place
     independently of impregnation by the male, or even of sexual
     union. And it is now established that a like maturation and
     discharge of ova, independently of coition, occurs in
     Mammalia, the periods at which the matured ova are separated
     from the ovaries and received into the Fallopian tubes being
     indicated in the lower Mammalia by the phenomena of heat
     or rut; in the human female by the phenomena of
     menstruation. Sexual desire manifests itself in the human
     female to a greater degree at these periods, and in the
     female of mammiferous animals at no other time. If the union
     of the sexes takes place, the ovum may be fecundated, and if
     no union occur, it perishes. From what has been said it may
     therefore be concluded that the two states, heat and
     menstruation, are analogous, and that the essential
     accompaniment of both is the maturation and extrusion of
     ova."—"Handbook of Physiology," page 724.—G. R.
* Since Dr. Knowlton's work was published, it has been found that eggs are periodically released from the ovaries in human females and other animals, not because of sexual intercourse as was previously thought, but entirely independently of male interaction. This release of eggs occurs in lower animals during heat or rut, and in women during their menstrual cycle. At each menstrual cycle, a Graafian follicle enlarges, bursts, and releases the egg it contains into the Fallopian tube, where it travels to the uterus. "It has long been known," says Dr. Kirke, "that in so-called oviparous animals, the release of eggs from the ovary can happen without fertilization by the male or even sexual union. It is now established that a similar maturation and release of eggs, independent of copulation, occurs in mammals, with the times when the matured eggs are released from the ovaries and enter the Fallopian tubes being marked in lower mammals by the signs of heat or rut; in human females by the signs of menstruation. Sexual desire tends to be stronger in human females during these times, and in female mammals at no other time. If sexual union occurs, the egg may be fertilized, and if there is no union, it will die. From this, we can conclude that the two states, heat and menstruation, are similar, and that the key feature of both is the maturation and release of eggs."—"Handbook of Physiology," page 724.—G. R.

Here it becomes developed into a full grown foetus, and is brought forth about forty-two weeks from the time of conception by a process termed parturition. But one grand question is, how the semen operates itself, or any part thereof reaches the ovary, and if so, in what way it is conveyed to them. It was long the opinion that the semen was ejected into the uterus in the act of coition, and that it afterward, by some unknown means, found its way into and along the Fallopian tubes to the ovary. But there are several facts which weigh heavily against this opinion, and some that entirely forbid it. In the first place, there are several well attested instances in which impregnation took place while the hymen remained entire, where the vagina terminated in the rectum, where it was so contracted by a cicatrix as not to admit the penis. In all these cases the semen could not have been lodged anywhere near the mouth of the uterus, much less ejected into it. Secondly, it has followed a connection where from some defect in the male organs, as the urethra terminating some inches behind the end of the penis, and it is clear that the semen could not have been injected into the uterus, nor even near its mouth. Third, the neck of the unimpregnated uterus is so narrow as merely to admit a probe, and is filled with a thick tenacious fluid, which seemingly could not be forced away by any force which the male organ possesses of ejecting the semen, even if the mouth of the male urethra were in opposition with that of the uterus. But fourth, the mouth of the uterus is by no means fixed. By various causes it is made to assume various situations, and probably the mouth of the urethra rarely comes in contact with it.

Here, it develops into a full-term fetus and is born about forty-two weeks after conception through a process called childbirth. However, one major question is how the sperm works, or how any part of it reaches the ovary, and if so, how it gets there. For a long time, it was believed that sperm was released into the uterus during intercourse and then somehow traveled through the Fallopian tubes to the ovary. Yet, there are several facts that strongly contradict this belief, and some that completely rule it out. First, there are numerous documented cases of conception occurring while the hymen was intact, where the vagina ended in the rectum, or where it was so constricted by scar tissue that it couldn’t accommodate the penis. In all these instances, the sperm could not have possibly been near the entrance of the uterus, let alone deposited inside it. Second, there have been cases of conception occurring when there were defects in the male reproductive organs, such as the urethra ending several inches before the tip of the penis, making it evident that the sperm couldn't have been introduced into the uterus or even close to its entrance. Third, the neck of the non-pregnant uterus is so narrow that it can only permit a probe, and it is filled with a thick, sticky fluid that apparently could not be pushed out by any force the male organ might exert to release the sperm, even if the tip of the male urethra were aligned with the entrance of the uterus. Lastly, the entrance of the uterus is by no means stationary. Due to various factors, it can take on different positions, and it’s likely that the tip of the urethra doesn’t often make contact with it.

Fifth. "The tenacity of the male semen is such as renders its passage through the small aperture in the neck of the uterus impossible, even by a power of force much superior to that which we may rationally suppose to reside in the male organs of generation."

Fifth. "The resilience of male semen is such that it cannot pass through the small opening at the neck of the uterus, even with a force much greater than what we would reasonably think is possible from the male reproductive organs."

Sixth. "Harvey and DeGraaf dissected animals at almost every period after coition for the express purpose of discovering the semen, but were never able to detect the smallest vestige of it in the uterus in any one instance."*

Sixth. "Harvey and DeGraaf examined animals almost every time after mating specifically to find the semen, but they were never able to detect even the tiniest trace of it in the uterus in any case."*

     * Dewees' Essay on Superfoetation.—Author's note.
* Dewees' Essay on Superfoetation.—Author's note.

Aware of the insurmountable objection to this view of the manner in which the semen reaches the ovary, it has been supposed by some physiologists that the semen is absorbed from the vagina into the great circulating system, where it is mixed, of course, with the blood, and goes the whole round of the circulation subject to the influence of those causes which produce great changes in the latter fluid.

Recognizing the overwhelming criticism of this perspective on how semen gets to the ovary, some physiologists have suggested that semen is absorbed from the vagina into the larger circulatory system, where it mixes with the blood and travels throughout the circulation, influenced by the factors that cause significant changes in the blood.

To this hypothesis it may be objected, that while there is no direct evidence in support of it, it is exceedingly unreasonable, inasmuch as we can scarcely believe that the semen can go the whole round of circulation, and then find its way to the ovary in such a pure unaltered state as the experiments of Spallanzani prove it must be in, that it may impregnate.

To this hypothesis, it could be argued that while there isn't any direct evidence supporting it, it seems highly unreasonable, as it's hard to believe that sperm can travel through the entire circulation and then reach the ovary in such a pure, unaltered state as shown by Spallanzani's experiments, so it can fertilize.

A third set of theorists have maintained that an imperceptible something, which they have called aura seminalis, passes from the semen lodged in the vagina to the ovary, and excites those actions which are essential to the development of an ovum. Others, again, have told us that it is all done by sympathy. That neither the semen nor any volatile part of it finds its way to the ovary; but that the semen excites the parts with which it is in contact in a peculiar manner, and by the law of animal economy, termed sympathy, or consent of parts, a peculiar action commences in the ovary, by which an ovum is developed.

A third group of theorists argues that an unnoticed substance, which they call aura seminalis, transfers from the semen in the vagina to the ovary, triggering the processes necessary for the development of an ovum. Others have suggested that it happens through sympathy. They claim that neither the semen nor any of its volatile components reaches the ovary; instead, the semen interacts with the nearby parts in a specific way, and according to the principle of animal economy known as sympathy—or consent of parts—a unique action starts in the ovary that leads to the development of an ovum.

To both these conjectures it may be objected that they have no other foundation but the supposed necessity of adopting them, to account for the effect of impregnation; and, further, they "make no provision for the formation of mules; for the peculiarities of, and likeness to, parents, and for the propagation of predisposition to disease, from parent to child; for the production of mulattoes," etc.

To both of these theories, it can be argued that they are based solely on the assumed need to adopt them to explain the process of conception; additionally, they "do not account for the formation of mules, the similarities and differences between parents and offspring, the inheritance of disease predisposition from parent to child, or the creation of mixed-race individuals," etc.

A fifth, and to me far more satisfactory view of the subject than any other, is that advanced by our distinguished countryman, Dr. Dewees, of Philadelphia. It appears to harmonize with all known facts relating to the conception and something from analogy may also be drawn in its favor. It is this, that there is a set of absorbent vessels, leading directly from the inner surface of the labia externa and the vagina, to the ovaries, the whole office of which vessels is to absorb the semen and convey it to the ovaries.* I do not know that these vessels have yet been fully discovered, but in a note on the sixteenth page of his "Essays on Various Subjects," the doctor says: "The existence of these vessels is now rendered almost certain, as Dr. Gartner, of Copenhagen, has discovered a duct leading from the ovary to the vagina."

A fifth, and to me far more satisfactory view of the subject than any other, is that proposed by our distinguished countryman, Dr. Dewees, from Philadelphia. It seems to align with all known facts related to conception, and something from analogy can also be drawn in its favor. This view is that there are absorbent vessels that lead directly from the inner surface of the labia externa and the vagina to the ovaries. The primary purpose of these vessels is to absorb the semen and transport it to the ovaries.* I’m not sure if these vessels have been fully discovered yet, but in a note on the sixteenth page of his "Essays on Various Subjects," the doctor states: "The existence of these vessels is now rendered almost certain, as Dr. Gartner, of Copenhagen, has discovered a duct leading from the ovary to the vagina."

     * This view is not held at the present day. The commonly
     received doctrine now is that the seminal fluid enters the
     uterus, whether during the intercourse or after it, and
     passes along the Fallopian tubes to the ovaries; and that
     fecundation takes place at some point of this course, most
     frequently in the tubes, but also at times in the ovary
     itself, or even, perhaps, in the uterus. It is essentially
     necessary for fecundation that the spermatozoa should come
     into actual contact with the ovum. "That the spermatozoa
     make their way toward the ovarium, and fecundate the ovum
     either before it entirely quits the ovisac or very shortly
     afterward," says Dr. Carpenter, "appears to be the general
     rule in regard to the Mammalia; and their power of movement
     must obviously be both vigorous and long continued to enable
     them to traverse so great an extent of mucous membrane,
     especially when it is remembered that they ascend in
     opposition to the direction of the ciliary movement of the
     epithelial cells and to the downward peristaltic action of
     the Fallopian tubes. * * * There can be no doubt that it is
     the contact of the spermatozoa with the ovum, and in the
     changes which occur as the immediate consequence of that
     contact, that the act of fecundation essentially consists."
     —"Principles of Human Physiology," 8th ed., p. 961,1876.—G.R.
* This view is not held today. The commonly accepted belief now is that the sperm enters the uterus, whether during intercourse or afterward, and travels through the Fallopian tubes to the ovaries; fertilization occurs somewhere along this path, most often in the tubes, but sometimes in the ovary itself, or perhaps even in the uterus. For fertilization to happen, sperm must come into direct contact with the egg. "The sperm makes its way to the ovary and fertilizes the egg either before it completely leaves the follicle or very shortly after," says Dr. Carpenter. "This appears to be the general rule for Mammals; and their ability to move must clearly be both strong and sustained to allow them to navigate such a large distance of mucous membrane, especially when considering that they swim against the ciliary movement of the epithelial cells and the downward peristaltic action of the Fallopian tubes. * * * There is no doubt that it is the contact of the sperm with the egg, and the changes that occur immediately as a result of that contact, that make up the act of fertilization." —"Principles of Human Physiology," 8th ed., p. 961, 1876.—G.R.

Another question of considerable moment relating to generation is from which parent are the first rudiments of the foetus derived.

Another important question related to reproduction is which parent the first basics of the fetus come from.

The earliest hypothesis with which we are acquainted, and which has received the support of some of the most eminent of the moderns, ascribes the original formation of the foetus to the combination of particles of matter derived from each of the parents. This hypothesis naturally presents itself to the mind as the obvious method of explaining the necessity for the cooperation of the two sexes, and the resemblance in external form, and even in mind and character, which the offspring often bears to the male parent. "The principal objections," says Bostock, "to his hypothesis, independent of the want of any direct proof of a female seminal fluid, are of two descriptions, those which depend upon the supposed impossibility of unorganized matter forming an organized being, and those which are derived from observations and experiments of Haller and Spallanzani, which they brought forward in support of their theory of pre-existent germs."

The earliest idea we're familiar with, which has been backed by some of the most notable modern thinkers, attributes the original development of the fetus to the combination of particles from both parents. This idea naturally seems like the obvious way to explain why both sexes need to work together, as well as the similarities in appearance, and even in personality and character, that the offspring often share with the male parent. "The main objections," says Bostock, "to this idea, aside from the lack of direct proof of a female seminal fluid, fall into two categories: those based on the assumed impossibility of unorganized matter creating an organized being, and those stemming from the observations and experiments by Haller and Spallanzani, which they presented to support their theory of pre-existing germs."

