HOME PAGE    HEALTH LIBRARY CATALOG

Front Matter Introduction I Disease--Two Views II The Slaughter of The Innocents III Prenatal Care IV Babies Should be Born in the Spring V Baby's Growth and Development VI The Child's Teeth VII Teething VIII Fat Babies IX Mother's Milk X Should Baby be Weaned XI Three Year Nursing Period XII Cows Milk XIII Pasteurization XIV Three Feedings a Day

XV No Starch for Infants XVI "ReguIar" Crimes in Feeding XVII Feeding of Infants XVIII Baby's General Care XIX Feeding Children from two to six years XX A Healthy Child XXI Undernutrition XXII The Acute "Infectious" Diseases of Childhood XXIII Skin Disorders XXIV Common Disorders of Infants and Children XXV Child Education XXVI Corporal Punishment XVII Vaccinia XXVIII Serum Poisoning XXIX Commercial Medicine

	Under 1 year	Between 1 and 2	Between 2 and 5	Between 5 and 20	Totals
January	281	81	102	109	573
February	382	109	123	131	745
March	322	119	122	138	701
April	342	107	125	122	696
May	250	98	107	107	562
June	510	148	84	105	847
July	836	249	117	120	1322
August	546	317	120	165	1148
September	377	221	140	185	923
October	324	127	117	153	721
November	267	90	114	132	603
December	269	90	114	135	608
TOTAL	4,706	1,756	1,385	1,602	9,449

    Examining this table, we are stuck with the fact that more deaths occur under one year than during the next nineteen and more than twice as many die under two years than during the succeeding eighteen. Dr. Emerson failed to account for this terribly disproportionate mortality in infants. He attributed to the heat, their summer mortality.

    Dr. Robley Dunglison, on the other hand, referring to these same figures said: "We have already said that cholera infantum is the great scourge of our cities during the summer months, and this affection is doubtless in part occasioned by excessive heat; but that this alone does not induce it, is shown by the fact that in country situations, where the heat may be as great, it is comparatively rare."

    Again, he says: "It has been already shown that not only is the general mortality of London greater than that of Philadelphia, but the deaths at the ages most liable to cholera infantum are more numerous also--a fact which confirms the remark just made, that something more than excessive heat is, in such cases, the lethiferous agent."

    Dr. Dunglison assigned as the great cause of infant mortality, defective ventilation. Yet, as Dr. Page remarks, "this cannot account for the fearful increase of deaths of infants in summer, for the reason that at this season the houses of all, rich and poor, ate better ventilated than in winter, for doors and windows are freely opened."

    The value of infant life did not increase during the next fifty years. There were born in Philadelphia during the five year period ending December 31, 1870, 85,957 living infants. Of this number 25,636 died before they were two years old, and a total of 31,662 before their fifth year, nearly thirty seven per cent.

    Back in 1904 It was estimated that approximately 1,500,000 babies were born in this country every year. Over 750,000 of these infants were killed before they reached five years of age.

    Dr. W. R. C. Laston, tells us of a city in which according to the Health Board Report of Sept. 7, 1910 there were 1,418 deaths of all ages, 775 of these being males and 643 females. During this same period there were 1,475 births, with 122 of these born dead. 143 of these infants died of congenital debility.

    Today in this same country 77 out of every thousand babies born here, die during their first year--an infant death rate higher than war ravaged Belgium and France had immediately after the war. Contrast such a death rate with the deaths during the war when but ten out of every thousand men in the American army were killed in action or as a result of wounds received in action. Our mode of caring for our children is more deadly than modern warefare.

    In this land of plenty and civilization 200,000 infants die every year, and the lives of over 400,000 more who live beyond the first year are blotted out under ten years of age. Many thousands more who reach maturity, carry with them the tell tale marks (disease, weakness, deformity, arrested development, etc.) of wrong care during the early years of life. This is a veritable slaughter of the innocents. Was not H. Mitchell Watchet right when he wrote,

    "This land is swept with a storm of sighing,

    The buds are beaten with rain of tears;

    Sorrow berate o'er the babes, dying,

    O'er empty cradles and childless years!

    Silence! Oh fathers; be dumb oh mothers!

    Your lamentations will not avail---

    'Tis your thoughtless hands that the young lives smother,

    Your selfish selves give the grave its tale."

    Ancient Sparta, under the laws of Lycurgus, drowned her weak and sickly babies. We shudder with horror when we read of this and think the Spartans a cruel and merciless people, because they put to death an occasional infant. But look at us! We take our little ones who are born strong and healthy and kill them by the hundreds of thousands. By slow and painful processes we crush out their little lives, while the condemned babies of Ancient Sparta died suddenly and painlessly.

    Dr. Oswald declares: "Infancy should be a period of exceptional health; the young of other creatures are healthier, as well as prettier, purer, and merrier, than the adults, yet the childhood years of the human animal are the years of sorest sickliness; statistics show that among the Caucasian races men of thirty have more hope to reach a good old age than a new born child has to reach the end of its second year."

    I am not sure that the statistics of today will not still show the same sad disproportion between the death of infants and that of adults. The slaughter of the innocents is not so great as it once was, but it is certainly thousands of times to great, still.

    For this horrible state of affairs someone must bear the blame. All of this suffering and premature death is not inherent in the nature of things. Parents, educators, doctors, theologians, food manufactures, boards of health, politicians--these all must be found guilty of murder.

    Of 9,873 children who died in Massachusetts in 1870 under five years of age, more than one half of the deaths were due to digestive derangements. Of 11,382 children under twelve years of age cared for in the dispensary for sick children in New York City from 1867 to 1869, inclusive, 3,243 were suffering with bowel disorders.

    In 1870 Dr. E. Ballard, of England, published a very thorough article on "Infant Mortality" in which he showed that in five years (from 1863 to 1868) there were in England 314,242 deaths of infants under one year of age, of which 277,852 were due to digestive disorders.

    The following is a table of infant mortality showing the death rate in children under two years of age in New York City from diarrheal causes, and all other causes for the two months of July 2nd. to Sept. 3rd. 1910, given in weeks.

Week ending:	Diarrheal causes	All causes
July 2nd	172	43
July 9th	265	559
July 16th	424	709
July 23rd	373	622
July 30th	384	656
August 6th	288	559
August 13th	270	520
August 20th	237	468
August 27th	246	494
Sept. 3rd	220	447
TOTAL	2,886	5,456

    The death rate for children under two years of age for the whole year 1909 was, diarrhea! causes 5,126, all causes 20,716.

    Assuming that the death rate was approximately as great in other large cities, it gives us a death rate of 10,000 children in July and August in the ten leading American cities. Basing his estimate on these figures and applying them to the whole country, Eugene Christian said: "We have a funeral of 90,000 innocent little ones July and August of every year who died from stomach and intestinal troubles alone, which are the most easily controlled and preventable of all so-called children's diseases. This army of little ones are clearly victims of unpardonable ignorance."

