Page:Contraception; 1st ed. (IA in.ernet.dli.2015.94163).pdf/265

our own country inoculation against smallpox was denounced as being "indefensible on religious as well as medical grounds" . . . "a diabolical operation" . . . "a discovery sent into the world by the powers of evil." Then clergy preached against vaccination and described it as a "daring and profane violation of our holy religion." Dr. Rowley preached against it, saying—"The law of God prohibits the practice: the law of man and the law of nature loudly exclaim against it." Yet where, today, is the cleric who would dare to preach thus to an educated congregation? Later the great Sir James Simpson had a tremendous fight on behalf of the use of chloroform to relieve the pains of child-birth, which was denounced as irreligious because it is "unnatural." Sir James Simpson, in his vivid way, pointed out that those who objected to chloroform which really alleviated the parturient woman's pains, permitted warm baths, compresses and manual manipulations partly to do the same. He added^[1] "By these means they succeeded partially, in times past, in mitigating the