symphysiotomy, all approved by science and the moral law. But we will
suppose an extreme case; namely, the circumstances are so unfavorable
for any of these operations--whether owing to want of skill in the
Doctors present, or for any other reason--that none can safely be
attempted; any of them would be fatal to the mother.

In this extreme case of necessity, can the Doctor break the cranium of
the living child, or in any way destroy its life with a view to save the
mother? If three consulting physicians agree that this is the only way
to save her, he will not be molested by the law courts for performing
the murderous operation. But will the law of nature and of nature's God
approve or allow his conduct? This is the precise question under our
consideration. We have seen that the infant, a true human being, has a
right to live, as well as its mother. "All men are created equal, and
have an equal right to life," declares the first principle of our
liberty. The Creator, too, as reason teaches, has a clear right to the
child's life; that child may answer a very special purpose of
Providence. But whether it will or not, God is the supreme and the only
Master of life and death, and He has laid down the strict prohibition,
"Thou shalt not kill."

Now comes the plea of self-defence against an unjust aggressor. If the
child is such, if it _unjustly_ attacks its mother's life, then she can
destroy it to save herself, and her physician can aid the innocent
against the guilty party. But can it be proved that the infant is an
unjust aggressor in the case? There can be no intentional or _formal_
guilt in the little innocent babe. But can we argue that the actual
situation of the child is an unjust act, unconsciously done, yet
_materially_ unjust, unlawful? Thus, if a madman would rush at me with a
sharp sword, evidently intent on killing me, he may be called an unjust