    Again he said: "If cholera, smallpox or yellow fever should become epidemic in New York and over 5,000 adults should die of one of these diseases in sixty days, the whole city and state would be thrown into a panic. Doctors, ministers, churches, health boards, rich people and noisy newspapers would take a hand in the fight."

    He is undoubtedly right, but why are we not just as anxious to save our children? I suspect that the truth of the matter is that we are not nearly so anxious about the welfare of our children as we are about upholding some ridiculous dogma of medicine or church. At any rate, we are still killing them, with the help of the doctors, at an awful rate.

    

    
CHAPTER III
PRENATAL CARE

    A child's life does not begin at birth, although we are in the habit of reckoning his age from this event as a beginning. We are almost justified in saying that the child's life does not begin. We could trace it back, generation after generation, through a long, unbroken line of germplasm to the very beginning of human life on this earth. However for practical purposes, and as an individual child, as distinguished from the ocean of germplasm, we must reckon the child's beginning from the time of conception--from the time the ovum of the female is impregnated by the spermatzoon of the male. It is then that the formation of a new being begins and shortly after this the first some plasm and the first special organs are produced.

    The child that is now being formed in the mother's womb is to a great extent at the mercy of the mother. Nature has thrown every possible safeguard around the child and, if it becomes necessary she will sacrifice the mother in the interest of the child; but, in spite of this, so great is the child's dependence upon the mother, that it is largely what she makes it.

    Over 20,000 women die in childbirth in this country, yearly. Many more die from conditions connected with childbirth. This indicates a deplorable physical condition of our women. How can such women give birth to healthy offspring?

    In the year 1916, there were 75,000 deaths in babies under one month old, in 70 per cent of the population of the United States. There is a yearly occurrence of 100,000 still births, which are not recorded in the death record. These deaths and still births are largely due to the deplorable physical condition of out mothers and to the lack of the proper care during pregnancy.

    Need I emphasize that sickly and maimed mothers cannot produce healthy children? A mother's responsibilities are "greater in this respect than most of them realize or are willing to fulfil. Indeed my experience with mothers has convinced me that I am writing this book for the few. The great majority of them will not heed. It used to be said that if a prospective mother were properly informed of her duties and responsibilities and given the necessary knowledge of how to care for herself during this period, her mother love and mother instincts would prompt her to do those things which assure health and strength to her child and refrain from those things which injure the child.

    Time and experience have proven this view to be false. A woman does not have any more will power or self-control when pregnant than at other times. Pregnancy does not make her any the less indolent or lazy; indeed, pregnancy is often used as a pretext for indolence. The indulgent young woman is no less so after she becomes pregnant. The smoking woman does not give up smoking during pregnancy. Only the exceptional woman is equal to the work of being a real mother, either before or after the child is born.

    Women who are regarded as leaders of society, ethical, religious and literary leaders and teachers, as much as the ignorant masses, disregard the rights of their children and do not give them the prenatal care they deserve. They are too often given to the cultivation of sensuality, satisfying morbid appetencies and eating, drinking and smoking, and in acting upon the silly superstition that her desires or "cravings," whether wholesome or unwholesome, should be indulged to prevent marking the child.

    That woman who is not willing to sacrifice these and other unwholesome indulgences for the sake of her child's health is not worthy our respect. Many of these very mothers take pride in not considering their own needs, except to violate them; and affect a spirit of maryrdom when it seems to be a choice between their own real or the infant's supposed needs. But all of this is made unnecessary by the fact that the child's needs are best served when those of the mother are perfectly supplied. Too many of these "sacrifices" that the mothers make for their children, both before and after birth, are injurious to the child, both physically and morally. It behooves the prospective mother to inform herself and conform to the rules of right living.

    Mother's you cannot shift your responsabilities in this matter, to your physicians. The medical program is to have you place yourself under a physician as soon as you become pregnant and go for frequent examinations and frequent urinalyses. This is not very good for mothers, although it is profitable to the doctors. The New York World, (Oct. 16, 1928), quotes Dr. Chas. V. Craster, Health Director of Newark, N. J., as saying: "We had hoped that the increasing use of hospitals by expectant mothers would aid materially in reducing the maternity death-rate. But to our surprise, since hospitalization increased the death-rate has climbed."

    Dr. Whitredge, professor of obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, says, 'Infant and maternal mortality rates are one-third higher in this country than in any other." He says that "this is due in part to the inadequate teaching and training of our men as compared to European graduates." But in some European and some South American countries, medical graduates are not as well trained as in the United States. On the other hand, the woman mid-wife is employed more in most European countries than in America. It is noteworthy that the infant and maternal death rate is much higher in this country, where physicians are used than where the mid-wife is employed.

    The increasing use of the medical profession and its anti-natural methods and measures results in an increased death rate and an increase in chronic disease What good is a urinalysis? It can discover trouble (some trouble) only after it is well developed. It cannot prevent the development of trouble. It cannot point the remedy. It deals with effects, end-points, not causes. If it reveals trouble, it is followed by drugging or inoculation; it is not followed by the correction of causes. Examinations of all kinds are of the same character.

    Don't depend on your physician to save you. Acquire the knowledge necessary to save yourself. Learn how to live and you can prevent the development of the troubles your physician locates by means of the urinalysis. That he does not expect the advice he gives you to prevent the development of trouble, is evidenced by the fact that he insists so strenuously upon the frequent examinations and analyses. You want a saving knowledge, and not the stereotyped half-knowledge, handed out by the average physician, hospital or clinic.

    You need wholesome outdoor exercise, pure air, plenty of rest and sleep, sun baths, freedom from worry, anxiety and other devitalizing influences. You should not be overworked. You should not be required to administer to the sexual desires of your husband during pregnancy. And last, but not least, you need proper food. I am going to deal somewhat at length with this matter of food, but must ask you to refer to my Orthotrophy--The Natural Diet of Man, for a more complete treatment of adult diet.

    If you will eat properly and care for yourself properly during pregnancy, you will not only save your teeth and preserve your health and assure yourself a healthy, vigorous child, but you will make childbirth safe and easy and, providing you are normally developed and live fully right, make childbirth painless.

    Not only must the mother supply the calcium or lime salts and phosphates, so essential to the development of the teeth and bones of the child, both before birth and during the nursing period, but she must supply every other element the child requires. She must supply the vitamins if these actually exist. She must supply the child with sunshine, and where she fails to secure these for herself, the child will also be deprived of them.

    Cereals, especially, seem to induce defective teeth, particularly when not counterbalanced with large quantities of green foods and fresh fruits.

    The effect of deficient diets reach through more than one generation. Female dogs fed on a diet which produces rickets gave birth to pups which were so strongly predisposed to rickets that the feeding of good food for a considerable period did not remove the tendency to rickets. The dietary deficiencies also increased the susceptibility of the young to respiratory troubles, such as catarrhal conditions (these often extending into and impairing the digestive tract) and pneumonia.

    McCollum has pointed out that a slightly deficient diet eaten over a period of generations, lowers vitality, predisposes to premature old age, and shortens life. Grant and Goettsch found that a slightly deficient diet eaten over a long period of time produces pathological conditions which never result from extreme dietary deficiencies.

