John Harvey Kellogg Quotes

Causes of the Crime.—Many influences may combine to cause the mother ruthlessly to destroy her helpless child: as, to conceal the results of sin; to avoid the burdens of maternity; to secure ease and freedom to travel, etc., or even from a false idea that maternity is vulgar; but it is true, beyond all question, that the primary cause of the sin is far back of all these influences. The most unstinted and scathing incectives are used in characterizing the criminality of a mother who takes the life of her unborn babe; but a word is seldom said of the one who forced upon her the circumstances which gave the unfortunate one existence. Though doctors, ministers, and moralists have said much on this subject, and written more, it is reasonable to suppose that they will never accomplish much of anything in the direction of reform until they recognize the part the man acts in all of these sad cases, and begin to demand reform where it is most needed, and where its achievement will effect the most good. As was observed in the remarks upon the subject of "Prevention of Conception," this evil has its origin in "marital excesses," and in a disregard of the natural law which makes the female the sole proprietor of her own body, and gives to her the right to refuse the approaches of the male when unprepared to receive them without doing violence to the laws of her being.

Not a Modern Crime.—Although this crime has attained remarkable proportions in modern times, it is not a new one by any means, as the following paragraph will suffice to show:— "Infanticide and exposure were also the custom among the Romans, Medes, Canaanites, Babylonians, and other Eastern nations, with the exception of the Israelites and Egyptians. The Scandinavians killed their offspring from pure fantasy. The Norwegians, after having carefully swaddled their children, put some food into their mouths, placed them under the roots of trees or under the rocks to preserve them from ferocious beasts. Infanticide was also permitted among the Chinese, and we saw, during the last century, vehicles going round the streets of Pekin daily to collect the bodies of the dead infants. To-day there exist foundling hospitals to receive children abandoned by their parents. The same custom is also observed in Japan, in the isles of the Southern Ocean, at Otaheite, and among several savage nations of North America. It is related to the Jaggers of Guinea that they devour their own children.” The Greeks practiced infanticide systematically, their laws at one time requiring the destruction of crippled or weakly children. Among all the various nations, the general object of the crime seems to have been to avoid the trouble of rearing the children, or to avoid a surplus, objects not far different from those had in view by those who practice the same crimes at the present time. The destruction of the child after the mother has felt its movements is termed infanticide; before that time it is commonly known as abortion. It is a modern notion that the child possesses no soul or individual life until the period of quickening, an error which we have already sufficiently exposed. The ancients, with just as much reason, contended that no distinct life was present until after birth. Hence it was that they could practice without scruple the crime of infanticide to prevent too great increase of population. "Plato and Aristotle were advocates of this practice, and these Stoics justified this monstrous practice by alleging that the child only acquired a soul at the moment when it ceased to have uterine life and commenced to respire. From hence it resulted that, the child not being animated, its destruction was no murder."

A Compromise.-There will be many, the vast majority, perhaps, who will not bring their minds to accept the truth which nature seems to teach, which would confine sexual acts to reproduction wholly. Others, acknowledging the truth, declare “the spirit willing” though “the flesh is weak.” Such will inquire, “Is there not some compromise by means of which we may escape the greater evils of our present mode of life?” Such may find in the following facts suggestions for a “better way,” if not the “best” way, though it cannot be recommended as wholly free from dangers, and though it cannot be said of it that it is not an “unnatural way:- “Menstruation in women indicates an aptitude for impregnation, and this condition remains for a period of six or eight days after the entire completion of the flow. During this time only can most women conceive. Allow twelve days for the onset of the menses to pass by, and the probabilities of impregnation are very slight. This act of continence is healthful, moral, and irreproachable.” It should beaded to the above that the plan suggested is not absolutely certain to secure immunity from conception. The period of abstinence should certainly extend from the beginning of menstruation to the fourteenth day. To ensure even reasonable safety, it is necessary to practice further abstinence for three or four days previous to the beginning of the flow. Many writers make another suggestion which would certainly be beneficial to individual health; viz, that the husband and wife should habitually occupy separate beds. Such a practice would undoubtedly serve to keep the sexual instincts in abeyance. Separate apartments, or at least the separation of the beds by a curtain, are recommended by some estimable physicians, who suggest that such a plan would enable both parties to conduct their morning ablutions with proper thoroughness and without sacrificing that natural modesty which operates so powerfully as a check upon the excessive indulgence of the passions. Many will think the suggestion a good one and will make a practical application of it. Sleeping in single beds is reputed to be a European custom of long standing among the higher classes.

