One of the oldest and most firmly-rooted beliefs of the race is that which holds that the pregnant mother may, and often does, consciously or unconsciously, impress upon her unborn child certain mental, moral, or physical traits. The majority of persons accept this idea as self-evident, and are able to cite cases within their own personal experience which go to prove the correctness of the popular belief. But certain modern authorities have sought to tear down this belief, and to discredit the general idea. Let us briefly consider both sides of this question.
On the side of the generally accepted belief, Riddell says: "The more I study the influence of maternal impressions upon the life, mentality and character of men, the more I am led to believe that the education and moral training that a child receives before it sees the light of day are the most influential, and, therefore, the most important part of its education." Newton says: "A mother may, during the period of gestation, exercise some influence, by her own voluntary mental and physical action, either unwittingly or purposely, in determining the traits and tendencies of her offspring. This is now a common belief among intelligent people. Every observant teacher could doubtless bear witness to the same general facts, and it would be easy to fill a volume with testimonials from various sources illustrative and confirmatory of the law under discussion. Such facts establish beyond question the conviction that the mother has it largely in her power to confer on her child such a tendency of mind and conformation of brain as shall not only facilitate the acquisition of knowledge in any specific direction, but make it certain that such knowledge will be sought and acquired."
Dr. Fordyce Baker says: "The weight of authority must be conceded to be in favor of the idea that maternal impressions may effect the growth, form and character of a forming child." Dr. Rokitansky says: "The question whether mental emotions do influence the development of the child must be answered 'Yes!'" Dr. Brittain says: "The singular effects produced on the unborn child by the sudden mental emotions of the mother are remarkable examples of a kind of electrotyping on the sensitive surface of living forms. It is doubtless true that the mind's action in such cases may increase or diminish the molecular deposits in the several portions of the system. The precise place which each separate particle assumes may be determined by the influence of thought or feeling. If, for example, there exists in the mother any unusual tendency of the vital forces to the brain at the critical period, there will be a similar cerebral development and activity in the offspring."
Newton says: "The human embryo is formed and developed in all its parts, even to the minutest detail, by and through the action of the vital, mental, and spiritual forces of the mother, which forces act in and through the corresponding portions of her own organism. And while this process may go on unconsciously, or without the mother's voluntary participation or direction, yet she may consciously and purposely so direct her activities as, with a good degree of certainty, to accomplish specifically desired ends in determining the traits and qualities of her offspring." Professor Bayer says: "The influence of the mind of a prospective mother upon her child, before its birth, is of tremendous importance to its active existence as a member of society, from the fact that it lies in the mother's power to shape its mentality, that it may be a power for good or for evil."
The views of that school of thought which is opposed to this old and generally accepted idea of material impressions, are ably presented by Dr. Saleeby, as follows: "Consider the case. The baby is at this time already a baby, though rather small and uncanny, floating in a fluid of its own manufacture. Its sole connection with the mother is by means of its umbilical cord—that is to say, blood-vessels, arterial and venous. There is no nervous connection whatever; absolutely nothing but the blood-stream, carried along a system of tubes. This blood is the child's blood, which it sends forth from itself along the umbillical cord to a special organ, the placenta or afterbirth, half made by itself and half made by the mother, in which the child's blood travels in thin vessels so close to the mother's blood that their contents can be interchanged. Yet the two streams never mix. The child's blood, having disposed of its carbonic acid and waste products to the mother's blood, and having received therefrom oxygen and food, returns so laden to the child. Pray how is the mother's reading of history to make the child a historian? We see now how the learning of geometry on the part of the mother before its birth will not set her baby upon that royal road to geometry of which Euclid rightly denied the existence—any more than after its birth. Such a thing does not happen—unless we are to call in Telepathy."
All this argument may seem quite convincing—at first. But when we begin to consider the matter carefully, we begin to perceive the weak places in the argument as above presented. In the first place, it is known that emotions powerfully affect the condition, quality, and "life" of the blood. We know that cheerful emotions impart certain uplifting qualities to the blood, while depressing emotions correspondingly react upon it. Fear, worry, fright, jealousy, etc., are actual poisons to the blood, and have brought on diseased conditions to the persons manifesting these emotions. Moreover, it is known that impaired quality of the blood reacts upon the brain. Is it so unreasonable, then, to hold that emotional states in the mother may react upon the mental and physical condition of the unborn child, through the blood? Does not something similar occur in the case of the babe, after its birth, when it is affected by the conditions of its mother's milk brought on by her depressing emotions, fright, etc.? This would seem to explain at least the matter of emotional reactions between mother and unborn babe.
But the case is not closed with the presentation of the evidence of physiology, important though that may be. There is an entirely different field of science to be drawn upon before the case is closed. The orthodox physiologist makes the mistake of supposing that all mental impulses and transmission of psychic energy require the service of nerves as channels of transmission. While such channels are usually required, we have good reasons for believing that there are exceptions to the rule. There have been found tiny creatures, possessing life and energy, performing the functions of nourishment, elimination, and even of reproduction—and yet without a nervous system. In one well-known instance, that of the moneron, we find not only an absence of a nervous system but also the lack of organs of any kind—and yet the creature lives, acts, moves, eats, thinks, and reproduces itself.
Then, again, consider the moving cells of the blood, unconnected with the brain, unattached to the nervous system, and yet rushing to the work of repairing a wound, or of repelling an intruding germ, in obedience to a mental command from the controlling subconscious mental regions of the living creature. How does the mental impulse reach these cells and others of similar nature in the system? If we were not so sure of the facts, might we not feel inclined to say with Dr. Saleeby, in the above quoted sentence: "Such a thing does not happen—unless we are to call in telepathy."
Moreover, examining Dr. Saleeby's statement, we see mention made of the placenta at being "half made by the embryo, and half made by the mother." How does this co-operation and co-ordination of effort and subconscious will arise? How does the subconscious mentality of the embryo know that the subconscious mentality of the mother is making its half of the placenta, or vice versa? Again, how is the subconscious mentality of the mother affected by the presence and development of the child—how do her mammary glands respond to the growth and development of the child? In short, how is the manifest co-operation and co-ordination between the "nature" of the mother and the "nature" of the child possible, unless there exists some psychical, as well as some physical, relation between the two beings.
The person conscientiously considering this subject must include in his thought the discoveries of modern psychology concerning what is known as the "subconscious mind," which controls the unconscious and instinctive functions of the physical body, and also receives impressions and suggestions from the surface consciousness of its owner. This factor being admitted to our thought on the subject, we may find it possible to accept the idea of material impressions from mother to child operating from the subconscious mind of the mother to that of the child. In other words, that there is a subconscious mental connection, as well as the physical connection, between the mother and her unborn child.