    They found that young animals have rickets only when the diet of the mother is of a type which leads to rickets They proved that tile mother's diet governs absolutely the decreased or Increased resistance of the young to the effects of deficiencies in their own food. Rickets they found, will not develop in young animals whose diet is deficient in bone material, providing they are born of well nourished mothers. The rapidity and severity with which rickets develops in young animals, depends very largely upon the depletion of the mother's nutrition during pregnancy.

    Well-nourished mothers (this does not mean over-fed) give birth to well-nourished and, therefore, well developed and vital children. Not merely the bones and teeth and respiratory organs are involved in the results of adequate or inadequate diets, but every tissue in the body is weakened or strengthened, as the case may be, by the mother's food. Mother's nutrition is the real prenatal influence.

    Something is affecting the fertility of American families, according to our anthropologists and geneticists. For some reason few marriages ever result in anything beyond the fourth generation. The old American stock is dying off. There are exceptions, of course, but many of these marriages are wholly unproductive of progeny, while many family trees perish after the first or second generation.

    A man or woman who possesses sufficient vitality to live to what we consider a "ripe old age" in spite of wrong habits of living, will produce off-spring who will not be able to duplicate that feat.

    Unfertility in rats and other small animals and in lions can be produced by inadequate nutrition. A slight deficiency in certain of the essentials of nutrition results in either total inability to produce, or else a failure of each succeeding generation.

    This same fact is true of the plant world. The fertility of a plant depends on the presence, in the soil, in proper proportions and amounts of the essential elements of plant nutrition, in an available form. Experiments show that the fertility of plants may be increased, by proper mineral fertilization to three times the fertility of plants grown on manure fertilized land, or on land fertilized with the three-part fertilizer of commerce. Properly fertilized plants also resist insect pests almost wholly. They grow larger, stronger and firmer and resist weather changes and strong winds better than plants fertilized in the time honored ways.

    Man is not exempt from this UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. Undoubtly, much of the unfertility of the average American family is due to deficient nutrition. Much of the decreased resistance to disease influences, and the progressive physical and mental deterioration, seen In each successive generation, are due to these same causes.

    There are conditions of dietary deficiency, such as advanced cases of sprue, for instance, in which, so great is the deficiency, the body's resistance to poisons is so much lowered that once inflammation has set up, it tends to persist indefinitely. I do not doubt that deficient diets, eaten by mothers during pregnancy, are frequently responsible for the many cases of stubborn inflammatory diseases in children which persist for a long time despite our best efforts. If the diet of the parent reaches the germ plasm of himself and his offspring, and we know that it does this, there is certainly nothing far-fetched in the thought that it reaches the "soma-plasm" of the offspring.

    Seeing, then, how necessary it is to give your baby a good start in life, by eating properly during pregnancy and before, it behooves the intelligent mother to study the subject of diet very thoroughly and make use of her knowledge. She will profit as much by this course as will her children and grand children. I recomend to every reader of this book my Orthotrophy--Or The Natural Diet of Man.

    How foolish to eat recklessly and haphazzardly during pregnancy and then attempt to undo, in your child, after birth, the mischief you have produced by your lawless course. Give your child the right start in life by supplying it with the best nutrition you can.

    The time of the greatest growth and development of the brain and nerves is during the prenatal period and the first two years after birth. This is the best time to lay the foundation of a good brain and nervous system. It is asserted that the whole future of an individual is determined by the time he is four years old, just as the whole future of a calf is determined by the time it is six months old. How very important that the mother supply her unborn child with the very best nutrition!

    Oh! if mothers could only be made to realize that preparation for motherhood should begin in infancy! Today our daughters are trained and equipped for everything else except this supreme accomplishment.

    Dr. Tilden observes: "It is pathetic to see a tuberculous mother struggling in a hopeless endeavor to make her baby strong after it has once got a bad start."

    "Such mothers will so frequently say: 'why cannot my baby be strong, like Mrs. so-and-so's? She feeds her baby any thing, and neglects it; yet it thrives."

    There is a wide gulf, physically or vitally, between the two children. The care, in spite of which the strong one will thrive, will speedily kill the weak one. Sick mothers should refrain from having children. yet I have known them not only to bear children, but to disregard every rule of hygiene during pregnancy. Then they suffer and the baby suffers until it dies, and these mothers will blame everything but themselves for their "misfortune."

    This chapter would not be complete without some reference to the almost universal, as well as very ancient, belief that a mother can "mark" her child. Many young mothers go through pregnancy in a constant state of agony because of the many stories of maternal impressions which they hear on all sides from their friends. "Old wives" seem to delight in telling ghost stories about the direful results which have followed or are supposed to follow the seeing of distressing sights during pregnancy. They eagerly grab up every story they hear and enlarge upon it in the customary manner. Each tries to outdo the other in these tales of horror.

    Books are written and many of them are widely circulated, which carry chapters devoted to these maternal impressions in which are presented "examples" of the impressions.

    I do not wonder that people take such things seriously. I cannot blame them. Yet I know, and everyone knows, who has investigated the matter, that the whole thing is false and ridiculous, There is not an authentic case of a mother marking her child on record. The other half of this story is that no such case will ever go on record, for no such case can ever exist.

    What are "maternal impressions?" As popularly understood and believed in, A MATERIAL IMPRESSION IS THE IMPRESSION MADE UPON THE BODY AND MIND OF HER UNBORN CHILD BY THE MENTAL STATE OF THE MOTHER.

    We are told that by thinking intently enough upon music, or art, or war, etc., a mother may make of her child a great musician, a great artist, or a great general. Napoleon, we are informed, was made a great military leader by his mother, before he was born. Previous to his birth she is said to have accompained her husband on war expeditions. She is said to have enjoyed the horrors and details of war. For ages we have been told that the ancient Greek mothers created a genius for art in their sons, by gazing for hours, during gestation, upon the beautiful statues and pictures in the Greek temples. Albert Edward Wiggam very appropriately asks, concerning this: "What did the mothers of the sculptors and artists who made the statues gaze at?"

    The morals and character of a child can be predetermined by the mother's mental state during pregnancy. Its future habits may be more or less preformed for it. One may have a thief or a saint at will. Dante's mother is said to have seen a beautiful vision immediately preceding his birth.

    But, perhaps we hear more of the physical "marking" of children than of any other form of "maternal impressions," and these markings are almost always deformities and defects. The child is almost completely at the mercy of its mother during the first few months of its existence.

    Going back in history to the time of Jacob (Genesis XXX. 29-43), when he was said to have influenced the colors and strips of his cattle by "piled rods" and other things placed before them, we find a belief in maternal impressions. Whatever may have happened to Jacob's cattle, it never happened to the cattle of anyone else. Jacob's experiment has been repeated hundreds of times at the Agricultural experiment stations in America and no such results have ever been produced.