In relation to these objections I remark, first those whose experience has been with hale females, I suspect, can have no doubt but that the female organism increases like that of the male, until an emission of fluid of some kind or other takes place. But whether this secretion may properly be called semen, whether any part of it unites with the male semen in forming the rudiments of the foetus, is another question. For my part I am inclined to the opinion that it does not.* I rather regard it as the result of exalted excitation, analogous to the increased secretion of other organs from increased stimulation; and if it may be for any object or use, as it probably is, it is that of affording nature a means of relieving herself; or, in other words, of quieting the venereal passion. If this passion, being once roused, could not by some means or other be calmed, it would command by far too great a portion of our thoughts, and with many constitutions the individuals, whether male or female, could not conduct themselves with due decorum. One fact which leads me to think that the female secretion in the act of coition is not essential to impregnation is, that many females have conceived, if their unbiased testimony may be relied on, when they experienced no pleasure. In these cases it is more than probable that there was no orgasm, nor any secretion or emission of fluid on the part of the female.

In relation to these objections, I note that those who have experience with healthy women likely have no doubt that the female body develops similarly to the male until some kind of fluid is released. However, whether this fluid is rightly described as semen and whether any part of it combines with male semen to form the beginnings of a fetus is a different matter. Personally, I lean towards the view that it does not. I see it more as a result of heightened stimulation, similar to increased secretion from other organs due to more stimulation; and if it serves any purpose, as it likely does, it’s to give nature a means to relieve itself or, in other words, to calm sexual desire. If this desire, once stirred, could not be settled in some way, it would take up too much of our thoughts, and many individuals, whether male or female, could not behave in a proper manner. One reason I believe that the female secretion during intercourse is not essential for conception is that many women have reported, if their honest testimony can be trusted, that they became pregnant even when they felt no pleasure. In these instances, it’s quite likely that there was no orgasm or any fluid released by the female.

     * With regard to this secretion in the female, which has
     nothing of a seminal character, Dr. Carpenter observes: "Its
     admixture with the male semen has been supposed to have some
     connection with impregnation; but no proof whatever has been
     given that any such admixture is necessary."—"Human
     Physiology," p. 991.—G. R.
     * Concerning this secretion in females, which is not at all similar to semen, Dr. Carpenter notes: "The idea that its mixing with male semen is linked to conception is a theory, but there is no evidence that such mixing is necessary."—"Human Physiology," p. 991.—G. R.

As to the objection of the supposed impossibility of unorganized matter forming an organized being, I do not believe such a thing takes place, even if we admit that "the original formation of the foetus is a combination of particles of matter derived from each of the parents." What do, or rather what ought we to mean by organized matter? Not, surely, that it exhibits some obvious physical structure, unlike what is to be found in inorganic matter, but that it exhibits phenomena, and of course may be said to possess properties unlike any kind of inorganic matter. Matter unites with matter in three ways, mechanically, chemically and organically, and each mode of union gives rise to properties peculiar to itself. When matter unites organically, the substance or being so formed exhibits some phenomena essentially different from what inorganic bodies exhibit. It is on this account that we ascribe to organic bodies certain properties, which we call physiological properties, such as contractility, sensibility, life, etc. When, from any cause, these bodies have undergone such a change that they no longer exhibit the phenomena peculiar to them, they are said to have lost these properties, and to be dead. A substance need not possess all the physiological properties of an animal of the higher orders to entitle it to the name of an organized or living substance, nor need it possess the physical property of solidity. The blood, as well as many of the secretions, does several things, exhibits several phenomena, which no mechanical or mere chemical combinations of matter do exhibit. We must therefore ascribe to it certain physiological properties, and regard it as an organized, a living fluid, as was contended by the celebrated John Hunter. So with respect to the semen, it certainly possesses physiological properties, one in particular peculiar to itself, namely, the property of impregnating the female; and upon no sound principle can it be regarded in any other light than as an organized, and of course a living fluid. And if the female secretion or any part of it unite with the male secretion in the formation of the rudiments or the foetus in a different manner than any other substance would, then it certainly has the property of doing so, whether we give this property a name or not; and a regard to the soundest principles of physiology compels us to class this property with the physiological or vital, and of course to regard this secretion as an organized and living fluid So, then, unorganized matter does not form an organized being, admitting the hypothesis before us as correct.

Regarding the objection about the supposed impossibility of unorganized matter forming an organized being, I don't think this really happens, even if we accept that "the original formation of the fetus is a combination of particles of matter derived from each of the parents." What do, or rather what should we mean by organized matter? Surely, it’s not just that it shows some obvious physical structure, unlike what we find in inorganic matter, but that it shows phenomena and can be said to have properties that are different from any kind of inorganic matter. Matter combines with matter in three ways: mechanically, chemically, and organically, and each type of combination results in unique properties. When matter combines organically, the resulting substance or being displays some phenomena that are fundamentally different from what inorganic bodies show. This is why we attribute certain properties to organic bodies, which we refer to as physiological properties, such as contractility, sensibility, life, etc. When these bodies undergo a change due to any reason and no longer show their unique phenomena, they are said to have lost these properties and to be dead. A substance doesn’t need to display all the physiological properties of a higher-order animal to be called an organized or living substance, nor does it need to have the physical property of solidity. Blood, as well as many secretions, performs several functions and shows several phenomena that no mechanical or purely chemical combinations of matter exhibit. Therefore, we must attribute certain physiological properties to it and consider it an organized, living fluid, as the renowned John Hunter argued. The same goes for semen; it certainly has physiological properties, one in particular that is unique to it, namely, the ability to impregnate the female. It cannot be reasonably viewed in any other way than as an organized and, consequently, living fluid. If the female secretion or any part of it joins with the male secretion to form the rudiments or the fetus differently than other substances would, then it definitely has that property, whether we label it or not; and adherence to sound physiological principles necessitates that we classify this property as physiological or vital, and thus regard this secretion as an organized and living fluid. So, unorganized matter does not form an organized being, assuming the given hypothesis is correct.

That organized being should give rise to other organized beings under favorable circumstances as to nourishment, warmth, etc., is no more wonderful than that fire should give rise to fire when air and fuel are present. To be sure, there are some minute steps in the processes which are not fully known to us; still, if they ever should be known, we should unquestionably see that there is a natural cause for every one of them; and that they are all consonant with certain laws of the animal economy. We should see no necessity of attempting to explain the process of generation by bringing to our aid, or rather to the darkening of the subject, any imaginary principle, as the visus formaticus of Blumenbach.

That an organized being should produce other organized beings under favorable conditions like food, warmth, and so on, is no more surprising than fire generating fire when there's air and fuel available. Of course, there are some small steps in these processes that we don't fully understand; however, if we ever do understand them, we'll undoubtedly find that there is a natural cause for each one, and that they all align with the established laws of animal biology. We should have no need to try to explain the process of generation by introducing any imaginary principles, like Blumenbach's visus formaticus, which only complicate the issue.

As to the "observations and experiments of Haller and Spallanzani," I think, with Dr. Bostock, that they weigh but little, if any, against the theory before us. I shall not be at the labor of bringing them forward and showing their futility as objections to this theory, for I am far from insisting on the correctness of it; that is, I do not insist that any part of the female secretion, during coition, unites with the male semen in the formation of the rudiments of the foetus.

Regarding the "observations and experiments of Haller and Spallanzani," I agree with Dr. Bostock that they carry little, if any, weight against the theory we are discussing. I won’t go through the effort of presenting them and demonstrating their irrelevance as objections to this theory, as I’m not claiming it is definitively correct; specifically, I don’t assert that any part of the female secretion during intercourse combines with the male semen to form the initial stages of the fetus.

The second hypothesis or theory, I shall notice, as to the rudiments of the foetus, is that of Leeuwenhoek, who regarded the seminal animalculse of the male semen as the proper rudiments of the foetus, and thought that the office of the female is to afford them a suitable receptacle where they may be supported and nourished until they are able to exist by the exercise of their own functions. This is essentially the view of the subject which I intend to give more particularly presently.

The second theory I want to mention regarding the early stages of the fetus is by Leeuwenhoek, who believed that the tiny living creatures in male semen are the true beginnings of the fetus. He thought that the role of the female is to provide a proper environment for these creatures to be supported and nourished until they can function independently. This perspective on the topic is what I plan to discuss in more detail shortly.

I know of no serious objections to this hypothesis, nothing but the "extreme improbability," as its opponents say, "that these animalculæ should be the rudiments of being so totally dissimilar to them." But I wish to know if there is more difference between a foetus and a seminal animalcule than there is between a foetus and a few material particles in some other form than that of such animalcule?

I don’t see any major issues with this hypothesis, just the "extreme unlikelihood," as its critics put it, "that these tiny organisms could be the beginnings of something so completely different from them." But I want to know if there’s more difference between a fetus and a sperm cell than there is between a fetus and a few particles of matter in a different form than that of such a sperm cell?

The third hypothesis, or that of pre-existing germs, proceeded upon a precisely opposite view of the subject to that of Leeuwenhoek, namely, that the foetus is properly the production of the female; that it exists previous to the sexual congress, with all its organs, in some parts of the uterine system; and that it receives no proper addition from the male, but that the seminal fluid acts merely by exciting the powers of the foetus, or endowing it with vitality.

The third hypothesis, or the one about pre-existing germs, took a completely opposite perspective to Leeuwenhoek’s. It suggested that the fetus is primarily developed by the female, that it exists before sexual intercourse with all its organs already present in certain parts of the uterine system, and that it doesn't actually get anything from the male. Instead, the seminal fluid merely stimulates the fetus's abilities or gives it life.

It is not known who first proposed this hypothesis; but strange as it may appear, it has had the support of such names as Bonnet, Haller and Spallanzani, and met with a favorable reception in the middle of the last century. Agreeable to this hypothesis, our common mother, Eve, contained a number of homuncules (little men) one within another, like a nest of boxes, and all within her ovaries, equal to all the number of births that have ever been, or ever will be, not to reckon abortions. Were I to bring forward all the facts and arguments that have been advanced in support of this idea, it seems to me I should fail to convince sound minds of its correctness; as to arguments against it, they surely seem uncalled for. Having now presented several hypotheses of generation, some as to the manner in which the semen reaches or influences the ovary, and others as to the rudiments of the foetus, I shall now bring together those views which, upon the whole, appear to me the most satisfactory.

It’s unclear who first suggested this hypothesis, but oddly enough, it received support from notable figures like Bonnet, Haller, and Spallanzani and was generally well-received in the mid-1800s. According to this hypothesis, our common ancestor, Eve, held several homunculi (tiny humans) nested within her like a set of boxes, all contained in her ovaries, equal to the total number of births that have ever occurred or will occur, not counting miscarriages. If I were to present all the facts and arguments that have been put forward in support of this idea, I believe I wouldn’t succeed in convincing rational minds of its validity; as for arguments against it, they seem unnecessary. Having outlined various theories of generation—some regarding how semen reaches or affects the ovary, and others about the early development of the fetus—I will now summarize the views that seem most satisfactory to me overall.

I believe, with Dr. Dewees, that a set of absorbent vessels extend from the innermost surface of the labia externa, and from the vagina to the ovary, the whole office of which is to take up the semen or some part thereof, and convey it to the ovary. I believe, with Leeuwenhoek, that the seminal animalculæ are the proper rudiments of the foetus, and are perhaps of different sexes; that in cases of impregnation one of them is carried not only to, but into a vesicle of an ovary, which is in a condition to receive and be duly affected by it.* It is here surrounded by the albuminous fluid which the vesicle contains. This fluid being somewhat changed in its qualities by its new-comer, stimulates the minute vessels of the parts which surround it, and thus causes more of this fluid to be formed; and while it affords the animalcule material for its development, it puts the delicate membrane of the ovary which retains it in its place upon the stretch, and finally bursts forth surrounded probably by an exceedingly delicate membrane of its own. This membrane, with the albuminous fluid it contains and the animalcule in the center of it, constitutes the ovum or egg. It is received by the fimbriated extremity of the Fallopian tube, which by this time has grasped the ovary, and is by this tube slowly conveyed into the uterus, to the inner surface of which it attaches itself, through the medium of the membrane, which is formed by the uterus itself in the interim between impregnation and the arriving of the ovum in the way I have just mentioned.

I believe, like Dr. Dewees, that a network of absorbent vessels reaches from the innermost surface of the labia externa and from the vagina to the ovary, all designed to take up the semen or part of it and transport it to the ovary. I believe, like Leeuwenhoek, that the seminal microorganisms are the initial forms of the fetus and may even be of different sexes; that in cases of fertilization, one of them is carried not just to, but into a follicle of an ovary that is ready to receive and respond to it.* Here, it’s surrounded by the albuminous fluid contained in the follicle. This fluid's properties change somewhat because of the newcomer, stimulating the tiny vessels of the surrounding tissue, leading to more of this fluid being produced. While it provides the microorganism with material for its development, it stretches the delicate membrane of the ovary that holds it in place until it eventually bursts out, likely surrounded by a very thin membrane of its own. This membrane, along with the albuminous fluid and the microorganism at its center, makes up the ovum or egg. It is captured by the fimbriated end of the Fallopian tube, which, by this time, has made contact with the ovary, and this tube slowly transports it into the uterus, where it attaches itself to the inner surface through a membrane that the uterus produces during the time between fertilization and the arrival of the ovum as I just described.

