Testimony of a French Physician.-A French author of considerable note, remarks on the same subject:- Nothing costs the economy so much as the product… - John Harvey Kellogg

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.’”

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.”

”We hear a good deal said about certain crimes against nature, such as pederasty and sodomy, and they meet with the indignant condemnation of all right-minded persons. The statutes are especially severe on offenders of this class, the penalty being imprisonment between one and ten years, whereas fornication is punished by imprisonment for not more than sixty days and a fine of less than one hundred dollars. But the query very pertinently arises just here as to whether the use of the condom and defertilizing injections is not equally a crime against nature, and quite as worthy of our detestation and contempt. And, further, when we consider the brute creation, and see that they, guided by instinct, copulate only when the female is in proper physiological condition and yields a willing consent, it may be suggested that congress between men and women may, in certain circumstances, be a crime against nature, and one far worse in its results than any other. It is probable that a child born of a connection to which the woman objects will possess that felicitous organization which every parent should earnestly desire and denavor to bestow on his offspring? An the unwelcome fruit of a rape be considered, what every child has a right to be a pledge of affection? Poor little Pip, in ‘Great Expectations,’ spoke as the representative of a numerous class when he said, ‘I was always treated as if I had insisted on being born, in opposition to the dictates of reason, religion and morality, and against the dissuading arguments of my best friends.’ We enjoin the young to honor father and mother, never thinking how undeserving of respect are those whose children suffer from inherited ills, the result of the selfishness and carelessness of their parents in begetting them.