It has been a matter of common observation that the physical status of the women off Christendom has been gradually deteriorating; that their mental … - John Harvey Kellogg

Fashionable Dissipation.-The influence of so important an agent for evil in this direction as fashionable dissipation, cannot be ignored. By fashionable dissipation as mean that class of excesses in the indulgence in which certain classes, usually the more wealthy or aristocratic, pride themselves. Among the class of persons a man who is known to be a common drunkard would not be recognized; such a person would be carefully shunned yet a total abstainer would be avoided with almost equal care, and would be regarded as a fanatic or an extremist at least. With persons of this class, wine drinking is considered necessary as a matter of propriety. Along with wine are taken the great variety of highly seasoned foods, spices, and condiments in profusion, with rich meats and all sorts of delicacies, rich desserts, etc., which can hardly be considered much less harmful than stimulants of a more generally recognized character. These indulgences excite that part of the system which generally needs restraint rather than stimulation. A participant, an ex-governor, recently described to us a grand political dinner given in honor of a noted American citizen, which began at 5 P.M., and continued until nearly midnight, continuous courses of foods, wines, etc., being served for nearly six hours. Similar scenes have been enacted in a score of our large cities for the same ostensible purpose. Knowing that public men are addicted to such gormandizing on numerous occasions, we do not wonder that so many of them are men of loose morals.

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."

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.’”