     * The opinion that the spermatozoa of seminal filaments are
     real animalculæ is now abandoned, but it is held by Dr.
     Carpenter and other authorities that they actually, as here
     stated, penetrate into the interior of the ovum. "The nature
     of impregnation," says Dr. Hermann, "is as yet unknown. In
     all probability it is, above all, essential, in order that
     it should occur, that one or more spermatozoa should
     penetrate the ovum. At any rate, spermatozoa have been found
     within the fecundated eggs of the most diverse species of
     animals."—Elements of "Human Physiology," translated from
     the 5th ed., by Dr. Gamgee, p. 534, 1875.—G. R.
* The belief that the sperm cells in seminal filaments are actual tiny living creatures is now outdated, but Dr. Carpenter and other experts believe that they do, as stated here, enter the interior of the egg. "The nature of fertilization," says Dr. Hermann, "is still unknown. Most likely, in order for it to happen, one or more sperm must enter the egg. In any case, sperm have been found inside fertilized eggs of various animal species."—Elements of "Human Physiology," translated from the 5th ed., by Dr. Gamgee, p. 534, 1875.—G. R.

The idea that a seminal animalcule enters an ovum while it remains in the ovary, was never before advanced to my knowledge; hence I consider it incumbent upon me to advance some reason for the opinion.

The idea that a tiny sperm enters an egg while it’s still in the ovary has never been proposed to my knowledge; therefore, I feel it's necessary to provide some reasoning for this belief.

First, it is admitted on all hands that the seminal animalculæ are essential to impregnation, since "they cannot be detected when either from age or disease the animal is rendered sterile."

First, it's widely accepted that the essential sperm cells are crucial for conception, since "they cannot be found when the animal is made sterile due to age or disease."

Second, the ovum is impregnated while it remains in the ovary. True, those who never met with Dr. Dewees' theory, and who, consequently, have adopted the idea that the semen is ejected into the uterus, as the least improbable of any with which they were acquainted, have found it very difficult to dispose of the fact that the ovum is impregnated in the ovary, and have consequently presumed this is not generally the case. They admit it is certainly so sometimes, and that it is difficult to reject the conclusion that it is always so. Dr. Bostock—who, doubtless, had not met with Dewees' theory at the time he wrote, and who admits it impossible to conceive how the semen can find its way along the Fallopian tubes, how it can find its way toward the ovary, farther, at most, than into the uterus, and, consequently, cannot see how the ovum can be impregnated into the ovary—says, "Perhaps the most rational supposition may be that the ovum is transmitted to the uterus in the unimpregnated state; but there are certain facts which seem almost incompatible with this idea, especially the cases which not infrequently occur of perfect foetuses having been found in the tubes, or where they escaped them into the cavity of the abdomen. Hence it is demonstrated the ovum is occasionally impregnated in the tubes (why did he not say ovaria?), and we can scarcely resist the conclusion that it must always be the case."..."Haller discusses this hypothesis (Bostock's 'most natural supposition, perhaps') and decides against it."..."The experiments of Cruikshank, which were very numerous, and appear to have been made with the requisite degree of skill and correctness, led to the conclusion that the rudiment of the young animal is perfected in the ovarium."... "A case is detailed by Dr. Granville, of a foetus which appears to have been lodged in the body of the ovarium itself, and is considered by its author as a proof that conception always takes place in this organ."

Second, the egg is fertilized while it’s still in the ovary. It’s true that those who haven’t encountered Dr. Dewees' theory, and who therefore think that sperm is released into the uterus, as it's the least unlikely idea they've heard, find it hard to explain the fact that the egg is fertilized in the ovary. Consequently, they assume that this doesn’t usually happen. They agree that it does happen sometimes, and it’s tough to ignore the idea that it might always be the case. Dr. Bostock—who likely hadn’t come across Dewees' theory when he wrote this, and who finds it impossible to understand how sperm can travel through the Fallopian tubes or reach the ovary, at best getting only as far as the uterus—can’t see how the egg can be fertilized in the ovary. He states, "Perhaps the most reasonable assumption is that the egg is sent to the uterus in its unfertilized state; however, there are certain facts that seem almost incompatible with this notion, particularly the cases where perfect fetuses have been found in the tubes, or where they have moved into the abdominal cavity. Therefore, it is shown that the egg is sometimes fertilized in the tubes (why didn’t he say ovaries?), and we can hardly resist the conclusion that it must always be the case."..."Haller discusses this theory (Bostock's 'most reasonable assumption, perhaps') and rejects it."..."The numerous experiments by Cruikshank, which appear to have been carried out with adequate skill and accuracy, led to the conclusion that the foundation of the young animal develops in the ovary."..."Dr. Granville describes a case of a fetus that seems to have been located in the ovary itself, which the author considers as evidence that conception always occurs in this organ."

The above quotations are from the third volume of Bostock's Physiology.

The quotes above are from the third volume of Bostock's Physiology.

Now, as the seminal animalculæ are essential to impregnation, and as the ovum is impregnated in the ovarium, what more probable conjecture can we form than that an animalcule, as the real proper rudiment of the foetus, enters the ovum, where, being surrounded with albuminous fluid with which it is nourished, it gradually becomes developed? It may be noticed that Leeuwenhoek estimates that ten thousand animalculæ of the human semen may exist in a space not larger than a grain of sand. There can, therefore, be no difficulty in admitting that they may find their way along exceedingly minute vessels from the vagina, not only to, but into the ovum while situated in the ovarium.

Now, since the essential microscopic organisms are crucial for fertilization, and since the egg is fertilized in the ovary, what more likely theory can we come up with than that a microscopic organism, being the real initial building block of the fetus, enters the egg? Once inside, it is surrounded by nourishing fluid and gradually develops. It's worth noting that Leeuwenhoek estimates that ten thousand microscopic organisms from human semen can fit into a space smaller than a grain of sand. Therefore, it’s entirely plausible that they can travel through extremely tiny vessels from the vagina, not only reaching but also entering the egg while it’s in the ovary.

I think no one can be disposed to maintain that the animalculæ merely reaches the surface of the ovum and thus impregnates it. But possibly some may contend that its sole office is to stimulate the ovum, and in this way set going that train of actions which are essential to impregnation. But there is no evidence in favor of this last idea, and certainly it does not so well harmonize with the fact that the offspring generally partakes more or less of the character of its male parent. As Dr. Dewees says of the doctrine of sympathy, "It makes no provision for the formation of mules; for the peculiarities of and likeness of parents; and for the propagation of predisposition to disease from parent to child; for the production of mulattoes," etc.

I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that the tiny organisms just touch the surface of the egg and impregnate it that way. However, some might suggest that their only role is to stimulate the egg, initiating the processes necessary for fertilization. But there’s no evidence to support this idea, and it certainly doesn’t align well with the fact that offspring usually share characteristics with their male parent. As Dr. Dewees remarks about the theory of sympathy, "It doesn’t account for the formation of mules; it doesn’t explain the peculiarities and resemblances of parents; and it doesn’t address the inheritance of disease predispositions from parent to child; or the production of mixed-race offspring," etc.

Considering it important to do away with the popular and mischievous error that the semen must enter the uterus to effect impregnation, I shall, in addition to what has been already advanced, here notice the experiments of Dr. Haighton. He divided the Fallopian tubes in numerous instances, and that after the operation a foetus is never produced, but that corpora lutea were formed. The obvious conclusions from these facts are that the semen does not traverse the Fallopian tubes to reach the ovaria; yet, that the ovum becomes impregnated while in the ovarium and, consequently, that the semen reaches the ovum in some way, except by the uterus and Fallopian tubes. I may remark, however, that a corpus luteum is not positive proof that impregnation at some time or other has taken place; yet they are so rarely found in virgins that they were regarded as such proofs until the time of Blumenbach, a writer of the present century.*

Recognizing the importance of correcting the popular and misleading belief that semen must enter the uterus to cause pregnancy, I will, in addition to what has already been mentioned, discuss the experiments of Dr. Haighton. He repeatedly cut the Fallopian tubes, and after the procedure, a fetus was never produced; however, corpora lutea were formed. The clear conclusions from these findings are that semen does not travel through the Fallopian tubes to reach the ovaries. Instead, the ovum gets fertilized while in the ovaries, meaning that the semen must reach the ovum through some other method, not involving the uterus and Fallopian tubes. I should point out, however, that a corpus luteum is not definitive proof that fertilization has occurred at any point. Nonetheless, they are so rarely found in virgins that they were considered proof of such until the time of Blumenbach, a writer from this century.*

     * A corpus luteum is a little yellowish body, formed in
     the ovary by changes that take place in the Graafian vesicle
     after it has burst and discharged its contents. Corpora
     lutea were formerly considered a sure sign of impregnation,
     as they were thought to be developed only or chiefly in
     cases of pregnancy, but it is now known that they occur in
     all cases where a vesicle has been ruptured and an ovum
     discharged; though they attain a larger, size and are longer
     visible in the ovary when pregnancy takes place than when it
     does not.—G. R.
     * A corpus luteum is a small yellowish structure that forms in the ovary after the Graafian vesicle has ruptured and released its contents. Corpora lutea were once thought to be a clear indication of pregnancy because they were believed to develop only or primarily during pregnancy. However, it is now understood that they appear in all instances where a vesicle has ruptured and an egg has been released; although they grow larger and remain visible in the ovary for a longer time when pregnancy occurs compared to when it does not.—G. R.

"Harvey and DeGraaf dissected animals at most every period after coition for the express purpose of discovering the semen, but were never able to detect the smallest vestige of it in the uterus in any one instance."—Dewells Essay on Superfoetation. The fact of superfoetation furnishes a very strong argument against the idea that the semen enters the uterus in impregnation.

"Harvey and DeGraaf examined animals almost every time after mating to find the semen, but they were never able to detect even the tiniest trace of it in the uterus in any case."—Dewell's Essay on Superfoetation. The existence of superfoetation provides a strong argument against the idea that semen enters the uterus during fertilization.

A woman being impregnated while she is already impregnated constitutes superfoetation. It is established beyond a doubt that such instances have occurred, yet those who have supposed that it is necessary for the semen to pass through the mouth of the uterus to produce conception have urged that superfoetation could not take place, because, say they—and they say correctly—"so soon as impregnation shall have taken place, the os uteri closes and becomes impervious to the semen ejected in subsequent acts of coition."

A woman becoming pregnant while already pregnant is called superfoetation. It's been proven that such cases have happened, but some people believe that the semen must enter through the cervix to achieve conception. They argue that superfoetation can't occur because, as they correctly point out, "once pregnancy happens, the os uteri closes and blocks any semen from entering during later sexual acts."

Dr. Dewees related two cases, evidently cases of superfoetation, that occurred to his own personal knowledge. The first shows that, agreeable to the old theory, the semen must have met with other difficulties than a closed month of the uterus,—it must have passed through several membranes, as well as the waters surrounding the foetus, to have reached even the uterine extremity of a Fallopian tube. The second case I will give in his own words:

Dr. Dewees shared two cases, clearly instances of superfoetation, that he personally observed. The first indicates that, according to the old theory, the sperm must have faced more challenges than just a closed month of the uterus—it had to navigate through several membranes and the amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus to even reach the uterine end of a Fallopian tube. The second case I will present in his own words:

"A white woman, servant to Mr. H., of Abington township, Montgomery county, was delivered about five and twenty years since of twins, one of which was perfectly white, the other perfectly black. When I resided in that neighborhood I was in the habit of seeing them almost daily and also had frequent conversations with Mrs. H. respecting them. She was present at their birth, so that no possible deception could have been practiced respecting them. The white girl is delicate, fair-skinned, light-haired and blue eyed, and is said very much to resemble the mother. The other has all the characteristic marks of the African; short of stature, flat, broad-nosed, thick-lipped, woolly-headed, flat-footed, and projecting heels; she is said to resemble a negro they had on the farm, but with whom the woman would never acknowledge an intimacy; but of this there was no doubt, as both he and the white man, with whom her connection was detected, ran from the neighborhood as soon as it was known the girl was with child."

A white woman who worked for Mr. H. in Abington Township, Montgomery County, gave birth to twins about twenty-five years ago. One of the twins was completely white, while the other was completely black. When I lived in that area, I often saw them daily and had many conversations with Mrs. H. about them. She was there during their birth, so there’s no way any deception could have occurred. The white girl is delicate, with fair skin, light hair, and blue eyes, and she looks a lot like her mother. The other twin has all the typical features of African descent: she’s short, has a flat, broad nose, thick lips, curly hair, flat feet, and protruding heels. People say she resembles a Black man who worked on the farm, though the woman would never admit to being close to him. However, there was no doubt about it, as both he and the white man, with whom her affair was discovered, left the area as soon as it became known that the girl was pregnant.