    It is asserted that any desired type of physical beauty, every quality of genius, all moral dispositions and all spiritual tendencies may be conferred by the mother upon her unborn child. Here is an example by Mme. Louise Mason, from the Arena. When she first heard of the marking of her baby she determined to mark. it for good. She says:

    "I would often sit alone in my room, overlooking scenes that were pleasant, and, in a peaceful attitude of mind perfectly passsive, desire that my child should be a girl; that she should have a slight figure, chestnut hair and beautiful eyes; that she should be a musician, a singer, and that she she should be proficient in everything she undertook; that she should be superior to all those I had ever known. Here is the result: A beautiful woman in mind and body, with chestnut hair, slight physique, and a phenomenal voice--contralto; she is a philosopher, a student in Delsarte, astronomy and astrology, and masters every study; is eloquent and has one of the most amiable dispositions."

    When mothers begin to desire or think the desired sex into their unborn children and think or desire the color into the hair of these children, they are getting along fine in their creative work. I say this, not for the benefit of students of biology, but for those who are unacquainted with the facts of heredity: the color of one's hair; ones "frame" and eyes are determined in the germ plasm. Mother's mind has nothing to do with it. Wiggam aptly remarks that if mothers can create "wonderful characters in their children, making them geniuses, artists, musicians, saints, and the like, then all I can say is that wishes would be horses and beggars would ride."

    A case of physical deformity I find in one of these books, is that of a child born lacking the fingers and thumb of one hand, The explanation has it that in the early months of her pregnancy, the mother was accosted by a beggar "who raised her hand, destitute of thumb and fingers" and begged for alms "in God's name." The deformed limb of her child was on the same side as that of the beggar's "and it seemed to the mother to resemble precisely that of the beggar's."

    A pregnant woman was much alarmed when her husband came home with his face swollen from a blow. She "bore a girl with a purple swelling upon the same side of the face." Another pregnant woman was frightened in a storm by a stroke of lightning. "Her child bears a zigzag streak upon its forehead, supposed to be caused by the fright." A woman visited the county fair where she saw a four-year-old boy wearing a false-head of an old man. She was much "disgusted" by the sight and determined that it would not mark the baby, she was carrying at the time. Despite her determination, when her baby, was born at seven months "its head was abnormally large and had the appearance of an old man." The "historian" tells us "here was a case due to disgust." With reference to this case, in which the lady made determined efforts of will to prevent marking her child, and failed, Wiggam's question is apt: "If the mother's 'will' is powerful enough to produce birthmarks why cannot it also prevent them."

    A white-headed boy had a patch of jet-black hair on his head. The mother did not know whether it was due to seeing a negro stab a man or to pulling the very black hair of one of her neighbors with whom she had quarreled. She was sagely informed that had it been due to seeing the negro the patch of hair would have been kinky. Had the mother been frightened by a leopard there is no telling how spotted her boy would have been. We may be sure that he would have had fur instead of hair on his head.

    Another amusing case is that of a woman who was frightened, while working in the garden, by getting a twin cucumber caught between her toes. She fully resigned herself to having twins, but got no further thank child with twin toes. If maternal impressions can create toes, and destroy fingers, then why not create or destroy heads or scalps. Yet there are no records of headless children being born of mothers who have been shocked at seeing a man beheaded. Our early American women saw many scalping parties by Indian hair dressers, but none of their children were born scalped.

    A sad case I read of some years ago was that of a pregnant woman who was frightened by a mole. When her baby was born it did not possess arms and hands. Instead, at its shoulders were little "paddles" resembling the forelimbs of the mole. Yet I have never heard of children being born with elephant trunks or giraffe necks.

    In France and Belgium during the recent war, when zepplin raids were almost daily occurrences, and frightful orgies of murder were frequently witnessed by the pregnant mothers, birth marks did not occur. Paris authorities who had charge of the babies of Paris report that babies born in 1918, the most terrible year of the war, were somewhat larger, fatter and healthier than babies generally are.

    It is asserted that if an expectant mother is frightened and touches some part of her body, a mark will appear on the corresponding part of her child. Many mothers fear to brush a bug or bee from their face, for fear a mark resembling the insect will appear on their child. It is a most ridiculous notion, but the peace of mind of many young mothers is much disturbed by it.

    There is another wide spread notion about marking children, which is that, if a mother craves something she cannot get, this will mark her child. This notion is often used by indulgent women as an excuse for indulging their morbid appetencies. Although I have never heard the story here in the South, Mr. Wiggam tells us that "down south a negro woman with a white child often accounts for it on the ground that she craved snow." We do frequently see negro women with white babies, but we have another and simpler explanation for it. Despite southern fundamentalism, no virgin births ever occur down here, and when we see a white baby we always think of a white ancestor.

    "Birth marks" are comparatively rare yet it seems to the young mother who is fearful lest she mark her baby, that she sees horrible sights every day. Deformed and crippled children and adults are all around them. It is impossible for any woman to go through nine months of pregnancy without seeing many things to impress her. If the notion is a true one our children are the helpless victims of chance and no child should ever be normal. Yet impressionable mothers, who feel that their children are doomed, because of some horrible accident they have witnessed, give birth to normal children.

    There are no biological, physiological or anatomical bases for the belief In maternal impressions. Let us take a brief look at the facts.

    First: Children are not produced from the body cells of the parent. They are produced by the family germ plasm represented by the sperm cells—ova and spermatozoa. These are not parts of the parents bodies, but are merely stored therein. They were handed to the parent by the grandparent who received them from the great grandparent who received them—and so on, back to Adam and Eve, or whoever it was who started this thing. The hereditary characters are not placed there by the parents. These cells only receive their room and board from the parent. They are an entirely separate line of organization, living in but forming no part of the parent's body, and are not manufactured by the body or blood-cells of the parent.

    God creates the germ cells and puts the hereditary characteristics into them. He does not leave the work of creation in our own hands, for, if he did we would spoil it in a week. And that's that.

    Second: There is no nervous connection between the mother and her child. From the moment of conception the child is an independent being to which it is anatomically impossible for the mother to convey any mental or nervous impressions or impulses.

    It is now quite the custom among "impressionists" to attribute "marks" to "telepathy." This puts the whole problem into the realms of occultism and takes it out of biology altogether. However, evidence of telepathy is entirely lacking and there is no reason to believe, even if it were possible for two minds, by great effort and after much training, to communicate with each other by means of telepathy, that this telepathic communication is creative and could produce red hair, or mole paddles at will. Wiggam correctly observes that if telepathic influence on the developing child is possible, then the father and all the neighbors could also impress the child and that the telepathic influence should not cease at birth. A mother's fright at seeing a man lose his arm ought to cause her three year-old son's arm to wither up and cease to develop.

    An unborn child is just as much outside the mother's body as is the chicken in the egg outside the hen's body. Her womb is nothing more than a cavity in her body, like the mouth, and her baby is no more in her body than is a marble held in her mouth. She has as much chance of thinking something into her baby as a hen has of thinking something into the chicks in the eggs on which she sits. Strange is it not, that "impressionists" have never attributed the singing of birds to the fact that the father bird sat on the bough above and sang all day, while the mother bird sat on the eggs? I agreed with Wiggam when he asks. "Do you know that if the good Lord ever permitted the unborn babe to be remotely touched by such contradictory influences (the telepathic influences of mother, father and neighbors), by the time the little fellow got into the world he would be nothing but a grotesque conglomeration if irrelevant absurdities?"

