Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.1
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.2
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.3
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.4
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.5
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.6
FOOTNOTES
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.1
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.2
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.3
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.4
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.5
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.6
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.7
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.8
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.9
MARRIAGE-10.1
MARRIAGE-10.2
MARRIAGE-10.3
MARRIAGE-10.4
MARRIAGE-10.5
MARRIAGE-10.6
MARRIAGE-10.7
MARRIAGE-10.8
MARRIAGE-10.9
MARRIAGE-10.10
MARRIAGE-10.11
MARRIAGE-10.12
FOOTNOTES
THE ART OF LOVE-11.1
THE ART OF LOVE-11.2
THE ART OF LOVE-11.3
THE ART OF LOVE-11.4
THE ART OF LOVE-11.5
THE ART OF LOVE-11.6
THE ART OF LOVE-11.7
THE ART OF LOVE-11.8
THE ART OF LOVE-11.9
THE ART OF LOVE-11.10
THE ART OF LOVE-11.11
FOOTNOTES
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.1
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.2
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.3
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.4
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.5
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.6
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.7
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.8
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.9
FOOTNOTES
INDEX OF AUTHORS

no power can take from him." There is a mistake here, unless 

Pinard deliberately desires to place himself, like Tolstoy, in 

opposition to current civilized morality. So far from the infant 

having any "imprescriptible right to life," even the adult has, 

in human societies, no such inalienable right, and very much less 

the foetus, which is not strictly a human being at all. We assume 

the right of terminating the lives of those individuals whose 

anti-social conduct makes them dangerous, and, in war, we 

deliberately terminate, amid general applause and enthusiasm, the 

lives of men who have been specially selected for this purpose on 

account of their physical and general efficiency. It would be 

absurdly inconsistent to say that we have no rights over the 

lives of creatures that have, as yet, no part in human society at 

all, and are not so much as born. We are here in presence of a 

vestige of ancient theological dogma, and there can be little 

doubt that, on the theoretical side at all events, the 

"imprescriptible right" of the embryo will go the same way as the 

"imprescriptible right" of the spermatozoeon. Both rights are 

indeed "imprescriptible." 

 

Of recent years a new, and, it must be admitted, somewhat unexpected, 

aspect of this question of abortion has been revealed. Hitherto it has 

been a question entirely in the hands of men, first, following the Roman 

traditions, in the hands of Christian ecclesiastics, and later, in those 

of the professional castes. Yet the question is in reality very largely, 

and indeed mainly, a woman's question, and now, more especially in 

Germany, it has been actively taken up by women. The Graefin Gisela 

Streitberg occupies the pioneering place in this movement with her book 

_Das Recht zur Beiseitigung Keimenden Lebens_, and was speedily followed, 

from 1897 onwards, by a number of distinguished women who occupy a 

prominent place in the German woman's movement, among others Helene 

Stoecker, Oda Olberg, Elisabeth Zanzinger, Camilla Jellinek. All these 

writers insist that the foetus is not yet an independent human being, and 

that every woman, by virtue of the right over her own body, is entitled to 

decide whether it shall become an independent human being. At the Woman's 

Congress held in the autumn of 1905, a resolution was passed demanding 

that abortion should only be punishable when effected by another person 

against the wish of the pregnant women herself.[441] The acceptance of 

this resolution by a representative assembly is interesting proof of the 

interest now taken by women in the question, and of the strenuous attitude 

they are tending to assume. 

 

 

Elisabeth Zanzinger ("Verbrechen gegen die Leibesfrucht," 

_Geschlecht und Gesellschaft_, Bd. II, Heft 5, 1907) ably and 

energetically condemns the law which makes abortion a crime. "A 

woman herself is the only legitimate possessor of her own body 

and her own health.... Just as it is a woman's private right, and 

most intimate concern, to present her virginity as her best gift 

to the chosen of her heart, so it is certainly a pregnant woman's 

own private concern if, for reasons which seem good to her, she 

decides to destroy the results of her action." A woman who 

destroys the embryo which might become a burden to the community, 

or is likely to be an inferior member of society, this writer 

urges, is doing a service to the community, which ought to reward 

her, perhaps by granting her special privileges as regards the 

upbringing of her other children. Oda Olberg, in a thoughtful 

paper ("Ueber den Juristischen Schutz des Keimenden Lebens," _Die 


Page 3 from 5:  Back   1   2  [3]  4   5   Forward