I am aware that some have thought that they had actually discovered semen in the uterus, while Ruysch, an anatomist of considerable eminence, who flourished at the close of the seventeenth century, asserted in the most unequivocal manner that he found the semen in its gross white state in one of the Fallopian tubes of a woman, who died very soon after, or during the act of coition; but says Dewees, "the semen, after it has escaped from the penis, quickly loses its albuminous appearance and becomes as thin and transparent as water. And we are certain that Ruysch was mistaken. Some alteration in the natural secretion of the parts was mistaken for semen. This was nowise difficult for him to do, as he had a particular theory to support, and more especially as this supposed discovery made so much for it. It is not merely speculative when we say that some change in the natural secretion of the parts may be mistaken for semen, for we have the testimony of Morgani on our side. He tells us he has seen similar appearances in several instances in virgins and others, who have been subject during their lives to leucorrhæ, and that it has been mistaken by some for male semen."

I know that some people thought they had actually found semen in the uterus. Ruysch, a well-known anatomist from the late seventeenth century, claimed without a doubt that he found semen in its thick white form in one of the Fallopian tubes of a woman who died soon after, or during, the act of intercourse. However, Dewees argues, "semen, once it has left the penis, quickly loses its thick appearance and becomes as thin and clear as water." We are certain that Ruysch was wrong. Some change in the natural secretion of the area was likely mistaken for semen. It wouldn't have been hard for him to make this mistake, as he had a specific theory to support, especially since this supposed discovery fit perfectly with it. It's not just a theory to suggest that changes in the natural secretion could be confused with semen; we have Morgani’s testimony to back this up. He tells us he has seen similar appearances in several cases involving virgins and others who experienced leucorrhea during their lives, and that some mistaken this for male semen.

On the whole I would say, that in some instances, where the mouth of the uterus is uncommonly relaxed, the semen may, as it were, accidentally have found its way into it; but that is not generally the case, nor is it essential to impregnation; and further, that whatever semen may at any time be lodged in the uterus, has nothing to do with conception. It is not consistent with analogy to suppose that the uterus has vessels for absorbing the semen and conveying it to the ovaria, considering the other important functions which we know it performs.

Overall, I would say that in some cases, when the opening of the uterus is unusually relaxed, the semen might accidentally enter it; however, this is not usually the case, nor is it necessary for conception. Additionally, any semen that might be present in the uterus does not contribute to conception. It doesn't make sense to assume that the uterus has vessels to absorb semen and transport it to the ovaries, given the other important functions it already has.

The circumstances under which a female is most likely to conceive are, first, when she is in health; second, between the ages of twenty-six and thirty; third, after she has for a season been deprived of those intercourses she had previously enjoyed; fourth, soon after menstruating. Respect-ing this latter circumstance, Dr. Dewees remarks, "Perhaps it is not erring greatly to say, that the woman is liable to conceive at any part of the menstrual interval. It is generally supposed, however, that the most favorable instant is immediately after the catamenia have ceased." Perhaps this is so as a general rule, but it is certainly liable to exceptions,* and he relates the following case which occurred to his own notice:

The situations in which a woman is most likely to get pregnant are, first, when she is in good health; second, between the ages of twenty-six and thirty; third, after she has been without sexual activity for a while; and fourth, soon after her period ends. Regarding this last point, Dr. Dewees notes, "It may not be too far off to say that a woman can conceive at any time during her menstrual cycle. However, it’s generally believed that the best time is right after her period has stopped." While this might be the case most of the time, there are definitely exceptions,* and he shares the following example from his own experience:

     * This view, which concerns a question of the utmost
     practical importance, is held at the present day by the
     great physiologists. It is believed that although conception
     may occur at other times, it is much more likely to happen
     from intercourse a few days before or after the menstrual
     periods; that is to say, during the time when ova are in
     process of being ripened and detached from the ovaries, and
     before they perish and are conveyed out of the body. "There
     is good reason to believe," says Dr. Carpenter, "that in the
     human female the sexual feeling becomes stronger at the
     period of menstruation; and it is quite certain that there
     is a greater aptitude for conception immediately before and
     after that epoch, than there is at any immediate period.
     This question has been made the subject of special inquiry
     by M. Raciborski, who affirms that the exceptions to the
     rule—that conception occurs immediately before or after or
     during menstruation—are not more than six or seven per
     cent. Indeed, in his latest work on the subject, he gives
     the details of fifteen cases, in which the date of
     conception could be accurately fixed, and the time of the
     last appearance of the catamenia was also known, and in all
     but one of them the correspondence between the periods was
     very close."—"Human Physiology," p. 959. So, too, Dr.
     Kirkes remarks, that "although conception is not confined to
     the periods of menstruation, yet it is more likely to occur
     within a few days after cessation of the menstrual flux than
     at other times."—"Handbook of Physiology," p. 725.
     * This view, which addresses a question of great practical importance, is currently held by leading physiologists. It is believed that while conception can happen at other times, it is much more likely to occur from intercourse a few days before or after menstrual periods; that is, during the time when eggs are being ripened and released from the ovaries, and before they die and leave the body. "There is good reason to believe," says Dr. Carpenter, "that in human females, sexual desire increases around the time of menstruation; and it is clear that there is a higher likelihood of conception immediately before and after that period than at any other time. This issue has been specifically investigated by M. Raciborski, who claims that the exceptions to the rule—that conception happens just before, after, or during menstruation—are only about six or seven percent. In fact, in his latest work on the subject, he details fifteen cases where the date of conception could be accurately identified, and the date of the last menstrual period was also known, and in all but one of these cases, the timing was very close."—"Human Physiology," p. 959. Similarly, Dr. Kirkes notes that "although conception is not limited to menstruation periods, it is more likely to occur within a few days after the menstrual flow ends than at other times."—"Handbook of Physiology," p. 725.

"The husband of a lady who was obliged to absent himself many months in consequence of the embarrassment of his affairs, returned one night clandestinely, his visit being only known to his wife, his mother, and myself. The consequence of this visit was the impregnation of his wife. The lady was at that time within a week of her menstrual period; but as this did not fail to take place, she was led to hope that she had not suffered by the visit of her husband. But her catamenia not appearing at the next period, gave rise to a fear that she had not escaped! and the birth of a child nine months and thirteen days from the night of the clandestine visit proved her apprehensions too well grounded."

"The husband of a woman who had to be away for several months due to his financial troubles returned one night secretly, with only his wife, mother, and me knowing about it. The result of this visit was that his wife became pregnant. At that time, she was just a week away from her menstrual period; however, since it didn’t happen, she began to hope that she wasn’t affected by her husband's visit. But when her period didn’t come the next time, she started to worry that she hadn’t escaped it! The birth of a child nine months and thirteen days after that secret visit confirmed her fears."

I think this case is an exception to a general rule; and, furthermore, favors an idea which reason and a limited observation, rather than positive knowledge, has led me to advance, the above, namely, that a woman is more likely to conceive, other things being the same, after being deprived for a season of those intercourses she had previously enjoyed. Had this lady's husband remained constantly at home, she would probably either not have conceived at all, or have done so a fortnight sooner than she did.

I believe this case is an exception to a general rule and also supports an idea that my reasoning and limited observation, rather than solid evidence, have led me to propose: that a woman is more likely to conceive, all other factors being equal, after a period of not having the sexual relations she previously had. If this woman’s husband had been home regularly, she likely would have either not conceived at all or would have conceived two weeks sooner than she did.

This case is also remarkable for two other facts: one, "that a woman in perfect health, and pregnant with a healthy child, may exceed the period of nine months by several days; the other, that a check is not always immediately given to the catamenial flow by an ovum being impregnated." Probably it is not so generally so as many suppose.

This case is also notable for two other reasons: first, "that a woman in perfect health, pregnant with a healthy baby, can go beyond the nine-month mark by several days; second, that the menstrual flow doesn’t always stop immediately when an egg is fertilized." It’s likely not as common as many believe.

The term of utero-gestation, or the length of time from conception to the commencement of labor, is not precisely determined by physiologists. "It seems, however," says Dr. Dewees, "from the best calculations that can be made, that nine calendar months, or forty weeks, approaches the truth so nearly that we can scarcely need or desire more accuracy, could it be obtained." Unquestionably, however, some cases exceed this period by many days, or even weeks, and it has been a question much agitated, how far this period is ever exceeded. It is a question of some moment in a legal point of view. Cases are reported where the usual period was exceeded by five or six months; cases, too, where the circumstances attending them and the respectability of their reporters are such as to command our belief. Dr. Dewees has paid much attention to this subject, and he declares himself entirely convinced "that the commonly fixed period may be extended from thirteen days to six weeks, under the influence of certain causes or peculiarities of constitution."*

The duration of pregnancy, or the time from conception to the start of labor, isn't exactly defined by experts. "It seems, however," says Dr. Dewees, "that based on the best estimates, nine calendar months, or forty weeks, comes very close to the actual duration, so we hardly need or want more precision, if it could be achieved." However, some situations definitely go beyond this time frame by several days or even weeks, and there's been much debate about how often this happens. This is an important question from a legal perspective. There are reports of cases where the typical duration was exceeded by five or six months; these cases often have circumstances and credible sources that lend them reliability. Dr. Dewees has focused a lot on this topic, and he claims he's fully convinced "that the generally accepted duration can be extended from thirteen days to six weeks due to certain factors or individual differences in constitution."*

     * See tables in Dr. Bull's "Hints to Mothers," pp. 130-141.
     —Publishers' note.
     * See tables in Dr. Bull's "Hints to Mothers," pp. 130-141.
     —Publishers' note.

These occasional departures from the general rule will, perhaps, be the more readily admitted when we consider that they are not confined to the human species. From the experiments of Tessier, it appears that the term of utero-gestation varies greatly with the cow, sheep, horse, swine and other animals to which his attention was directed.

These occasional exceptions to the general rule may be more easily accepted when we consider that they aren't limited to humans. From Tessier's experiments, it seems that the duration of gestation varies significantly among cows, sheep, horses, pigs, and other animals he studied.

Properly connected with the subject of generation are the signs of pregnancy. Dr. Dewees remarks that "our experience furnishes no certain mark by which the moment conception takes place is to be distinguished. All appeals by the women to particular sensations experienced at the instant should be very guardedly received, for we are certain they cannot be relied upon; for enjoyment and indifference are alike fallacious. Nor are certain nervous tremblings, nausea, palpitation of the heart, the sensation of something flowing from them during coition, etc, more to be relied upon." Burns, however, says, "Some women feel, immediately after conception, a peculiar sensation, which apprises them of their situation, but such instances are not frequent, and generally the first circumstances which lead a woman to suppose herself pregnant are the suppression of the menses;" a fickle appetite, some sickness, perhaps vomiting, especially in the morning; returning qualms, or languor in the afternoon; she is liable to heartburn, and to disturbed sleep. The breasts at first often become smaller and sometimes tender; but about the third month they enlarge, and occasionally become painful. The nipple is surrounded with an aureole or circle of a brown color, or at least of a color sensibly deeper or darker than before. She loses her looks, becomes paler, and the under part of the lower eyelid is often somewhat of a leaden hue. The features become sharper, and sometimes the whole body begins to emaciate, while the pulse quickens. In many instances particular sympathies take place, causing salivation, toothache, jaundice, etc. In other cases very little disturbance is produced, and the woman is not certain of her condition until the time of quickening, which is generally about four months from conception. It is possible for a woman to mistake the effects of wind for the motion of the child, especially if they have never borne children, and be anxious for a family; but the sensation produced by wind in the bowels is not confined to one spot, but is often felt at a part of the abdomen where the motion of a child could not possibly be felt. Quite as frequently, perhaps, do fleshy women think themselves dropsical, and mistake motions of the child for movements of water within the abdominal cavity. The motion of the child is not to be confounded with the sensation sometimes produced by the uterus rising out of the pelvis, which produces the feeling of fluttering. At the end of the fourth month, the uterus becomes so large that it is obliged to rise out of the pelvis, and if this elevation takes place suddenly, the sensation accompanying it is pretty strong, and the woman at the time feels sick or faint, and in irritable habits; even a hysterical fit may accompany it After this the morning sickness and other sympathetic effects of pregnancy generally abate, and the health improves.

Properly connected with the topic of reproduction are the signs of pregnancy. Dr. Dewees notes that "our experience provides no definitive sign by which the exact moment of conception can be identified. Any claims by women regarding specific sensations felt at that moment should be received with caution, as they cannot be relied upon; feelings of pleasure and indifference can both be misleading. Likewise, certain symptoms like nervous tremors, nausea, heart palpitations, or the sensation of something flowing from them during intercourse are not dependable indicators." Burns, however, states, "Some women feel a distinct sensation immediately after conception that indicates their condition, though such cases are rare. Generally, the first signs that lead a woman to believe she is pregnant are the absence of menstruation; a fluctuating appetite, some nausea, possibly vomiting, especially in the morning; recurring queasiness, or fatigue in the afternoon; she may experience heartburn and disturbed sleep. Initially, her breasts may shrink and become tender, but around the third month, they often enlarge and may even become painful. The nipple is surrounded by a brownish areola or circle, or at least a noticeably darker color than before. She may appear less vibrant, become paler, and the lower eyelid may take on a somewhat leaden hue. Her features can appear sharper, and sometimes her entire body may start to lose weight, while her pulse quickens. In many cases, she may experience specific symptoms like salivation, toothaches, or jaundice. In other circumstances, there may be little disturbance, and a woman might not realize her condition until quickening, which usually occurs about four months after conception. A woman can mistakenly interpret the effects of gas as the movement of the child, particularly if she has never had children and is eager for a family; however, sensations caused by gas in the intestines are not localized and can be felt in parts of the abdomen where the child's movement could not be detected. Similarly, women with a lot of body fat might think they are retaining water and confuse the movements of the child with sensations of fluid in the abdominal cavity. The motion of the child should not be confused with the sensation caused when the uterus rises out of the pelvis, which creates a fluttering feeling. By the end of the fourth month, the uterus grows large enough to rise out of the pelvis, and if this happens suddenly, the accompanying sensation can be quite strong, causing the woman to feel sick or faint, and in sensitive individuals, even a hysterical episode may occur. After this, morning sickness and other pregnancy-related symptoms usually lessen, and her health generally improves.