    Third: There is no blood supply between the mother and her child. The child has its own blood and its own circulation. The unborn child is dependent upon the mother for oxygen and food only. These it extracts from the mother in the remarkably adjusted processes of interchange which take place in the placenta or after-birth. The mother passes on to her child nourishment, not shock or mental influences.

    Nature has protected the child from all possibility of "marking" by mental impressions, by arranging that there may be no nerve and blood supply between mother and child. The mother's blood cannot get through the placenta into the child. The placenta acts as a filter through the membranes of which the needed nutriment passes, while almost everything that can poison or injure the child is filtered out. Some poisons can and do get through to the child. But on the whole the baby is placed safely out of harm's way so that even physical violence seldom reaches it. Railroad accidents, auto smashups, jars, shocks, etc., seldom reach it.

    One "impressionist" says that there is "a constant interchange of the blood in its (the baby's) body with that in hers" and that, "since the mother, as has been shown, can transmit through her blood certain characteristics of mind and body not her own", "all nervous impressions which have produced an alteration of either a temporary or permanent character in the circulating fluid of the mother are communicated to the child."

    If he will limit this to nutritive alterations, well and good, but otherwise it is pure bunk, with not a single leg of fact to stand on.

    Fourth: The development of the form of the child is definitely determined during the first six weeks of pregnancy and cannot be subsequently altered. by the end of the sixth week the fetus is a practically complete human being. Most instances of "marking occur after this time, when it is no longer possible to convert the arms and hands into the paddles of a mole, for instance, or to produce twin toes. Errors and defects in development take place during the first six weeks and usually during the first two or three weeks following conception.

    How, then, account for these "marks" which are seen in rare instances. We may as well admit that we cannot account for all of them. Some of them are results of heredity, others of "accident." Whatever "mark" may appear, there can always be found something to refer it to--a mere coincidence, however. These prenatal accidents are comparatively very rare--most babies are born normal.

    A child may become entangled in the cord and the circulation of some part of the body be interferred with. From this cause the development of an arm or leg may be hindered. A lack of sufficient amniotic fluid may cause pressure on the child and handicap the development of some part. A fold in the uterus which prevents the blood from circulating is the usual cause of the absence of hands or feet. Such a child never had a hand or foot. A twisted hand or foot may be due to a wrinkle in the uterus or to injury at birth. A child born at nine months without hands is not due to the fact that the mother saw a horse get its fore legs cut off a month previously. Poisons may cause faulty development.

    Faulty food, ill health in the mother, etc., simply tend to produce in the child a condition of lowered vitality and lessened resistance. The nature of the child will depend on its germ-cell heritage. A defect in the germ cell at the beginning will show up as a defect in the child.

    A baby was born with one "calmish blue-gray eye" and the other "marked by the color and fire of the dashing young Spaniard's eye," who the mother had seen and been annoyed by almost daily during her pregnancy. "Always his appearance was most unexpected, and always accompanied by the rapt, passionate dark gaze." This seemed like a remakable case of maternal impression since neither of the child's parents had such eyes. Investigation, however, revealed that the grandparents of the baby's mother had just such eyes as the baby. It was just another case of heredity.

    Mr. Wiggam tells us that he has investigated many thousands of cases of alleged birthmarks and has not found a single case yet. Dr. Erassmus Darwin, father of Chas. Darwin, asked 11,000 women in a maternity hospital, what birth marks they thought would appear on their babies and where they would be located. He recorded their answers. When the babies were born, they either had no mark at all, or in the few instances where there was a mark, it was located somewhere else on the body and was not what the mother expected.

    Finally, "marks" resemble the things they are said to in much the same way that a white cow becomes a great ghost in the dark. There is a large element of imagination in the matter. A common mark is a red spot or blood-vessel tumor caused by an enlargement of the capillaries in some particular spot. Immagination can easily make this resemble a strawberry or other red object.

    Expectant mothers should remember that prenatal accidents are very rare, that natural law and the mechanism God has prepared for the protection of the child, so that it may have the very best that nature has to offer in the beginning of its life, may be trusted to safeguard the best interests of the child. No matter how well authenticated a reported case of birth marks may appear, do not listen to it and do not be disturbed by it. Your mental states can injure your child only in so far as they derange your nutrition and thus cause a supply of faulty nutriment to reach the child. They can help the child only in so far as they promote health and thus assure good nourishment for the child.

    

    
CHAPTER IV.
BABIES SHOULD BE BORN IN THE SPRING

    Professor Westermark, in his History of Human Marriage, lays down the following broad generalization regarding the mating season mammals:

    "But notwithstanding this apparent irregularity, the pairing time of every species is bounded by an unfailing law. It sets in earlier or later according as the period of gestation lasts longer or shorter, so that the young may be born at a time when they are most likely to survive. Thus most mammals bring forth their young early in spring, or, in tropical countries, at the beginning of the rainy season. . . . In the highlands, animals pair later than those living in lower regions, whilst those of the polar and temperate zones generally pair later than those of the tropics."

    Nature seems ever to be trying to safeguard the interests and welfare of the young. Modern theorists think only of the pleasures of the adult.

    Mr. Westermark next marshalls an imposing array of facts and statistics from all parts of the earth to show that man originally mated during the mating season, and that in spite of the many perversions of sex that now exist, he still follows this primitive instinct mote than he realizes. Thus:

    "The number of births in Sardinia, Belgium and Sweden is subject to a regular increase twice a year, the maximum of the first increase occurring in February or March, that of the second in September or October. . . In the South of Italy, there is an increase only once a year, but more to the north twice, in the spring and autumn. . . . . In Germany two annual maxima-- in February or March, and in September . . . . in the eight largest towns of Scotland, more children are born in legitimate wedlock in April than in any other month. the first annual augmentation of births has its maximum, in Sweden, in March; in Belgium, Spain, Austria and Italy in February, in Greece in January; so that it comes earlier in southern Europe than farther to the north.

    "This unequal distribution of births over the different months of the year is ascribed to various causes by statisticians. It is, however generally admitted that the maximum in February and March (in Chile, September) is, at least to a great extent, due to the sexual instinct being the strongest in May and June (in Chile, December). This is the most likely to be the case, as it i& especially illegitimate births that are then comparatively numerous. . . . . (Note that Chile is in the southern hemisphere and has its spring in September.)

    "Thus, comparing the facts stated, we find, among various races of men, the sexual instinct increasing at the end of spring, or, rather, at the beginning of summer."

    He then reasons:-- "It seems, therefore, a reasonable presumption that the increase of the sexual instinct at the end of spring or in the beginning of summer, is a survival of the ancient pairing season, depending upon the same law that rules the rest of the animal kingdom."

