The record-union., 1895-11-09
EVILS OF INFANTICIDE.
There Is Something Fundamentally
Wrong.
The Astounding Proportions TO Which
This Crime Has Grown
In England.

by Lady Cook, nee Tennessee G. Claflin.)
The death of little child appeals to
our tenderest sympathies. It's delicate,
mute face and clasped hands fill US with
infinite pity. We fight against the fell
diseases which blast these sweetest buds
of our race. and crush the parents fond
est hopes. 1t may be our minds 60 back
to Bethlehem, with its smiling Babe ly-
ing upon Mary's breast. Other infants
also, from two years old and under"
hang from the bosoms or play about the
knees of other mothers. Suddenly the
quiet Judean village is a scene of infsn-
tile slaughter. Swarthy Roman warriors
convert it into the sham bles of innocence,
and the mothers are bathed with their
children's blood. The church comment
crates this event on "Innocents' Day."
For ages poets have sung it and painters
depicted it. Yet less than 200 little ones
persisted on that memorable occasion.
There is a far larger number-thousands
for hundreds-annually done TO death in
this country, more foully murdered than
those. but neither church. nor poet, nor
painter immortalizes their innocent suf-
ferings. Instead OF pagan soldiery
mothers slaughter their own babes.
Those did it at the command of the
Prince, in order to save his throne.
These perform it themselves, usually
from shame, from fear, from broken
hearts. And we are SO well bred, from
the Arch bishop down, that we keep our
prayers and our wailings for the small
Bethlehemite massacre 1900 years ago.
and discreetly pass by our own English
"innocents" to-day without a word or q
tear.
Week after week our Coroners point
out the national infamy of these MUIR
ders, but no one heedeth. Day after day
adds to the number OF the CHASTITY roll.
Can nothing be done TO stay them, or are
these also among the things which must
not be inquired into? There must be
something fundamentally wrong when
SO many mothers are iinpelled TO outrage
the natural instincts of maternity. That
feeling, which governs alike the lncuba-
ton OF the lowly earwig and the stately
pheasant; which throbs the same i'll the
breast of the little mOuse-mother or the
hlgh-bOrn matron-that universal lm-
pulse which conserves the family, the
species. the race-cannot be diverted ex-
cept by some great mental or moral ca
tastrOphe unless our moral sentiments
and our laws also operate against 1t.
There are two forms of infanticide-one
before birth and the one after. Both
have been almost universally practiced
from the earliest times, and both are
common in foreign countries and in Eng
land to-day. Speaking of the former,
Mr.. Lecky, in his History of European
Morals" tells us that "A long chain of
writer's, both Pagan and Christian, repre-
sent the practice as avowed and almost
universal. They describe IL as resulting,
not simply from RIGHTEOUSNESS or from
bot f,D,
as vanity, which made mothers shrink
from the Disagreement of childbirth.
They speak OF mother who had never
destroyed her unborn offspring as de-
serving of signal praise, and they assure
US that the frequency OF the crime was
such that 1t gave rise to a regular profess
sion." We have amongst us similar
RIGHTEOUSNESS and poverty, married wo-
men-many OF high degree-similarly
vain, and sufficient number of medical
men and midwives employed in this
practice to constitute 1t profession.
1t would seem strange that SO abhor-
rent custom should have largely de-
pended upon metaphysical sublety did
we not know that most of our abomina-
tons have like origin. 1t was a moot
question with pagan and Christian phil
osophers az TO the time when the foetus
acquires the nature, and therefore the
rights OF separate being" in other
words, when does 1t possess 6 soul?
Plutarch, in one OF his treatlses, has q re-
marksble collection OF ancient specula-
ton on this topic. The Stoics made the
soul and respiration commence together.
The Justiuian code fixes the union at
forty days after conception. Thus no law
in Greece condemned abortion, and the
Roman law did not punish il when vol
untary until towards the end of the Sec
ond century. For it was thought that the
fostus was but part OF the mother"
and that she had the same right to re-
move il as If IL were Wen. Yet the prac-
tice met with much disapproval, although
so general. Ovid reproached Corinna for
having been guilty OF the act. A niece of
Domitian died in consequence OF the
same. Seneca praised Helvia for not
having resorted to it. Another writer
classed it as one degree worse than
mothers putting out her children to