Very soon after impregnation, if blood be drawn and suffered to stand a short time undisturbed, it will become sizy, of a yellowish or bluish color, and somewhat of an oily appearance. But we cannot from such appearances of the blood alone pronounce a woman pregnant, for a suppression of the menses, accompanied with a febrile state, may give the blood a like appearance as pregnancy, so also may some local disease. Of the above-mentioned symptoms, perhaps there is no one on which we can place more reliance than the increased color of the circle around the nipple.*

Very soon after conception, if blood is drawn and left to sit for a short time undisturbed, it will become thick and have a yellowish or bluish color, appearing somewhat oily. However, we can't diagnose a woman as pregnant based solely on the appearance of the blood because a missed period, along with a fever, can cause the blood to look similar to that of pregnancy, as can certain local diseases. Among the symptoms mentioned above, perhaps there is no one we can rely on more than the darkening of the area around the nipple.*

     * See "Advice to a Wife," P. H. Chavasse, pp. 115-124, where
     many details are given.—Publishers' note.
     * See "Advice to a Wife," P. H. Chavasse, pp. 115-124, which provides many details.—Publishers' note.

Six or eight weeks after conception, the most sure way of ascertaining pregnancy is to examine the mouth and neck of the uterus, by way of the vagina. The uterus will be found lower down than formerly, its mouth is not directed so much forward as before impregnation, and is more completely closed, and the neck is felt to be thicker, or increased in circumference. When raised on the finger it is found to be heavier or more resisting. Whoever makes this examination must have examined the same uterus in an unimpregnated state, and retained a tolerably correct idea of its feeling at that time, or he will be liable to uncertainty, because the uterus of one woman is naturally different in magnitude from another, and the uterus is frequently lower down than natural from other causes than pregnancy.*

Six to eight weeks after conception, the best way to confirm pregnancy is to examine the cervix and uterine opening through the vagina. The uterus will be positioned lower than before, its opening is less forward than it was before pregnancy, and it is more completely closed. The cervix feels thicker or larger in circumference. When touched with a finger, it feels heavier or more resistant. Anyone conducting this examination must have previously assessed the same uterus when it wasn’t pregnant and have a fairly accurate memory of how it felt at that time; otherwise, there may be uncertainty, as one woman's uterus can naturally vary in size from another's, and the uterus can often be positioned lower than normal for reasons other than pregnancy.*

     * No one but a doctor, or one trained in physiology could,
     of course, make any such examination with safety and
     utility.—Publishers' note.
     * Of course, only a doctor or someone trained in physiology could conduct such an examination safely and effectively.—Publishers' note.

It has not been fully ascertained how long it is after a fruitful connection before an effect is produced upon the ovaria, that is before any alteration could be discovered, were the female to be dissected. But Brighton's experiments have established the fact, that with rabbits, whose term of utero-gestation is but thirty days, no effect is propagated to the ovaria until nearly fifty hours after coition; we should judge, therefore, that with the human species it must be several days, and it is generally estimated by physiologists that the ovum does not reach the uterus until the expiration of twenty days from the time of connection.*

It hasn't been completely determined how long it takes after a successful mating for an effect to occur on the ovaries, meaning before any changes could be noticed in a female if she were to be dissected. However, Brighton's experiments have shown that in rabbits, which have a gestation period of only thirty days, no effect reaches the ovaries until almost fifty hours after mating. Therefore, we can assume that in humans, it must take several days, and physiologists usually estimate that the egg doesn’t reach the uterus until about twenty days after mating.*

     * "The time occupied in the passage of the ovum from the
     ovary to the uterus," says Dr. Kirkes, "occupies probably
     eight or ten days in the human female."—"Handbook of
     Physiology," p. 741.—G. R.
* "The time it takes for the ovum to travel from the ovary to the uterus," says Dr. Kirkes, "is probably eight to ten days in human females."—"Handbook of Physiology," p. 741.—G. R.

It is probable that in all cases in which any matter is absorbed from any part of the animal system, some little time is required for such matter, after its application, to stimulate and arouse the absorbent vessels to action; hence it is probable that after the semen is lodged in the vagina, it is many minutes, possibly some hours, before any part of it is absorbed.

It’s likely that whenever a substance is absorbed from any part of the animal body, it takes some time for that substance, once applied, to trigger and activate the absorbent vessels. Therefore, it’s likely that after the semen is deposited in the vagina, it takes many minutes, possibly even a few hours, before any portion of it is absorbed.





CHAPTER III. OF PROMOTING AND CHECKING CONCEPTION

Sterility depends either on imperfect organization, or imperfect action of the organs of generation. In the former cases, which are rare, the menses do not generally appear, the breasts are not developed, and the sexual desire is inconsiderable. There is no remedy in these cases.

Sterility is caused either by poor organization or inadequate function of the reproductive organs. In the rare cases of poor organization, menstruation usually doesn't occur, the breasts aren't developed, and sexual desire is minimal. There's no treatment for these cases.

The action may be imperfect in several respects. The menses may be obstructed or sparing, or they may be too profuse or frequent. It is extremely rare for a woman to conceive who does not menstruate regularly. Hence where this is the case the first step is to regulate this periodical discharge. For this purpose the advice of a physician will generally be required, for these irregularities depend upon such various causes and require such a variety of treatment that it would be inconsistent with the plan of this work to give instructions for remedying them. A state of exhaustion or weakness of the uterine system, occasioned by too frequent intercourse, is a frequent cause of sterility. The sterility of prostitutes is attributed to this cause, but I doubt it being the only one. With females who are apparently healthy, the most frequent cause is a torpor, rather than weakness of the genital organs.

The menstrual cycle can be irregular in several ways. Periods might be blocked or light, or they could be too heavy or frequent. It's very uncommon for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't have regular periods. So, in such cases, the first step is to get this monthly cycle in check. For this, a doctor’s advice is usually needed, since these irregularities stem from various causes and require different treatments that aren’t covered in this work. A state of exhaustion or weakness in the reproductive system, often caused by too frequent sexual activity, is a common reason for infertility. The infertility seen in sex workers is often attributed to this, but I believe it's not the only cause. In seemingly healthy women, the most common issue is more about sluggishness than weakness of the reproductive organs.

For the removal of sterility from this cause, I shall give some instructions, and this I do the more readily because the requisite means are such as will regulate the menses in many cases, where they do not appear so early in life, so freely or so frequently as they ought.

For addressing sterility from this cause, I’ll provide some guidance, and I do so eagerly because the necessary methods will also help regulate menstruation in many cases where it doesn't start early in life, or isn't abundant or frequent enough as it should be.

In the first place, it will generally be necessary to do something toward invigorating the system by exercise in the open air, by nourishing food of easy digestion, by sufficient dress, particularly flannel, and especially by strict temperance in all things. With this view, also, some scales which fall from the blacksmith's anvil, or some steel filings may be put into old cider or wine (cider the best), and after standing a week or so, as much may be taken two or three times a day as can be borne without disturbing the stomach.

First, it’s usually important to do something to boost your health through outdoor exercise, easy-to-digest nutritious food, appropriate clothing, especially flannel, and particularly by practicing moderation in everything. To this end, you can also add some scales that fall from the blacksmith's anvil or some steel filings to old cider or wine (cider is best), and after letting it sit for about a week, you can take as much as your stomach can handle two or three times a day without causing discomfort.

All the while the bowels are to be kept rather open by taking from one to three of Pill rufi every night on going to bed. These pills consist of four parts of aloes, two parts of myrrh, and one of saffron, by weight.

All the time, you should keep your bowels fairly regular by taking one to three Pill rufi every night before bed. These pills are made up of four parts aloes, two parts myrrh, and one part saffron, by weight.

These measures having been regularly pursued until the system be brought into a vigorous state, medicines which are more particularly calculated to arouse the genital organs from a state of torpor may be commenced, and continued for months if necessary. The cheapest, most simple (and I am not prepared to say it is not the most effectual in many cases) is cayenne. All the virtues of this article are not generally known even to physicians. I know it does not have the effect upon the coats of the stomach that many have conjectured. It may be taken in the quantity of from one to two rising teaspoonsful, or even more, everyday up on food or on any liquid vehicle. Another medicine of much efficacy is Dewees' Volatile Tincture of Guaiac. It is generally kept by apothecaries, and is prepared as follows:

These measures should be regularly followed until the system is in a strong state. After that, medications specifically designed to stimulate the genital organs from a state of inactivity can be started and continued for months if needed. The most affordable and simplest option (and I can’t say it isn’t one of the most effective in many cases) is cayenne. Not everyone, even some doctors, is aware of all its benefits. I know it doesn’t affect the stomach lining the way many people believe. It can be taken in amounts of one to two teaspoons, or even more, every day mixed with food or in any liquid. Another highly effective medication is Dewees' Volatile Tincture of Guaiac. It’s generally available at pharmacies and is prepared as follows:

Take of Gum Guaicum, in powder, eight ounces; carbonate of Potash, or of Soda, or (what will answer) Saleratus, three drachms; Allspice, in powder, two ounces; any common spirits of good strength, two pounds, or what is about the same two pints and a gill. Put all into a bottle, which may be shaken now and then, and use of it may be commenced in a few days. To every gill of this, at least a large teaspoon-ful of Spirits of Ammonia is to be added. A teaspoonful is to be taken for a dose, three times a day, in a glass of milk, cider or wine. It is usually given before eating; but if it should chance to offend the stomach when taken before breakfast, it may in this case be taken an hour after.

Take 8 ounces of powdered Gum Guaicum, 3 drachms of either Potash, Soda, or Saleratus, 2 ounces of powdered Allspice, and 2 pounds (about 2 pints and a gill) of any decent-strength spirits. Combine everything in a bottle that can be shaken occasionally, and you can start using it in a few days. For every gill of this mixture, add at least a large teaspoonful of Spirits of Ammonia. Take a teaspoonful as a dose, three times a day, mixed with milk, cider, or wine. It's usually taken before meals; however, if it upsets your stomach when taken before breakfast, you can take it an hour later instead.

Dr. Dewees found this tincture, taken perhaps for months, the most effectual remedy for painful menstruation, which is an obstinate complaint. If there be frequent strong pulse, heat, thirst, florid countenance, etc., it is not to be taken until these symptoms be removed by low diet, a few doses of salts, and bleeding, if required.

Dr. Dewees discovered that this tincture, taken for several months, is the most effective treatment for painful menstruation, which can be a stubborn issue. If there are frequent strong pulses, heat, thirst, a flushed face, etc., it should not be taken until these symptoms are addressed with a light diet, a few doses of laxatives, and possibly bleeding if necessary.

A third medicine for arousing the genital organs, is tincture of Spanish Flies. But I doubt its being equal, in sterility, to the above mentioned medicines, though it may exceed them in some cases, and may be tried if these fail. A drachm of them may be put to two gills of spirits. Dose, 25 drops, in water, three times a day, increasing each one by two or three drops, until some degree of stranguary occurs, then omit until this pass off, as it will in a day or two. Should the stranguary be severe, drink freely of milk and water, slippery elm, or flaxseed tea.

A third option for stimulating the genital organs is tincture of Spanish flies. However, I question whether it is as effective for infertility as the previously mentioned medicines, although it might work better in some cases and can be tried if the others don't work. You can mix one drachm of it with two gills of spirits. The recommended dose is 25 drops in water, taken three times a day, gradually increasing each dose by two or three drops until some mild burning sensation occurs. If that happens, stop until it goes away, which should happen in a day or two. If the burning is severe, drink plenty of milk and water, slippery elm, or flaxseed tea.

In many cases of sterility, where the general health is considerably in fault, and especially when the digestive organs are torpid, I should have much faith in a Thomsonian course. It is calculated to arouse the capillary vessels throughout the whole system, and thus to open the secretions, to remove obstructions, and free the blood of those effete and phlegmy materials which nature requires to be thrown off. The views of the Thomsonian as to heat and cold appear to me unphilosophical. But this has nothing to do with the efficiency of their measures.

In many cases of infertility, where overall health is significantly affected, especially when the digestive system is sluggish, I would have strong confidence in a Thomsonian approach. It aims to stimulate the tiny blood vessels throughout the entire body, thereby promoting secretions, removing blockages, and cleansing the blood of waste and mucus that the body needs to eliminate. The Thomsonian views on heat and cold seem unscientific to me. However, this doesn't impact the effectiveness of their methods.