    This awakening of the normally, dormant sexual instinct at this period assures the birth of children in the spring--or rather in February, March and April. And this is just the best time of the year to have your children born. This is the beginning of the season when fresh vegetables and fruits are abundant, thus assuring the child, through the mother, of ample food of the best nature affords. It insures ample bone-forming material in the mother's milk. The weather is warm and houses are thrown open. People get out of doors. This means the baby will get plenty of fresh air.

    But an even more important consideration, under modern conditions, is sunshine. Babies born in the late fall or early winter, and who live through the winter, nearly all develop rickets to a greater or less degree. Fewer cases of rickets are seen in children who have the advantage of sunshine and sunkissed food during their first months of life. That sunshine is absolutely essential to the normal assimilation and utilization of calcium (lime) and perhaps also of iron and other elements, is certain. This is true of plants, animals and man. If your child is born in the early spring or in the closing days of winter it need never have rickets and will also have reasonable assurance against scrofula, tuberculosis, anemia, and other diseases.

    Several investigators, including Hess of Columbia, and Steenbock, of Wisconsin, have pointed out the variations in the vitamin content of milk in the various seasons. The content is highest from May to July and lowest in the winter months. This is referred to the varying amounts of C in the fodder in the different seasons. "In the spring and summer," to quote Berg, "when plants are in the most vigorous phase of their development, they contain comparatively large quantities of C; on the other hand, the ripening of hay is attended by a gradual decline in the amount of C it contains, which may be reduced to an inadequate proportions, It does not matter whether or not "vitamins" is the true explanation of the varying adequacy of milk through the seasons, the important fact is that spring and summer produce the best milk and early spring is, therefore, the best time for babies to be born.

    To have your baby born in the spring is very essential in the North. This will be a far more dependable method of assuring them against rickets, scrofula, scurvy, etc., than the nauseous, cod-liver oil they are now dosed with. Have them born early enough that the first part of their lives is not spent in the cold winter months of coal smoke and lack of sunshine. From the middle of April to the end of June would perhaps be the best time to have your children born if you live in the North. In the South the middle of February to the end of April is a splendid time.

    You can arrange it thus if you desire. It calls for birth control and you are not to listen to the old ladies in the black gowns, who tell you that birth control is a sin. Sin, like hell, is a creation of theologians and is employed a club with which to keep you in submission and subjection.

    If you have to go to hell in order to give your children the very best possible conditions under which to live; then, defy the priests, preachers, gods and devils and practice birth control and go to hell. Better to go to hell yourself than to build a hell on early for your children. These priests and preachers are largely responsible for the present social hell that fills the world with want and poverty, with ignorance and depravity. Throw them off your backs and don't allow them to jump upon the backs of your children.

    Arrange to have your children born in the spring. Observe the primitive and, therefore, correct mating instinct and season. Mating in season and out of season may be all right for perverts, but not for normal beings.

    

    
CHAPTER V.
BABY'S GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The average full-term baby weighs between seven and seven and a half pounds when born. A few babies weigh as much as fifteen pounds and in very rare instances even as much as twenty pounds. Twins, triplets, etc., and premature births may weigh as little as two and three pounds.

    A seven pound baby is too large and is due to wrong eating and over eating. Thc large size and weight of infants, at birth, is one of the most prominent causes of difficulty and pain in delivery. But with our mania for fat babies, we find that the fatter the new-born child is the happier and prouder the parents and physician are. At birth the offspring of the lower animals are little more than skin and bones, but if our babies are not abnormally large, from fat-bloat, we are not satisfied.

    The weight of the full term child, at birth, should not exceed six pounds, while five pounds would be better. This can be secured by regulating the mother's diet before and during pregnancy and keeping her weight down.

    Medical works say that a child should double its weight in the first five months after birth and treble its weight in from one year to fifteen months. A baby that weighs seven pounds at birth should weigh fourteen pounds at the age of five months and twenty-one pounds at one year. Such a baby will measure approximately twenty-nine inches. With an increase of less than fifty pet cent in length, if a child's weight is increased two hundred per cent, it means a fat baby. But a fat baby is our present ideal. If you can picture to yourself a baby weighing fifteen pounds at birth, weighing thirty pounds at five months and forty-five pounds at a year, or a twenty pound baby weighing forty pounds at five months and sixty pounds at one year, you can quickly see the absurdity of this scheme.

    Just as there are tall and slender adults and short and thick ones, so, there are babies that are naturally long and slender and others that are short and thick. No baby should be fat and no baby should be skinny, however. We might compare infants, as well as adults, to grey hounds and bull dogs, or to race horses and draught horses. There are all types of babies as of adults.

    It is undoubtedly true that, irrespective of their ages, the best index to the nutrition of a child is the relation of weight to height. Yet not even this is wholly reliable, for a baby may be normal in weight and not be normally nourished. There are other and more important signs of malnutrition than that of being underweight.

    Fat babies, as pointed out elsewhere, are not healthy babies, and while the scales may indicate that the baby is thriving, this may be deceptive. Many infants whose weight would be considered normal have soft, flabby flesh and are often anemic and in very poor condition. This is very frequently the case in babies fed on condensed milk. The parent should know that a firm, solid and elastic condition of the flesh, noticeable particularly in the legs and buttocks, is a more important evidence of satisfactory nutrition than that of weight. Gains in weight should represent healthy growth of the bones, muscles and other organs of the body and not merely the rolling on of fat.

    The growth of the child should also be considered of great importance. Too often an increase in weight means little more shall the rolling on of fat. The fat baby, as a general rule, to which there are a few exceptions, does not grow in length or in frame as rapidly and satisfactorily as the lean one. It is nothing unusual to see a fat baby with a serious condition of rickets.

    Many mothers worry unduly about the weight of their babies. Theoretically, a normal baby should gain weight every day, but actually babies almost never do this. The weekly gains are almost never uniform, Weekly gains in bottle-fed babies are hardly ever he same.

    There are a number of things that may interfere with the gains of the child, aside from inadequate or insufficient food. Impaired digestion, from over eating, over excitement, too much handling, over heating, chilling, etc., will check the growth of the child. A cold or slight indisposition prevents the child from gaining, not alone because the child eats less under such conditions, but because the derangement interfere with growth and development.

    A failure to gain for one or two weeks does not always mean that there is anything wrong with the baby. It may only mean that the mother's milk supply has been temporarily reduced. It may mean that the heat of summer has reduced the baby's appetite.

    The normal breast-fed baby is said to gain from six to eight ounces a week for the first five months of its life. It loses weight for the first two weeks after which it begins to gain. During the last seven months of its first year the baby is supposed to gain an average of from four to six ounces a week. These are the average gains made by over-fed babies and represent considerable fat. Let me emphasize again, that a normal gain in weight should represent growth of bone, muscle and organs and not merely the rolling on of excess fat. Smaller gains than those above, if steady and the child is otherwise healthy, are not to be considered abnormal.

    Mothers are often very much disturbed because their babies do not weigh as much as some other baby of the same age. They cannot disabuse their minds of the injurious notion that babies must be fat. When a group of mothers get together they compare the weights of their babies. The mother whose baby is the fattest is apt to feel proud of her "superior" child, while the mother of the baby that weighs the least is quite apt to worry considerably. In most cases the mother of the light-weight should rejoice, while, the mother of the baby suffering from the fat-bloat should do the worrying.