What to Do.-Now to the question as asked by the first parties-married people who together seek for a solution of the difficulties arising from an abandonment of all protective against fecundation. The true remedy, and the natural one, is doubtless to be found in the suggestion made under the heads of “Continence and “Marital Excesses.” By a course of life in accordance with the principles there indicated, all of these evils and a thousand more would be avoided. There would be less sensual enjoyment, but more elevated joy. There would be less animal love, but more spiritual communion ; less grossness, more purity ; less development if the animal, and a more fruitful soil for the culture of virtue, holiness, and all the Christian graces. “But such a life would be impossible this side of Heaven.” A few who claim to have tried the experiment think not. The shakers claim to practice, as well as teach, such principles ; and with the potent aids to continence previously specified, it might be found less difficult in realization than in thought.

Woman’s Rights.-A woman does not, upon the performance of the marriage ceremony surrender all her personal rights. The law recognizes this fact if her husband beats her, or in any way injures her by physical force, or even by neglect. Why may she not claim protection from other maltreatment as well ? or, at least, why may she not, refuse to lend herself to beastly lust? She remains the proprietor of her own body, though married ; and who is so lost to all sense of justice, equity, and even morality, as to claim that she is under any moral obligation to allow her body to be abused?

Difficulties.-Married people will exclaim, “What shall we do?” Delicate mothers who have already more children on their hands than they can care for, whose health is insufficient to longer endure the pains and burdens of pregnancy, but whose sensual husbands continue to demand indulgence, will echo in despairing tones, while acknowledging the truth, “What shall “we” do?” We will answer the question for the latter first, Mr. Mill, the distinguished English logician, in his work on “The Subjection of Woman,” thus represents the erroneous view which is popularly held of the sexual relations of the wife to the husband. “The wife, however brutal a tyrant she may be chained to-though she may know that he hates her, though it may be his daily pleasure to torture her, and though she may feel it impossible not to loathe him-he can claim from her and enforce the lowest degredation of a human being, that being made the instrument of an animal function contrary to her inclinations.”

It will be urged that these early destructions are not murders. Murder is an awful word. The act itself is a terrible crime. No wonder that its personal application should be studiously avoided ; the human being who would not shrink from such a charge would be unworthy of the name of human-a very brute. Nevertheless, it is necessary to look the plain facts squarely in the face, and shrink not from the decision of an enlightened conscience. We quote the following portions of an extract which we give in full elsewhere ; it is from the same distinguished authority* whom we have frequently quoted:- “There Is, in fact, no moment after conception when it can be said that the child has not life, and the crime of destroying human life is as heinous and as sure before the period of ‘quickening’ has been attained, as afterward. But you still defend your horrible deed by saying: ‘Well, if there be, as you say, this mere animal life, equivalent at the most to simple vitality, there is no mind, no soul destroyed, and therefore, there is no crime committed.’ Just so surely as one would destroy and root out of existence all the fowls in the world by destroying all the eggs in existence, so certain is it that you do by your act destroy the animal man in the egg and the soul which animates it. . . . Murder is always sinful, and murder is the willful destruction of a human being at any period of its existence, from its earliest germinal embryo to its final, simple, animal existence in aged decrepitude and complete mental imbecility.”

It has been previously shown that in the two elements, the ovum of the female, and the spermatozoon of the male, are, in rudimentary form, all the elements which go to make up the “human form divine.” Alone, neither of these elements can become anything more than it already is; but the instant that the two elements come in contact, fecundation takes place, and the individual life begins. From that moment until maturity is reached, years subsequently, the whole process is only one of development. Nothing absolutely new is added at any subsequent moment. In view of these facts, it is evident that at the very instant of conception the embryonic human being possesses all the right to life it ever can possess. It is just as much an individual, a distinct human being, possessed of soul and body, as it ever is, though in a very immature form. That conception may take place during the reproductive act cannot be denied. If, then, means are employed with a view to prevent conception immediately after the accomplishment of the act, or at any subsequent time, if successful, it would be by destroying the delicate product of the conception which had already occurred, and which, as before observed, is as truly a distinct individual as it can ever become-certainly as independent as at any time previous to birth. It is immoral to take human life? Is it a sin to kill a child? Is it a crime to strangle an infant at birth? Is it a murderous act to destroy a half-formed human being in its mother’s womb? Who will date to answer “No,” to one of these questions? Then, who can refuse to assent to the plain truth that it is equally a murder to deprive of the life of the most recent product of the generative act ? Who can number the myriads of murders that have been perpetrated at this early period of existence ? Who can estimate the load of guilt that weighs upon some human souls ? and who knows how many brilliant lights have been thus early extinguished ? how many promising human plantlets thus ruthlessly destroyed in the very act of germinating ? Is it to be hoped that in the final account the extenuating influence of ignorance may weigh heavily in the scale of justice against the damning testimony of those “unconsidered murders.”