In relation to sterility, I would here bring to mind, what has before been stated, that a woman is most likely to conceive immediately after a menstrual turn. And now, also, let me suggest the idea that Nature's delicate beginnings may be frustrated by the same means that put her a going. This idea is certainly important when the woman is known to have miscarried a number of times. Sterility is sometimes to be attributed to the male, though he apparently be in perfect health. It would be an interesting fact to ascertain if there be no seminal animalculæ in these cases; and whether medicines of any kind are available.

In terms of sterility, I want to remind you of what has been stated before: a woman is most likely to get pregnant right after her period. I also want to suggest that the delicate beginnings of Nature can be disrupted by the same factors that initiated them. This is particularly significant when a woman has experienced multiple miscarriages. Sometimes, sterility can be attributed to the male partner, even if he seems completely healthy. It would be interesting to find out if there are no sperm present in these cases and whether any treatments could help.

It has been ascertained that a male and female may be sterile in relation to each other, though neither of them be so with others.

It has been determined that a man and a woman may be infertile with each other, even though they might not be with other partners.

The foregoing measures for sterility are also suitable in cases of impotency. This term, I believe, is generally con-lined to, and defined as a want of desire or ability, or both on the part of the male; but I see no good reason why it should not comprehend the case in which there is neither desire nor pleasure with the female. Such females, it is true, may be fruitful; but so, on the other hand, the semen may not have lost its fecundating property. Impotency, at a young or middle age, and in some situations in life especially, is certainly a serious misfortune, to say the least of it. The whole evil by no means consists, in every case, in the loss of a source of pleasure. All young people ought to be apprised of the causes of it—causes which, in many instances, greatly lessen one's ability of giving and receiving that pleasure which is the root of domestic happiness. I shall allude to one cause, that of premature, and especially solitary gratification, in another place. Intemperance in the use of spirits is another powerful cause. Even a moderate use of spirits, and also of tobacco, in any form, have some effect It is a law of animal economy, that no one part of the system can be stimulated or excited, without an expense of vitality, as it is termed. The part which is stimulated draws the energy from other parts. And hence it is, that close and deep study, as well as all the mental passions when excessive, impair the venereal appetite. All excesses, all diseases and modes of life which impair the general health, impair this appetite, but some things more directly and powerfully than others.

The measures for ensuring sterility are also appropriate in cases of impotence. This term, I believe, is typically limited to, and defined as, a lack of desire or ability, or both, on the part of the male. However, I see no reason why it shouldn't also include situations where there is neither desire nor pleasure on the part of the female. It is true that such females can still conceive; however, it is also possible that the semen has not lost its ability to fertilize. Impotence at a young or middle age, especially in certain life circumstances, is undoubtedly a serious misfortune, to say the least. The entire issue doesn’t always boil down to just the loss of pleasure. All young people should be informed about the causes of impotence—causes that, in many cases, significantly reduce one’s ability to give and receive the pleasure that is essential for domestic happiness. I will mention one cause, which is premature and especially solitary gratification, in another discussion. Excessive consumption of alcohol is another significant cause. Even moderate use of alcohol, as well as tobacco in any form, can have an impact. It's a principle of animal biology that stimulating one part of the system requires a draw of vitality from others. This is why intense and prolonged study, along with excessive mental passions, can weaken the sexual appetite. All excesses, diseases, and lifestyles that harm overall health also damage this appetite, although some factors have a more direct and powerful effect than others.

As to the remedies for impotency, they are much the same as for sterility. It is of the first importance that the mind be relieved from all care and anxiety. The general health is to be improved by temperance, proper exercise in the open air, cheerful company, change of scenery, or some occupation to divert the mind without requiring much exercise of it; nourishing food of easy digestion; flannel worn next to the skin. The cold bath may be tried, and if it be followed by agreeable feelings, it will do good. The bowels may be gently stimulated by the pills before mentioned; and the preparation of iron also, already mentioned, should be taken.

As for the treatments for impotence, they are pretty similar to those for infertility. It’s crucial to relieve the mind of all worries and stress. Overall health should be enhanced through moderation, regular outdoor exercise, positive social interactions, changing the environment, or engaging in activities that entertain the mind without demanding too much mental effort; nutritious, easily digestible food; and wearing flannel close to the skin. A cold bath can be tried, and if it leads to pleasant sensations, it can be beneficial. The bowels can be gently stimulated with the previously mentioned pills, and the previously discussed iron supplement should also be taken.

To stimulate the genital organs more directly, cayenne, Dewees' tincture of guaiac, or tincture of flies, may be taken. I have given directions for making and taking the tincture of flies, chiefly because it is esteemed one of the best remedies for impotency caused by or connected with nocturnal emissions, to which I have before alluded.

To stimulate the genital organs more directly, you can take cayenne, Dewees' tincture of guaiac, or tincture of flies. I've provided instructions for making and taking the tincture of flies, mainly because it’s recognized as one of the best remedies for impotence related to nocturnal emissions, which I mentioned earlier.

It is in cases where little or no pleasure, nor erection, attend these emissions—cases brought on by debauchery, or in elderly persons—that I would recommend tincture of flies, and the other measures above mentioned. In some bad cases, enormous doses of this tincture are required, say two or three hundred drops. Yet the best rule for taking it is that already given, namely, begin with small doses, and gradually increase until some stranguary be felt, or some benefit be received. In this affection, as well as in all cases of impaired virility, the means I have mentioned are to be pursued for a long time, unless relief be obtained. These have cured after having been taken for a year or more without the result. In all cases of impotency not evidently depending upon disease of some part besides the genital organs, I should have much confidence in blisters applied to the lower part of the spine.

It’s in situations where there’s little or no pleasure or erection during these emissions—cases caused by indulgence or in older adults—that I would suggest using tincture of flies and the other methods mentioned earlier. In some severe cases, large doses of this tincture are needed, say two or three hundred drops. However, the best approach is to start with small doses and gradually increase until some discomfort is felt or some benefit is gained. For this issue, as well as in all situations of reduced virility, the methods I’ve mentioned should be followed for an extended period unless relief is found. These have been effective even after being taken for a year or more without results. In all cases of impotence not clearly linked to an issue in areas other than the genital organs, I would have strong confidence in using blisters applied to the lower back.

Occasional nocturnal emissions, accompanied with erection and pleasure, are by no means to be considered a disease, though they have given many a one such uneasiness. Even if they be frequent, and the system considerably debilitated, if not caused by debauch, and the person be young, marriage is the proper measure.

Occasional wet dreams, along with erections and pleasure, should not be viewed as a disease, even though they have caused anxiety for many people. Even if they happen often and the body is quite drained, as long as they aren't due to excessive indulgence, and the person is young, getting married is the right course of action.

There have been several means proposed and practiced for checking conception. I shall briefly notice them, though a knowledge of the best is what most concerns us. That of withdrawal immediately before emission is certainly effectual, if practiced with sufficient care. But if (as I believe) Dr. Dewees' theory of conception be correct, and as Spallanzani's experiments show that only a trifle of semen, even largely diluted with water, may impregnate by being injected into the vagina, it is clear that nothing short of entire withdrawal is to be depended upon. But the old notion that the semen must enter the uterus to cause conception, has led many to believe that a partial withdrawal is sufficient, and it is on this account that this error has proved mischievous, as all important errors generally do. It is said by those who speak from experience that the practice of withdrawal has an effect upon the health similar to intemperance in eating. As the subsequent exhaustion is probably mainly owing to the shock the nervous system sustains in the act of coition, this opinion may be correct. It is further said that this practice serves to keep alive those fine feelings with which married people first come together. Still, I leave it for every one to decide for himself whether this check be so far from satisfactory as not to render some other very desirable.

There have been several methods suggested and used for preventing pregnancy. I'll briefly touch on them, though what we really need is knowledge of the most effective one. Withdrawal right before ejaculation is certainly effective if done carefully. However, if (as I believe) Dr. Dewees' theory of conception is accurate, and Spallanzani's experiments show that even a small amount of semen, even when diluted with water, can lead to pregnancy when injected into the vagina, then it’s clear that only complete withdrawal can be relied on. The old belief that semen must enter the uterus for conception has led many to think that partial withdrawal is enough, and this misunderstanding has caused trouble, just like many significant errors do. People with experience say that the practice of withdrawal affects health in a way similar to overeating. Given that the resulting fatigue is probably mostly due to the shock the nervous system experiences during intercourse, this view may be valid. Additionally, it's said that this practice helps maintain the tender feelings that couples have when they first come together. Still, I leave it to each person to decide whether this method is unsatisfactory enough to make another option very appealing.

As to the baudruche, which consists in a covering used by the male, made of very delicate skin, it is by no means calculated to come into general use. It has been used to secure immunity from syphilitic affections.

As for the baudruche, which is a covering used by men made from very fine skin, it isn’t likely to become widely adopted. It has been used to prevent syphilis.

Another check which the old idea of conception has led some to recommend with considerable confidence, consists in introducing into the vagina, previous to connection, a very delicate piece of sponge, moistened with water, to be immediately afterward withdrawn by means of a very narrow ribbon attached to it, But, as our views would lead us to expect, this check has not proved a sure preventive. As there are many little ridges or folds in the vagina, we cannot suppose the withdrawal of the sponge would dislodge all the semen in every instance. If, however, it were well moistened with some liquid which acted chemically upon the semen, it would be pretty likely to destroy the fecundating property of what might remain. But if this check were ever so sure, it would, in my opinion, fall short of being equal, all things considered, to the one I am about to mention—one which not only dislodges the semen pretty effectually, but at the same time destroys the fecundating property of the whole of it.

Another method that the old idea of conception has led some to confidently suggest involves placing a very delicate piece of sponge, moistened with water, into the vagina before intercourse, which is then immediately pulled out using a very narrow ribbon attached to it. However, as our understanding would lead us to expect, this method hasn’t proven to be a reliable preventive. Due to the many little ridges or folds in the vagina, we can’t assume that removing the sponge would remove all the semen every time. If, however, it were well-moistened with a liquid that chemically affects the semen, it would likely destroy the fertilizing ability of what remains. But even if this method were completely effective, it would still fall short, in my opinion, compared to the one I’m about to describe—one that not only effectively removes most of the semen but also destroys the fertilizing ability of all of it.

It consists in syringing the vagina immediately after connection with a solution of sulphate of zinc, of alum, pearl-ash, or any salt that acts chemically on the semen, and at the same time produces no unfavorable effect on the female.

It involves rinsing the vagina right after intercourse with a solution of zinc sulfate, alum, pearl ash, or any salt that interacts chemically with the semen, while also ensuring it has no negative effects on the woman.

In all probability a vegetable astringent would answer—as an infusion of white oak bark, of red rose leaves, of nut-galls, and the like. A lump of either of the above-mentioned salts, of the size of a chestnut, may be dissolved in a pint of water, making the solution weaker or stronger, as it may be borne without any irritation of the parts to which it is applied. These solutions will not lose their virtues by age. A female syringe, which will be required in the use of the check, may be had at the shop of an apothecary for a shilling or less. If preferred, the semen may be dislodged as far as it can be, by syringing with simple water, after which some of the solution is to be injected, to destroy the fecundating property of what may remain lodged between the ridges of the vagina, etc.

A vegetable astringent would likely work well—like an infusion of white oak bark, red rose leaves, nut galls, and similar options. A chunk of any of these salts, about the size of a chestnut, can be dissolved in a pint of water, adjusting the strength of the solution as needed to avoid irritating the areas to which it is applied. These solutions won’t lose their effectiveness over time. A female syringe, which you'll need for this process, can be purchased at an apothecary for a shilling or less. If you prefer, you can try to flush out as much of the semen as possible by rinsing with plain water, after which some of the solution should be injected to neutralize the fertilizing potential of any residue that may be trapped between the ridges of the vagina, etc.

I know the use of this check requires the woman to leave her bed for a few moments, but this is its only objection; and it would be unreasonable to suppose that any check can ever be devised entirely free of objections. In its favor it may be said, it costs nearly nothing; it is sure; it requires no sacrifice of pleasure; it is in the hand of the female; it is to be used after, instead of before the connection, a weighty consideration in its favor, as a moment's reflection will convince any one; and last, but not least, it is conducive to cleanliness, and preserves the parts from relaxation and disease. The vagina may be very much contracted by a persevering use of astringent injections, and they are constantly used for this purpose in cases of procidentia uteri, or a sinking down of the womb; subject as women are to fluor albus, and other diseases of the genital organs, it is rather a matter of wonder that they are not more so, considering the prevailing practices. Those who have used this check (and some have used it, to my certain knowledge with entire success for nine or ten years, and under such circumstances as leave no room to doubt its efficacy) affirm that they would be at the trouble of using injections merely for the purposes of health and cleanliness.