    There is, of course, considerable differences in the weight and height of perfectly normal babies. Heredity is involved in this matter. Children of short parents are not likely to be as tall as children of tall parents. There is no good reason why the two babies should be any more alike than their patents are. Two babies in the same family may also, as a matter of heredity, be of different sizes, not merely in infancy, but thoroughout life.

    We are often reminded that a baby that weighed five pounds at birth should not weigh as much as a baby that weighed nine pounds at birth. Usually, however, the five pound baby will be as large, except for fat, as the nine pound baby and, unless the nine pounder continues to fatten, the five pounds child will catch him in weight and may even outweigh him.

    Dr. Page reasoned thus: "During the nine months of foetal growth the increase, except in the case of monstrosities, is about one-third of an ounce per day, or two and one-half ounces per week. Why it should be deemed rational for this ratio to be increased six or seven hundred per cent., directly after birth, is beyond my comprehension. In spite, or because, of this hot-house forcing during the first few months, the usual weight at, say, five years, is much less than if the rate of pre-natal growth had been continued throughout these years."

    It was his thought that the pre-natal rate of growth should continue for some time after birth and that the normal infant should double its weight in about nine months. If such babies are not fattened, this is just about what takes place.

    The following figures giving the average heights and weights of males and females at various ages are taken from "The Infant and Young Child," by Morse-Wyman-Hill. I have not given the weights by months as these authors do. These weights up to the age of four years are without clothes. From four years onward the clothes are included. They allow about three pounds for the weight of the clothes.

Age	BOYS Height inches	BOYS Weight pounds	GIRLS Height inches	GIRLS Weight pounds
At birth	20.6	7.6	20.5	7.2
1 year	29.4	21.4	28.9	20.8
1-1/2 year	31.8	24.6	31.1	23.4
2 years	33.8	21.1	33.4	26.4
2-1/2 years	35.4	28.5	34.9	28.3
3 years	37.1	32.8	36.8	30.5
3-1/2 years	38.6	33.8	30.8	32.5
4 years	39.5	35.9	39.0	33.8
4-1/2 years	40.6	39.2	40.4	38.0
5 years	41.7	41.2	41.3	39.8
5-1/2 years	42.8	43.1	42.3	41.6
6 years	43.9	45.2	43.3	43.4

    I append the following tables showing the development of my own children down to date. Comparisons of the weight and height are possible in the cases of the two boys, and it will be noticed that both of these outstripped the average in height, although both of their parents and all four of their grandparents are short of stature, the tallest of these being only five feet and nine inches. Although Bernarr took on fat easily, we have always had greater trouble to keep Walden from getting fat than we have had with Bernarr. It will be noticed that, although Walden was the largest at birth and weighed the most at one year, yet he did not grow in height as rapidly as Bernarr. All three of these children were too heavy at birth and this I was forced to overcome after birth.

		BERNARR
	LENGTH	WEIGHT	CHEST	HEAD
At Birth	20 inches	8-3/4 lbs.	13-1/2 inches
1 month		8-3/4 lbs.
2 months		9 lbs.
3 months	24-1/2 inches	11 lbs.	15-5/8 inches
6 months	28 inches	15 lbs.	16-1/2 inches
1 year	30 inches	19-1/2 lbs.	18-1/4 inches	18-1/2 inches
2 years	35-1/2 inches	35 lbs.	22 inches	20-1/4 inches
3 years	39-1/4 inches	41 lbs.	22-1/2 inches	20-1/2 inches
4 years	42 inches	45 lbs.	23-1/4 inches	20-3/4 inches
5 years	45-1/2 inches	49-1/2 lbs.	24-1/2 inches	21 inches
6 years	47 inches	50 lbs.	25 nches	21 inches
		WALDEN
At Birth	21-1/2 inches	9-1/2 lbs.	14 inches	14-1/2 inches
1 month		9-1/4 lbs.
2 months		11 lbs.
3 months	24 inches	14 lbs.	16 inches	16 inches
6 months	26-3/4 inches	18 lbs.	17-7/8 inches	16-3/4 inches
1 year	29-3/4 inches	20 lbs, 6-3/8 oz.	19-1/4 inches	18-1/2 inches
2 years	35-1/2 inches	33 lbs.	21 inches	19-3/8 inches
3 years	38-5/8 inches	41 lbs.	22-1/2 nches	20 inches
		WILLOWDEEN
At Birth	19 inches	7 lbs.	12-1/2 inches	13-1/4 inches
1 week		7 lbs.
2 weeks		7-1/2 lbs.
3 weeks		8 lbs.
1 month	20 inches	8-1/4 lbs.	13-1/8 inches	14-1/8 inches
2 months	21-1/4 inches	10 lbs.	14-1/2 inches	15 inches
3 months	22-1/2 inches	11-1/4 lbs.	15-3/4 inches	15-5/8 inches
4 months	22-3/4 inches	12-3/4 lbs.	16-1/2 inches	16 inches
5 months	24-5/8 inches	14 lbs.		16-1/8 inches
6 months	25 inches	14-3/4 lbs.	16-3/4 inches	16-1/2 inches

    Relative to the rest of the body, the head is quite large at birth, being greater in circumference than the chest. This ratio changes as the child grows and develops. If he develops as he should, thc chest will be a little larger at one year than the head. Fat babies, if the fat is not discounted, may not do this.

    The lack of symmetry of the head, due to its compression in labor, soon disappears. The soft spot at the back of the head closes at about six weeks. The fontanel, or soft place on the top of the head, closes at from sixteen to eighteen months. It may even close earlier in children of superior nourishment who get an abundance of sunshine.

    The relative sizes of the various organs of the body of an infant are very different from those of an adult. If the relative sizes of the child's body were retained throughout life his head would be as wide as his shoulders and his legs those of a dwarf, while all parts of the body would be out of proportion. Such an adults would be a monstrosity.

    Each organ of the body has its own ratio of growth and its own period of development . There is not alone a definite period, of the child's life for the cutting of its teeth, but there is also a definite period for the development of certain of its brain cells; and a definite period for sexual development.

    The process of growing is never haphazzard although the child grows in one direction this year and in another direction the next. The child's heart increases in size twelve times before adulthood is reached, while the aorta, the body's largest blood vessel, increases only three times. The liver of the child is equivalent of 1/18 of its size; the liver of the adult, 1/36 of the size of the body. In early childhood the stomach is vertical and tubular; in the adult "bean-shaped" and more or less horizontal. The six year old child has sixty per cent more body surface in proportion to weight, than has the adult.

    In babyhood the bones are largely soft cartilage. As age advances and ossification advances the bones become harder and stronger. The child must gradually learn the use of its various muscles, even those of the eyes. It is unable to execute complex movements, but must gradually acquire this ability.

