[Shaker Views.]—The Shakers do not, as many suppose, believe wholly in celibacy. They believe in marriage and reproduction regulated by the natural law. They, also, would limit population, but not by interfering with nature; rather, by following nature's indications to the very letter. They believe "that no animals should use their reproductive powers and organs for any other than the simple purpose of procreation." Recognizing the fact that this is the law among lower animals, they insist upon applying it to man. Thus they find no necessity for the employment of those abominable contrivances so common among those who disregard the laws of nature. Who will not respect the purity which must characterize sexual relations so governed? Such a method for regulating the number of offspring is in immense contrast with that of the Oneida Community, which opens the door to the unstinted gratification of lust, separates the reproductive act entirely from its original purpose, and makes it the means of mere selfish, sensual, beastly—worse than brutish—gratification.
Those who are acquainted with the history of the founder of this community are obliged to look upon him as a scheming sensualist who well knows the truth, but deliberately chooses a course of evil, and beguiles into his snares others as sensual as himself. The abominations practiced among the members of the community which he has founded are represented by those who have had an inside view of its workings as too foul to mention. It seems almost wonderful that Providence does not lay upon this gigantic brothel his hand of vengeance as in ancient times he did upon Sodom, which could hardly have been more sunken in infamy than is this den of licentiousness. It is, indeed, astonishing that it should be tolerated in the midst of a country which professes to regard virtue and respect the marriage institution. We are glad to note that popular opinion is calling loudly for the eradication of this foul ulcer. Only a short time ago a convention of more than fifty ministers met at Syracuse, N. Y., for the express purpose of considering ways and means for the removal of this blot "by legal measures or otherwise." We sincerely wish them success; and it appears to us that the people in that vicinity would be justified should they rise en masse and purge their community of an evil so heinous, in case no civil authority can be induced to do the work of expurgation.[26]
26 Just as this edition is going to press we receive the gratifying information that the younger members of the Community have become disgusted with their sensual life and announced that their former vile practices will be discontinued. Mr. Noyes with a few followers has sought refuge in Canada.—J. H. K.
[Moral Bearings of the Question.]—Most of the considerations presented thus far have been of a physical character, though occasional references to the moral aspect of the question have been made. In a certain sense—and a true one—the question is wholly a moral one; for what moral right have men or women to do that which will 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.
[Unconsidered Murders.]—But there is a more startling phase of this moral question. It is not impossible to show that actual violence is done to a human life.
It has been previously shown that in the two elements, the ovum of the female, and the spermatozoön 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.
Is it 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 dare to answer "No," to one of these questions? Then, who can refuse assent to the plain truth that it is equally a murder to deprive of life 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? It is 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 these "unconsidered murders."
[The Charge Disputed.]—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[27] whom we have frequently quoted:—