I know using this method requires the woman to get out of bed for a few moments, but that's its only drawback. It's unreasonable to think any method could be completely without issues. On the plus side, it costs almost nothing; it's reliable; it doesn't sacrifice pleasure; it's in the woman's control; it's used after instead of before the connection, which is a significant advantage; and last but not least, it helps with cleanliness and prevents issues like relaxation and disease. The vagina can become significantly tighter with regular use of astringent injections, which are commonly used for conditions like procidentia uteri, or a shifting of the womb. Given that women deal with fluor albus and other genital diseases, it's quite surprising they don't face more problems, considering the common practices. Those who have used this method (and I know some who have successfully used it for nine or ten years, in situations that leave no doubt about its effectiveness) say they would gladly use injections just for health and cleanliness.

By actual experiment it has been rendered highly probable that pregnancy may, in many instances, be prevented by injections of simple water, applied with a tolerable degree of care. But simple water has failed, and its occasional failure is what we should expect, considering the anatomy of the parts, and the results of Spallanzani's experiments heretofore alluded to.

By actual experiment, it has been shown to be quite likely that pregnancy can, in many cases, be prevented by injections of plain water, applied with reasonable care. However, plain water has not always been effective, and its occasional failure is what we might anticipate, given the anatomy involved and the results of Spallanzani's earlier experiments mentioned above.

This much did I say respecting this check in the first edition of this work. That is what I call the chemical check. The idea of destroying the fecundating property of the semen was original, if it did not originate with me. My attention was drawn to the subject by the perusal of "Moral Physiology." Such was my confidence in the chemical idea that I sat down and wrote this work in July, 1831. But the reflection that I did not know that this check would never fail, and that if it should, I might do someone an injury in recommending it, caused the manuscript to lie on hand until the following December. Some time in November I fell in with an old acquaintance, who agreeably surprised me by stating that to his personal knowledge this last check had been used as above stated. I have since conversed with a gentleman with whom I was acquainted, who stated that, being in Baltimore some few years ago, he was there informed of this check by those who have no doubt of its efficacy. From what has as yet fell under my observation, I am not warranted in drawing any conclusion. I can only say that I have never known it to fail. Such are my views on the whole subject, that it would require many instances of its reputed failure to satisfy me that such failures were not owing to an insufficient use of it. I even believe that quite cold water alone, if thoroughly used, would be sufficient. In Spallanzani's experiments warm water was unquestionably used. As the seminal animalcule are essential to impregnation, all we have to do is to change the condition of, or, if you will, to kill them; and as they are so exceedingly small and delicate, this is doubtless easily done, and hence cold water may be sufficient.

I discussed this method briefly in the first edition of this work. This is what I refer to as the chemical method. The idea of eliminating the fertilizing ability of semen was original, even if it didn't originate with me. I became interested in the topic after reading "Moral Physiology." I was so confident in this chemical method that I began writing this work in July 1831. However, I realized that I couldn't be sure this method would always work, and if it didn’t, I could harm someone by recommending it. This made me hold onto the manuscript until the following December. In November, I ran into an old acquaintance who pleasantly surprised me by saying that he personally knew this method had been successfully used as described. Since then, I’ve talked to someone else I know who mentioned that while in Baltimore a few years back, he heard about this method from people who are convinced of its effectiveness. Based on what I've observed so far, I can't draw any definitive conclusions. I can only say that I’ve never seen it fail. My overall view is that it would take many reports of its failure to convince me that those failures were due to improper use. I even think that just cold water, if used thoroughly, would be effective. In Spallanzani's experiments, warm water was definitely used. Since the seminal organisms are crucial for fertilization, we only need to alter their condition or, if you prefer, destroy them; and since they are incredibly small and delicate, this is likely easy to accomplish, which is why cold water might be effective.

What has now been advanced in this work will enable the reader to judge for himself or herself of the efficacy of the chemical or syringe check, and time will probably determine whether I am correct in this matter. I do know that those married females who have much desire to escape will not stand for the little trouble of using this check, especially when they consider that on the score of cleanliness and health alone it is worth the trouble.

What has been presented in this work will allow the reader to evaluate the effectiveness of the chemical or syringe method for themselves, and time will likely reveal if I am right about this. I know that married women who really want to avoid pregnancy won’t mind the small inconvenience of using this method, especially when they think about how it benefits their cleanliness and health.

A great part of the time no check is necessary, and women of experience and observation, with the information conveyed by this work, will be able to judge pretty correctly when it is and when it is not. They may rest assured that none of the salts mentioned will have any deleterious effect. The sulphate of zinc is commonly known by the name of white vitriol. This, as well as alum, have been extensively used for leucorrhæ. Acetate of lead would doubtless be effectual—indeed, it has proven to be so; but I do not recommend it, because I conceive it possible that a long continued use of it might impair the instinct.

Most of the time, no check is needed, and women with experience and observation, armed with the information in this work, will be able to judge quite accurately when it's necessary and when it isn't. They can be confident that none of the salts mentioned will have harmful effects. The sulfate of zinc is commonly called white vitriol. This, along with alum, has been widely used for leucorrhea. Acetate of lead would likely be effective—indeed, it has been shown to be so; however, I don't recommend it, as I believe that long-term use could potentially impair instinct.

I hope that no failures will be charged of efficacy of this check which ought to be attributed to negligence or insufficient use of it. I will therefore recommend at least two applications of the syringe, the sooner the surer, yet it is my opinion that five minutes' delay would not prove mischievous—perhaps not ten.

I hope that any failures related to the effectiveness of this check aren't blamed on the check itself but rather on negligence or not using it enough. So, I recommend at least two uses of the syringe; the sooner, the better. However, I believe a five-minute delay wouldn't be harmful—maybe even ten minutes would be fine.





CHAPTER IV. REMARKS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE INSTINCT

I scarcely need observe that by this instinct is meant the desire for sexual intercourse. Blumenbach speaks of this instinct as "superior to all others in universality and violence." Perhaps hunger is an exception. But surely no instinct commands a greater proportion of our thoughts or has a greater influence upon happiness for better or for worse. "Controlled by reason and chastened by good feelings, it gives to social intercourse much of its charm and zest, but directed by selfishness or governed by force, it is prolific of misery and degradation. In itself it appears to be the most social and least selfish of all instincts. It fits us to give even while we receive pleasure, and among cultivated beings the former power is even more highly valued than the latter. Not one of our instincts perhaps affords larger scope for the exercise of disinterestedness, or fitter play for the best moral feelings of our race. Not one gives birth to relations more gentle, more humanizing and endearing; not one lies more immediately at the root of the kindliest charities and most generous impulses that honor and bless human nature. It is a much more noble, because less purely selfish, instinct than hunger or thirst. It is an instinct that entwines itself around the warmest feelings and best affections of the heart"—Moral Physiology. But too frequently its strength, together with a want of moral culture, is such that it is not "controlled by reason;" and consequently, from time immemorial, it has been gratified, either in a mischievous manner, or to such an intemperate degree, or under such improper circumstances, as to give rise to an incalculable amount of human misery. For this reason it has, by some, been regarded as a low, degrading and "carnal" passion, with which family life must be ever at war. But in the instinct itself the philosopher sees nothing deserving of degrading epithets. He sees not that nature should war against herself. He believes that in savage life it is, and in wisely organized society of duly enlightened and civilized beings it should be the source of ten-fold more happiness than misery.

I barely need to point out that this instinct refers to the desire for sexual intercourse. Blumenbach describes this instinct as "superior to all others in universality and intensity." Maybe hunger is an exception, but no other instinct occupies as much of our thoughts or has a greater impact on our happiness, for better or worse. "When it's guided by reason and softened by good feelings, it brings a lot of charm and excitement to social interactions; however, when driven by selfishness or force, it leads to misery and degradation. It seems to be the most social and least selfish of all instincts. It enables us to give pleasure even while we receive it, and among thoughtful individuals, giving is even more highly valued than receiving. Perhaps none of our instincts offers a broader opportunity for selflessness or a better platform for the highest moral qualities of our species. None creates relationships that are gentler, more humanizing, and more affectionate; none is more fundamental to the kindest charities and the most generous impulses that elevate and bless human nature. It is much nobler, and less purely selfish, than hunger or thirst. It is an instinct that weaves itself around the warmest feelings and deepest affections of the heart"—Moral Physiology. However, too often, its power, combined with a lack of moral development, means it isn’t "controlled by reason;" and, as a result, throughout history, it has been expressed in harmful ways or to such an excessive extent, or under such inappropriate circumstances, that it has caused immeasurable human suffering. For this reason, some have regarded it as a low, degrading, and "carnal" passion that family life must always struggle against. But the philosopher sees nothing in the instinct itself that warrants degrading labels. He doesn’t believe that nature should be at odds with itself. He argues that in primitive life it is and in a wisely organized society of well-informed and civilized individuals, it should be a source of ten times more happiness than misery.

A part of the evil consequences to which this instinct is daily giving rise under the present state of things, it belongs more particularly to the moralist to point out; whilst of others it falls within the province of the physician to treat. But let me first remark that physicians have hitherto fallen far short of giving those instructions concerning this instinct which its importance demands. In books, pamphlets, journals, etc., they have laid much before the public respecting eating, drinking, bathing, lacing, air, exercise, etc., but have passed by the still more important subject now before us, giving only here and there spine faint allusion to it This, it is true, the customs, not to say pruderies, of the age have compelled them to do, in publications designed for the public eye, yet, in some small work, indicated by its title to be for private perusal, they might, with the utmost propriety, have embodied much highly useful instruction in relation to this instinct.

A part of the harmful consequences that this instinct causes daily in the current situation is something that the moralist should specifically address; while other aspects fall within the physician's role to handle. But first, I want to point out that physicians have so far not provided the guidance about this instinct that its significance requires. In books, pamphlets, journals, etc., they have shared a lot about eating, drinking, bathing, lacing, air, exercise, etc., but have overlooked the even more important topic we’re discussing now, mentioning it only occasionally. It’s true that the customs, not to mention the prudishness, of the time have forced them to do this in publications meant for the public, yet in a smaller work specifically aimed at private reading, they could have very appropriately included a lot of valuable guidance regarding this instinct.

This instinct is liable to be gratified at improper times, to an intemperate degree, and in a mischievous manner.

This instinct can easily be satisfied at the wrong times, in excessive ways, and with harmful results.

True philosophy dictates that this and all other appetites be so gratified as will most conduce to human happiness—not merely the happiness attending the gratification of one of the senses, but all the senses—not merely sensual happiness, but intellectual—not merely the happiness of the individual, but of the human family.

True philosophy says that this and all other desires should be satisfied in a way that contributes most to human happiness—not just the happiness that comes from satisfying one of the senses, but all the senses—not just physical happiness, but intellectual—not just the happiness of one person, but of all humanity.

First.—Of the times at which this instinct ought not to be gratified. With females it ought not to be gratified until they are seventeen or eighteen years of age, and with males not until they are a year or two older. The reason is, if they refrain until these ages, the passion will hold out the longer, and they will be able to derive much more pleasure from it in after life, than if earlier gratified, especially to any great extent A due regard to health also enjoins with most persons some restraint on this instinct—indeed, at all times, but especially for a few years after the above-mentioned ages. It ought not to be rashly gratified at first. Begin temperately, and as the system becomes more mature, and habituated to the effects naturally produced by the gratification of this instinct, it will bear more without injury. Many young married people, ignorant of the consequences, have debilitated the whole system—the genital system in particular; have impaired their mental energies; have induced consumptive and other diseases; have rendered themselves irritable, unsocial, melancholy and finally much impaired, perhaps destroyed their affection for each other by an undue gratification of the reproductive instinct. In almost all diseases, if gratified at all, it should be very temperately. It ought not to be gratified during menstruation, as it might prove productive to the man of symptoms similar to those of syphilis, but more probably to the woman of a weakening disease called fluor albus. In case of pregnancy a temperate gratification for the first two or three months may be of no injury to the woman or the coming offspring. But it ought to be known that the growth of the foetus in utero may be impaired, and the seeds of future bodily infirmity and mental imbecility of the offspring may be sown by much indulgence during utero-gestation or pregnancy, especially when the woman experiences much pleasure in such indulgences.

First.—About the times when this instinct should not be satisfied. For females, it shouldn't be satisfied until they are seventeen or eighteen years old, and for males, not until they are a year or two older. The reason is that if they wait until these ages, the passion will last longer, and they will enjoy it much more later in life than if they indulge earlier, especially to any significant extent. Taking care of one's health also requires most people to show some restraint regarding this instinct—indeed, at all times, but particularly for a few years after the ages mentioned above. It shouldn’t be recklessly indulged in at first. Start moderately, and as the body matures and becomes accustomed to the effects of gratifying this instinct, it can handle more without harm. Many young married couples, unaware of the consequences, have weakened their entire system—especially the reproductive system; they have diminished their mental energy, developed conditions like consumption and other diseases, made themselves irritable, unsociable, and melancholy, and ultimately diminished or even destroyed their affection for each other due to excessive indulgence in the reproductive instinct. In almost all illnesses, if it is to be satisfied at all, it should be done very moderately. It should not be indulged during menstruation, as it may cause the man to experience symptoms similar to syphilis, but more probably lead to the woman developing a debilitating disease called fluor albus. During pregnancy, moderate indulgence in the first two or three months may not harm the woman or the developing child. However, it should be noted that excessive indulgence during gestation can hinder the fetus's growth and potentially seed future physical weaknesses and mental challenges in the child, especially if the woman derives significant pleasure from such indulgences.