    The infant and child possess less red corpuscles and more white ones than the adult. There is greater activity of the Iymphadenoid glands of the infant and child than of the adult. Its reactions to infections is much more prompt and vigorous.

    Medical authorities tell us that a baby can usually hold its head up unsupported at about three months. If a child can't hold its head up unsupported at three weeks, at the latest, that child is not developing well.

    The amount of hair with which children are born varies. Some children are born with a luxuriant growth, others are almost bald. This hair is usually, though not always, lost during the first months of life, and is followed by a new growth. The hair may change in color three or four times during the first three or four years of life.

    Almost all children of the blond races and of some of the darker races, like certain of the hindoos, are born with blue eyes. They usually begin to assume their permanent color during their first few weeks. There is no foundation for the theory, preached by some, that brown eyes are the results of physical deterioration. It is asserted bv one of these "iriologists" that, "The eyes of people living in the south become brown because the actinic rays of the sun, as well as the heat, break down the protoplasm of the cells, which are albuminous and all proteins and albumens give off hydrogen-sulphids which is a poison, and which is not eliminated as quickly as it is produced by the broken down tissue." This hydrogen-sulphid resulting from the cooking of the flesh of Southern people is supposed to stain their eyes brown and we are told to "change the diet of brown eyed people, stop giving them heavy actinic ray and heat treatments; give them the proper adiustments and within 3 to 6 months their eyes tell the story of elimination, for they become lighter in color." This is rank nonsense without a single demonstratable fact to support it.

    The brown of brown eyes is a pigment deposit (like the "tan" in the skin), in the stroma of the iris. Where the stroma is devoid of pigment, the purple pigment layer, resting on the basement membrane of the iris, shimmers through the stroma as a uniform. clear sky blue.

    A baby can see at birth--far sightedness being normal sight. They are thought to begin to recognize objects at about 6 to 8 weeks and to focus their eyes on objects at about 3 months. Up to this age the average child has some difficulty in fixing its eyes and may appear slightly cross-eyed, or present some other evidence of muscular incoordination of the eyes. Babies seldom shed tears in crying before they are three months old.

    Strong light is supposed to cause the eyes of babies discomfort However, the closing of the eyes, when a strong light is thrown on them, is a reflex act produced by thc light striking the eye-lids. The eyes are not sensitive to the light.

    Babies can hear at birth but they hear little during the first few days and learn to recognize where a sound comes from at about two months.

    They are supposed to have a very poor sense of smell, while their sense of taste is not very acute at birth.

    Babies will smile at about six weeks and will laugh aloud at about the third to fifth month. They learn to "coo" at about three months.

    Babies will notice objects at about eight weeks and recognize people at about three months. At about four months they reach out and grasp objects. They can say a few simple, single words at about one year and at two years can form short sentences.

    At birth, the baby can sustain the weight of its body with one hand if allowed to grasp a pencil or other small object. From one month onward it should be able to grasp its mother's or father's fingers in its hands and swing from the bed.

    The well norished child can sit erect at four to six months, the average child sits erect at seven to eight months. The back should never be supported by pillows at this time. The well nourished child can sustain the weight of its body on its feet from the third to fourth month; the average child does so at nine or ten months. Creeping or crawling comes in the well developed child at five to eight months.

    The well developed child will walk at from eight months to a year. The average child walks at from thirteen to sixteen months. The many devices on the market called "baby tenders", "walkers," etc., are pernicious and will never be used by any well informed parent.

    Most children creep before they crawl. Others "hitch" along in a sitting position. Creeping is the ideal method so far as development is concerned.

    Delay in walking may be due to rickets, or other form of malnutrition; acute disease; indigestion, due to overfeedling or to enervating causes; fat-disease; leg weakness.

    Most babies are not permitted to develop their muscles because we are afraid they will injure themselves. Few of them ever get sufficient sunshine for normal development. Almost all of them are wrongly fed and poorly nourished.

    There is great variation in the time at which babies cut their teeth. Rare cases are born with teeth and some have two or three teeth at four months. Babies considered normal have been noted with no teeth at thirteen months. If the child is healthy and properly nourished, the teeth are better when they erupt late than when they come through early. The following table, giving the average ages at which the teeth are cut, is taken from The Infant and Young Child, by Morse-Wyman-Hill.

6-10 months	2 middle lower incisors (these are usually the first ones.)
12-15 months	4 upper incisors
18-20 months	4 lateral incisors and 4 anterior molars. 4 Canines ("eye" and "stomach" teeth).
24-30 months	4 posterior molars.

    By the end of two and a half years the average child has cut his first or "milk" teeth. Some babies cut a bunch of teeth all at once.

    In the sixth year, the first permanent molars erupt, back of the temporary teeth. Shortly after this the child begins to lose his temporary teeth and the permanent teeth replace them.

    Parents are usually much concerned about the weight of their children at various heights. The symmetrical and proportionate development of the child's body and its general health is of fat more importance, but parents have been taught to measure the health of the child with a pair of scales and nothing will shake them loose from this false practice. The following table giving the average weight of boys and girls at various heights is taken from Morse-Wyman-Hill.

Height Inches	Boys Weight	Girls Weight
33	25.9*	26.0*
34	27.3*	27.3*
35	28.7*	28.6*
36	30.1*	30.0*
37	31.6*	31.5*
38	33.2*	32.7*
39	36.3	35.7
40	38.1	37.4
41	39.8	39.2
42	41.7	41.2
43	43.5	43.1
44	45.4	44.8
45	47.1	46.3
	*Without Clothes

    
    It should be understood that these weights are mere averages and do not represent the ideal. Some day somebody is going to take the trouble to prepare such a table from the weights, not of average children, but of well nourished and splendidly developed, but not fat, children. Tables that approach the ideal will then be produced.

    Tables now in use merely represent the average of all types and no one can reasonably be asked to conform to them. Don't worry if your child does not fit these weights. See that your child is healthy and properly cared for and forget the rest.

    We must learn to look upon each child as a small human organism that the inherent developmental forces are trying to evolve into a fine, robust man or woman. We must realize that each new stage or step in the development of the infant into a child, the child into the adolescent, and the adolescent into an adult, is spontaneous and natural, and that where development ts retarded or distorted there are hindrances in the way. The forces of the body are striving for perfection and doing the best they can with the material at hand and under the circumstances as these exist. The upward, or orthopathic tendency of the body in the lowest stages of disease, as in the most vigorous states of health cannot be doubted or denied.

    If these things are true with regard to the physical growth and development of the evolving being, they are no less so with relation to the unfolding of the intellectual, emotional and moral natures. Of the individual. The physical changes which occur at puberty, for instance, are no more profound and marked and no more spontaneous, than are the changes in the mental, moral, emotional and social elements of the evolving individuality. And it is just as natural for these elements to take a normal course, an upward course, as for the physical part of the individual to tend towards the ideal. Nature strives for intellectual, emotional, moral and social perfection as certainly and as unrelentingly as she does for physical perfection. If she does not attain these, it is because of hindrances in the way. These hindrances may be found in many sources, but are found as often as anywhere in a retarded or distorted physical development.