Samuel Farr, M.D. 1787

Oct 29, 2009 / By: Jeffrey Jones
Category: Miscellaneous

In 1787 Samuel Farr, M.D., challenged the long-held notion that life begins sometime after the beginning of pregnancy. It was a common belief that life began at “quickening,” when fetal movements were first felt by the woman. But in his Elements of Medical Jurisprudence, he wrote:

“With regard to the state of the life of the child, the following question requires to be decided: At what time may a foetus be supposed to begin to live? To answer this, we must consider, that conception is made in the ovarium of a female after coition with a male, when the subtile aura of the semen hath so far penetrated into the germen, which may be supposed to contain the outline of the future man, as to produce a turgescence and motion of its circulating humours. At this time, it may be said, that life begins, i.e. immediately after conception. Hence those seem to err: 1st Who would persuade us, that the foetus acquires life when it is so particularly active, that the mother becomes sensible of its motions. 2d. Those who think that life does not begin till the seventh or the fourteenth day, or even till a month after conception. And 3d. Those who suppose that a foetus, as long as it continues in the womb, where it does not breath, cannot be called a living animal. The whole depends on our ideas of life and animation, and the act of generation to create it. If generation be the cause of animating the rudiments of the future being, and if that animation be construed to be understood by what is meant by life, then it must certainly begin immediately after conception, and nothing but the arbitrary forms of human institution can make it otherwise (pp. 23-24).”

And in reference to the abortion of embryos, he wrote:

“. . . with respect to abortions, or the destruction of those unborn embryos which were never brought into the world: and indeed as such beings might live, and become of use to mankind, and as they may be supposed from the time indeed of conception, to be living animated beings, there is no doubt but the destruction of them ought to be considered a capital crime (p. 69).”

Michael Spielman is the founder and director of Abort73.com. You can also find him on Facebook and Google+.

Facebook Comments
Site Comments

1 Comments on Samuel Farr, M.D. 1787

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (Nov 12, 2009 / 14:12 CST)

The fact that you have to resort to citing an 18th Century medical treatise in order to prop up your theological opposition to abortion says quite a bit. What says even more is Samuel Farr’s own views on other subjects, and in the very same book you cited above. Here’s what he had to say about rape:

“In the consideration of rapes, three objects of attention present themselves. First, whether a rape, strictly so called, be possible. Second, whether a woman, upon a rape being committed, can become pregnant ...

“In answer to the first question, whether a rape be possible, meaning upon a grown person, it may be necessary to divide it into two parts, as it is distinguished into the ‘attempt’ and the ‘consummation’ of a rape. The attempt under which is to be understood a great force exercised over a woman to violate her chastity but where a complete coition is prevented, may be possible. But the consummation of a rape, by which is meant a complete, full, and entire coition, which is made without any consent or permission of the woman, seems to be impossible, unless some very extraordinary circumstances occur: for a woman always possesses sufficient power, by drawing back her limbs, and by the force of her hands, to prevent the insertion of the penis into her body…”

So, apparently the good doctor felt that a rape that concluded with an orgasm wasn’t technically a rape. Interesting. Let’s read what else he has to say:

“With respect to the next question, whether a woman, upon whom a rape hath been committed, can become pregnant? It may be necessary to inquire how far her lust was excited, or if she experienced any enjoyment. For without an excitation of lust, or the enjoyment of pleasure in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place. So that if an absolute rape were to be perpetrated, it is not likely that she would become pregnant.”

Huh. Apparently the doctor—your supposed Enlightenment-era paragon of pro-life morality—also felt that a rape “probably” wasn’t technically a rape if it resulted in pregnancy. Of course, his greater motivation here also seems to have been to suggest that woman who are forced to have sex, in actuality, may secretly like it, and that’s why it’s not technically rape, but I digress. In any case, Jeff, I noticed from your bio that you’re married. I wonder how your wife would feel about you quoting Samuel Farr to make your case?

Click here to read the rest or add your own...