Having already glanced at some of the bad effects of an undue gratification of this instinct, I have but little more to offer under the head of Intemperate Degree. It will be borne in mind that intemperance in this thing is not to be decided by numbers, but that it depends on circumstances; and what would be temperance in one, may be intemperance in another. And with respect to an individual, too, what he might enjoy with impunity, were he a laboring man, or a man whose business requires but little mental exercise, would, were he a student, unfit him for the successful prosecution of his studies. Intemperance in the gratification of this instinct has a tendency to lead to intemperance in the use of ardent spirits. The languor, depression of spirits, in some instances faintness and want of appetite, induced by intemperate gratification, call loudly for some stimulus, and give a relish to spirits. Thus the individual is led to drink. This inflames the blood, the passions, and leads to further indulgence. This again calls for more spirits; and thus two vicious habits are commenced, which mutually increase each other. Strange as it may appear to those unacquainted with the animal economy, an intemperate indulgence sometimes gives rise to the same disease—so far as the name makes it so—that is frequently cured by a temperate indulgence; viz, nocturnal emissions.

Having already touched on some of the negative effects of excessive indulgence in this instinct, I have little more to add under the topic of Intemperate Degree. It's important to remember that intemperance isn't determined by quantity, but by context; what might be moderate for one person could be excessive for another. Additionally, what a person might enjoy without consequences if they’re a laborer, or someone whose job requires little mental effort, could make a student unfit to successfully pursue their studies. Indulging this instinct excessively can lead to overindulgence in alcohol. The fatigue, feelings of depression, and sometimes faintness and lack of appetite caused by excessive gratification can strongly crave some form of stimulation, making alcohol more appealing. Thus, the person starts to drink. This increases blood flow, stirs up emotions, and leads to more indulgence. This in turn creates a greater need for alcohol, leading to a cycle of two harmful habits that feed off each other. Odd as it may seem to those unfamiliar with the body's workings, excessive indulgence can sometimes lead to the same condition—at least in name—that is often cured by moderate indulgence; namely, nocturnal emissions.

Every young married woman ought to know that the male system is exhausted in a far greater degree than the female by gratification. It seems, indeed, to have but little effect, comparatively, upon some females. But with respect to the male, it has been estimated by Tissot that the loss of one ounce of semen is equal in its effects upon the system of forty ounces of blood. As it respects the immediate effects, this estimation, generally speaking, may not be too great. But a man living on a full meat diet might, doubtless, part with fifty ounces of semen in the course of a year, with far less detriment to the system than with 2,000 ounces of blood. It is a fact, that mode of living, independent of occupation, makes a great difference with respect to what the system will bear. A full meat diet, turtles, oysters, eggs, spirits, wine, etc., certainly promote the secretion of semen, and enable the system to bear its emission. But a cool vegetable and milk diet calms all the passions, the venereal especially. Most men adopting such a diet as this will suffer no inconvenience in extending the intervals of their gratification to three or four weeks; on the contrary, they will enjoy clear intellect, and a fine flow of spirits. This is the diet for men of literary pursuits, especially the unmarried.

Every young married woman should know that men are more physically drained by sexual activity than women. It seems to have a relatively minor effect on some women. However, for men, Tissot estimated that losing just one ounce of semen has effects on the body comparable to losing forty ounces of blood. Regarding immediate effects, this estimate might not be too far off. A man on a high-meat diet could probably lose fifty ounces of semen in a year with much less harm to his body than losing 2,000 ounces of blood. It's a fact that diet, regardless of job, significantly affects what the body can handle. A high-meat diet, along with turtles, oysters, eggs, alcohol, and wine, certainly encourages semen production and allows the body to handle its release. In contrast, a light diet of vegetables and milk calms all passions, especially sexual ones. Most men who follow such a diet can comfortably extend the time between sexual activities to three or four weeks; on the contrary, they will experience clear thinking and great energy. This diet is ideal for men focused on intellectual pursuits, especially those who are unmarried.

As to the mischievous manner, it consists in the unnatural habit of onanism, or solitary gratification; it is an antisocial and demoralizing habit, which, while it proves no quietus to the mind, impairs the bodily powers as well as mental, and not infrequently leads to insanity.

As for the mischievous behavior, it involves the unnatural practice of masturbation, or self-pleasure; this is an antisocial and harmful habit that, while it does not calm the mind, weakens both physical and mental abilities, and often leads to madness.

While the gratification of the reproductive instinct in such manner as mentioned leads to bad consequences, a temperate and natural gratification, under proper circumstances, is attended with good, besides the mere attendant pleasure, which alone is enough to recommend such gratification. I admit that human beings might be so constituted that if they had no reproductive instinct to gratify, they might enjoy health; but being constituted as they are, this instinct cannot be mortified with impunity. It is a fact universally admitted, that unmarried females do not enjoy so much good health and attain to so great an age as the married; notwithstanding that the latter are subject to the diseases and pains incident to child-bearing. A temperate gratification promotes the secretions, and the appetite for food; calms the restless passions; induces pleasant sleep; awakens social feeling; and adds a zest to life which makes one conscious that life is worth preserving.

While satisfying the reproductive urge in the way mentioned can lead to negative consequences, moderate and natural satisfaction, under the right circumstances, brings positive outcomes, in addition to the simple pleasure, which is reason enough to endorse such satisfaction. I acknowledge that humans could be structured in a way that they could enjoy good health without needing to fulfill a reproductive instinct, but given how they are made, this instinct cannot be ignored without consequences. It's a widely accepted fact that unmarried women typically do not experience as much good health or live as long as married women, even though the latter face the health issues and discomforts that come with childbirth. Moderation in satisfaction encourages bodily functions, increases appetite, calms restless feelings, induces restful sleep, fosters social connections, and adds a joy to life that makes one feel life is worth living.





APPENDIX

     [I here connect with this work, by way of Appendix, the
     following extract from an article which appeared in the
     Boston Investigator, a paper which, mirabile dictu, is so
     "crazy" as to be open to the investigation of all subjects
     which mightily concern mankind.]
     [I connect this work to the following excerpt from an article that was published in the Boston Investigator, a newspaper that, mirabile dictu, is so "out there" that it welcomes the exploration of all topics that greatly impact humanity.]

The only seeming objection of much weight that can be brought against diffusing a knowledge of checks is, that it will serve to increase illegal connections. Now, this is exactly the contrary effect of that which those who have diffused such knowledge most confidently believe will arise from it. To diminish such connections is indeed one of the grand objects of this publication,—an object which laws and prisons cannot, or, at least, do not, accomplish. Why is there so much prostitution in the land? The true answer to the question is not, and never will be, Because the people have become acquainted with certain facts in physiology; it is because there are so many unmarried men and women,—men of dissipation and profligacy, owing to their not having married in their younger days and settled down in life. But why are there so many unmarried people in the country? Not because young hearts when they arrive at the age of maturity do not desire to marry; but because prudential considerations interfere. The young man thinks: I cannot marry yet; I cannot support a family; I must make money first, and think of a matrimonial settlement afterward. And so it is, that through fear of having a family, before they have made a little headway in the world, and of being thereby compelled to "tug at the oar of incessant labor throughout their lives," thousands of young men do not marry, but go abroad into the world and form vicious acquaintances and practices. The truth, then, is this,—there is so much illegal connection in the land, because the people had not, twenty years ago, that very information which, it would seem, some, doubtless through want of due reflection, are apprehensive will increase this evil. I might quote pages to the point from "Every Woman's Book," but I fear my communication would be too lengthy. I content myself with a few lines. "But when it has become the custom here as elsewhere to limit the number of children, so that none need have more than they wish, no man will fear to take a wife; all will marry while young; debauchery will diminish; while good morals and religious duties will be promoted."

The main argument against spreading knowledge about checks is that it will lead to more illegal relationships. However, this is the opposite of what those sharing this knowledge believe will happen. Reducing such relationships is actually one of the key goals of this publication—something that laws and prisons have failed to achieve. Why is there so much prostitution in the country? The real answer isn't that people have learned certain facts about physiology; it's because there are so many single men and women—men who are wasteful and immoral because they didn't settle down when they were younger. But why are there so many single people? It's not because young people don't want to marry when they reach adulthood; it's because practical concerns get in the way. A young man thinks: I can't marry yet; I can’t support a family; I need to make money first, and worry about marriage later. So, fearing the responsibilities of a family before they’ve made some progress in life—and the idea of being stuck in a lifetime of hard work—thousands of young men don’t marry and instead seek out bad influences and habits. The truth is, there are so many illegal relationships today because people lacked the knowledge twenty years ago that some now wrongly fear will worsen this issue. I could quote many pages from "Every Woman's Book," but I worry that it would make my communication too lengthy. I'll stick to a few lines: "But when it becomes the norm here, as it is elsewhere, to limit the number of children so that no one has more than they want, no man will hesitate to take a wife; everyone will marry young; debauchery will decline; and good morals and religious duties will be upheld."

It has been asked if a general knowledge of checks would not diminish the general increase of population? I think that such would not be the result in this country until such result would be desirable. In my opinion the effect would be a good many more families (and, on the whole, as many births), but not so many overgrown and poverty-stricken ones. It has been said, It is better to let Nature take her course. Now, in the broadest sense of the word "Nature," I say so too. In this sense there is nothing unnatural in the universe. But if we limit the sense of the word Nature so as not to include what we mean by art, then is civilized life one continued warfare against Nature. It is by art that we subdue the forest; by art we contend against the elements; by art we combat the natural tendency of disease, etc.

It's been questioned whether a basic understanding of birth control would reduce overall population growth. I believe this wouldn't happen in our country until it becomes necessary. In my view, the outcome would be many more families (and overall, the same number of births), but not as many large, struggling families. Some say it's better to let nature take its course. In the broadest sense of "nature," I agree. In this context, nothing in the universe is unnatural. However, if we narrow the definition of nature to exclude what we refer to as art, then civilized life is essentially a constant battle against nature. It's through art that we tame the forest; through art we fight against the elements; through art we address the natural spread of disease, and so on.

As to the outrageous slander which here and there one has been heard to utter against the fair sex, in saying that fear of conception is the foundation of their chastity, it must be the sentiment of a "carnal heart," which has been peculiarly unfortunate in its acquaintances. "To the pure, all things are pure." Chastity, as well as its opposite, is in a great degree constitutional; and ought, in a like degree, to be regarded as a physical property, if I may so say, rather than a moral quality. Where the constitution is favorable a very indifferent degree of moral training is sufficient to secure the virgin without the influence of the above-mentioned fear; but where it is the reverse you may coop up the individual in the narrow dark cage of ignorance and fear, as you will, but still you must watch. An eminent moralist has said, "That chastity which will not bear the light [of physiology] is scarcely worth preserving." But verily, I believe there is very little such in the market. What there be is naturally short-lived, and, after its demise, the unhappily constituted individual stands in great need of this light to save her from ignominy. What might it not have prevented in the Fall River affair? And if one of two things must happen—either the destruction of fecundity or the destruction of life—which of the two is the greater evil? In these cases alone this light is calculated to do sufficient good to counterbalance all the evil that would arise from it; so that we should have its important advantages to the married in a political, a domestic and a medical point of view, as so much clear gain. This, of course, is my opinion; but since I have probably reflected more upon the subject than all the persons concerned in my imprisonment put together, until it can be shown that I have not as clear a head and as pure a heart as any of them, I think it entitled to some weight.

Regarding the outrageous slander that occasionally surfaces about women, claiming that the fear of becoming pregnant is the basis of their chastity, this must come from a "carnal heart" that has been particularly unlucky in its associations. "To the pure, all things are pure." Chastity, like its opposite, is largely a matter of one's nature and should be considered more of a physical trait than a moral quality. When someone’s constitution is favorable, only a minimal amount of moral guidance is needed to ensure their purity without relying on the aforementioned fear; however, when the opposite is true, you could imprison a person in a small, dark cage of ignorance and fear, but you will still need to keep an eye on them. An esteemed moralist once said, "That chastity which cannot withstand the light [of physiology] is hardly worth preserving." Honestly, I believe that there’s very little of that kind available. What little exists is naturally short-lived, and once it’s gone, the unfortunate individual will desperately need that light to avoid disgrace. What might it have prevented in the Fall River case? If we must choose between the loss of fertility or the loss of life, which is the greater evil? In these situations, this light has the potential to do enough good to outweigh any negative consequences; thus, we would benefit significantly in marital, domestic, and medical respects. This is merely my perspective; however, considering I've probably thought about this subject more than everyone involved in my imprisonment combined, unless someone shows that I lack the clarity of mind and purity of heart they have, I believe my view should hold some weight.








Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!