[F]or what moral right have men or women to do that which injure the integrity of the physical organism given them, and for which they are accountable to their Creator ? Surely none; for the man who destroys himself by degrees, is no less a murderer than he who cuts his throat or puts a bullet through his brain. The crime is the same-being the shortening of human life-whether the injury is done to one’s self or to another. In this matter, there are at least three sufferers; the husband, the wife, and the offspring, though’ in most cases, doubtless, the husband is the one to whom the sin almost exclusively belongs.

The effects if these sins against nature are frequently not felt for years after the cause has been at work, and even then are seldom attributed to the true cause. In some instances we have known persons to suffer on for many years without having once suspected that the cause of their suffering was a palpable violation of nature’s laws. Uterine diseases thus induced are among the most obstinate of diseases of this class, being often of long standing, and hence of a very serious character. Dr. Wm. Goodell of Philadelphia has recently called attention to the fact that the prevention of conception is one of the most common causes of prolapses of the ovaries, a very common and painful disease. Not infrequently, too, other organs, particularly the bladder, become affected, either through sympathy or in consequence of the congested condition of the contiguous parts. A difficulty which we have often met with has been the inability to convince those who have been guilty of the practices referred to, of the enormity of the sin against both soul and body. In spite of all warnings, perhaps supplemented by sufferings, the practice will often be continued, producing in the end the most lamentable results. Too often it is the case that this reluctance to obey the dictates of Nature’s law is the result of the unfeeling and unreasonable demands of a selfish husband.

Finally, of the use of intermediate tegumentary coverings, made of thin rubber or gold-beater’s skin, and so often relied upon as absolute preventives, Madame de Stael is reputed to have said, ‘They are cobwebs for protection, and bulwarks against love.’ Their employment certainly must produce a feeling of shame and disgust utterly destructive of the true delight of pure hearts and refined sensibilities. They are suggestive of licentiousness and the brothel, and their employment degrades to bestiality the true feelings of manhood and the holy state of matrimony. Neither do they give, except in a very limited degree, the protection desired. Furthermore, they produce (as alleged by the best modern French writers, who are more familiar with the effect of their use than we are in the United states) certain physical lesions from their irritating presence as foreign bodies, and also from the chemicals employed in their fabrication, and other effects inseparable from their employment, oft times of a really serious nature. “I will not further enlarge upon these instrumentalities. Sufficient has been said to convince anyone that to trifle with the grand functions of our organism, to attempt to deceive and thwart nature in her highly ordained prerogatives-no matter how simple seem to be the means employed-is to incur a heavy responsibility and run a fearful risk. It matters little whether a railroad train is thrown from the track by a frozen drop of rain or a huge bowlder lying in the way, the result is the same, the injuries as great. Oral degredation, physical disability, premature exhaustion and decrepitude are the result of those physical frauds, and force upon our conviction the adage, which the history of every day confirms, that ‘honesty is the best policy.’”

The following is from an eminent physician who for many years devoted his whole attention to the diseases of women and lectured upon the subject in a prominent medical college:- “It is undeniable that all the methods employed to prevent pregnancy are physically injurious. Some of these have been characterized with sufficient explicitness, and the injury resulting from incomplete coitus to both parties has been made evident to all who are willing to be convinced. It should require but a moment’s consideration to convince any one of the harmfulness of the common use of cold ablutions and astringement infusions and various medicated washes. Simple and often wonderfully salutary as is cold water to a diseased limb, festering with inflammation, yet few are rash enough to cover a gouty toe, rheumatic knee, or erysipelatous head with cold water. . . . Yet, when in the general state of nervous and physical excitement attendant upon coitus, when the organs principaly engaged in this act are congested and turgid with blood, do you think you can with impunity throw a flood of cold or even lukewarm water far into the vital in a continual stream? Often too, women add strong medicinal agents, intended to destroy by dissolution the spermatic germs, ere they have time to fulfill their natural destiny. These powerful astringents suddenly corrugate and close the glandular structure of the parts, and this is followed, necessarily, by a corresponding reaction, and the final result is debility and exhaustion, signalized by leucorrhea, prolapses, and other diseases.

If the good harmony of families and their reciprocal relations are seriously menaced by the invasion of these detestable practices, the health of women, as we have already intimated, is featfully injured. A great number of neuralgias appear to us to have no other cause. Many woman that we have interrogated on this matter have fortified this opinion. But that which to us has passed to the condition of incontestable proof, is the prevalence of uterine troubles, of enervation among the married, hysterical symptoms which are met with in the conjugal relation as often as among young virgins, arising from the vicious habits of the husbands in their conjugal intercourse.. . Still more, there is a graver affection, which is daily increasing, and which, if nothing arrests its invasion, will soon have attained the proportions of a scourge; we speak of the degeneration of the womb. We do not hesitate to place in the foremost rank, among the causes of this redoubtable disease, the refinements of civilization, and especially the artifices introduced in our day in the generic act. When there is no procreation, although the procreative faculties are excited, we see these pseudo-morphoses arise. Thus it is noticed that polypi and schirrus [cancer] of the womb are common among prostitutes. And it is easy to account for the manner of action of this pathogenetic cause, if we consider how possible it is that the ejaculation and contact of the sperm with the uterine neck, constitutes, for the woman, the crisis of the genital function, by appeasing the venereal orgasm an calming the voluptuous emotions under the action of which the entire economy is convulsed.

We have at our disposition numerous facts which rigorously prove the disastrous influence of abnormal coitus to the woman, but we think it useless to publish them. All practitioners have more or less observed them, and it will only be necessary for them to call upon their memories to supply what our silence eaves. 'However, it is not difficult to conceive,' says Dr. Francis Devay, 'the degree of perturbation that a like practice should exert upon the genital system of woman by provoking desires which are not gratified. A profound stimulation is felt through the entire apparatus ; the uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries enter into a state of orgasm, a storm which is not appeased by the natural crisis ; a nervous superexcitation persists. There occurs, then, what would take place if, presenting food to a famished man, one should snatch it from his mouth after having thus violently excited his appetite. The sensibilities of the womb an the entire reproductive system are teased for no purpose. It is to this cause, too often repeated, that we should attribute the multiple neuroses, those strange affections which originate in the genital system of woman. Our conviction respecting them is based upon a great number of observations. Furthermore, the normal relations existing between the married couple undergo unfortunate changes; this affection, founded upon reciprocal esteem, is little by little effaced by the repetition of an act which pollute the marriage bed ; from thence proceed certain hard feelings, certain deep impressions which, gradually growing, eventuate in the scandalous ruptures of which the community rarely know the real motive.

Conjugal Onanism.-“The soiling of the conjugal bed by the shameful maneuvers to which we have made allusion, is mentioned for the first time in Gen. 38: 6,and following verses: ‘And it came to pass, when he [Onan] went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord ; wherefore he slew him.” Hence the name of “conjugal onanism”. One cannot tell to what great extent this vice is practiced, except by observing its consequences, even among people who fear to commit the slightest sin, to such a degree is the public conscience perverted upon this point. Still, many husbands know that nature often succeeds in rendering nugatory the most subtle calculations, and reconquers the rights which they have striven to frustrate. No matter ; ‘they persevere, none the less, and by the force of habit they poison the most blissful moments of life, with no surety of averting the result that they fear. So, who knows if the infants, too often feeble and weazen, are not the fruit of these in themselves incomplete “procreations”, and disturbed by the preoccupations foreign to the generic act ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the creative power, not meeting in ist disturbed functions the conditions necessary for the elaboration of a normal product, the conception might be from its origin imperfect, and the being which proceeded therefrom, one of those monsters which are described in treatises on teratology?”