XVIII THE LENGTH OF GESTATION

It has frequently been asked in the course of discussions on the alternate action of the ovaries, whether both take an active part in each pregnancy. We have seen that after the removal of one ovary, the other, in due course, takes to itself the work of both, doing double duty and thus allowing menstruation to proceed on more or less normal lines. Similarly it may be concluded that, supposing the right ovary has produced a fertile ovum, the left one will remain inactive during the whole period of pregnancy, ceasing both to ovulate and to menstruate. Thus, the entire alimentary discharge is left for the use of the right ovary, which by sole reason of its activity attracts and distributes the double supply. Moreover, the placenta is supplied direct from this ovary with sanguine nutrition wherewith to feed the fœtus, and it is interesting to note that Jaquemier specified anæmia in numbers of women as commencing after the middle period of pregnancy; this is accounted for by the huge supply of blood nutriment absorbed by the placenta feeding the fœtus.

Another theory, however, is that ovulation and menstruation of both ovaries do continue during gestation, but that the one ovary does not directly feed the ovum of its rival, but passes its alimentary fluid to the opposite side—by so doing directly helping to sustain the fœtus. But all evidence I have collected seems to point to the former theory. No doubt, in the case of mixed twins, both ovaries concur directly and alternatively in the nourishment of their own fertilised ova.

In post-mortems on women advanced in pregnancy, the corpus luteum has been found in the ovary whence came the embryo, according to its sex. While on the opposite side no fresh scars of false corpura lutea from recent menstruation were found, although within a few weeks these would certainly have shown a distinct yellow mark on the ovarian surface; from this we gather that the last false corpus luteum formed in that ovary appeared before the commencement of the pregnancy.

Another point that should be made quite clear is that relating to the duration of gestation, which differs according to the sex of the child. Dr. Chavasse was of the opinion that, as girls so often seemed to arrive at the beginning of the month as counted from the last period, they were evidently conceived after the period, whereas boys, he argued, arriving often at the end of the month and generally later than was expected, were evidently conceived at the end of the month and a few modern physicians still uphold this theory. But, needless to say, it is entirely erroneous. Chavasse says also he is inclined to believe that girls are carried longer than boys. This, again, is exactly the reverse of the facts, if we study them in a clear light, considering them as they actually are and not as they appear to be.

A boy takes longer to mature in the uterus than a female for two reasons:

1. He does not, as previously explained, find the preparation of decidua in the uterus; hence a slower development in the early stages.

2. He weighs at birth about 1 lb. more than the average girl; so he requires extra time in which to develop.

French medical authorities cherish the idea of longer girl-gestation for the reason that a female fœtus will, they say, often be carried fully thirty-nine weeks and she may even, though this is rare, be carried forty weeks, but when this happens in the case of a girl, the pregnancy becomes “protracted,” and the result is either an enormous child, weighing from 11 to 12 lbs., or an arrested and abnormal pregnancy. A boy usually goes his full thirty-nine weeks; often he is carried forty, or even sometimes forty-one weeks; thus, though begun after the period, he will yet run right on to the end of the ninth month, or into the tenth month of gestation.

Personally I have rarely met with the case of a girl-child of under 7 lbs. weight, carried beyond thirty-eight weeks; thirty-nine is the extreme normal limit, and results in a child weighing from 7-8 lbs. at least; forty weeks is abnormal. I know many families of girls where each was carried barely thirty-six or thirty-seven weeks; they were all healthy and normal, weighing from 5-7 lbs. It may be that the greater restlessness of the female fœtus hurries, to some extent, the process of girl-gestation; and the fact that anæmia is very frequent during girl-pregnancies may be the cause of less endurance in the mother, and helps to explain why girl-babies are carried a shorter time. It is never safe to count on a nine-month gestation with a girl. Real “full-time” girl-babies are exceptions to the rule, and often a mistake arises through the belief that a child was conceived two or three weeks previous to its real date of conception. Frequently mothers show me new-born babies weighing 4½ to 5 lbs., with the remark, “Yes, I carried her full-time; it was close on nine months since my last period when she was born,” and in nine cases out of ten these infants have been carried barely thirty-six weeks. Yet they grow and flourish as well as the “full-time” babies.

Anyone who has been in a position to await and watch, as I have, great numbers of births, cannot fail to have noticed that the girl baby comes unexpectedly early, often before preparations have been completed.

The boy, on the contrary, looked for daily, withholds his advent, often from week to week; and this must be recognised as the normal distinction.

Nature works slowly and discreetly; she is chary of revealing her secrets, and few of those, eager for practical results, could have afforded the life-time of work, which I have been able to give, for the continuous investigation that was necessary.

As regards my personal experience and the results obtained I can but say that they have uniformly realised my highest expectations. In every case where my formula was employed, there has been success, and I can point to thousands of accurate results. The theory, as a whole, has worked out consistently all the time, and in the few cases where a disappointment has occurred it has invariably been proved to the hilt that the formula was not accurately followed.

I recall the case of a lady who had my formula for a boy; she wrote to me in October, 1913:

I came across a doctor who holds opposite theories to ours, i.e., first ten days a girl, last ten days a boy, based on his practice, which is pretty large. I was disappointed to find anyone whose experience worked out contrary to yours. I am by way of having an infant in December, having followed out your theory. So we shall have to wait and see results, but I feel rather disappointed....

Result—a boy born December, 1913.

This is one of many similar epistles, but in each case the issue has been as arranged for. It is curious to note here that, apart from accidents, a child is born on the actual day of the week that it was conceived; and this detail might well be made use of with reference to the future day of its birth.

This book may come as a shock to some biologists, especially those who have been unable to give to these matters the close practical observation necessary for solving such a problem as that with which it deals. It may appear to them outrageous that a mere woman should write so openly, putting the choice of her children’s sex within the reach of every mother, and, without compunction or hesitation, expounding these secret laws of nature for the benefit of humanity.

It is, however, unlikely that any male practitioner would have found the time, even supposing he had the mind and the opportunities to follow up this exclusive study of one subject in all its minor details and side-issues. It is only a woman who could possibly have made the unique series of observations that I have found absolutely necessary in the pursuit of knowledge so long denied to parenthood. Could any but a woman have ferreted out the exact dates and times of conception in scores of pregnancy cases, or follow minutely every detail and symptom, week by week, month by month, up to the time of parturition?

The very simplicity of my formula, which in no way disturbs the course of nature’s laws, has often provoked the comment, “Surely it’s all too simple to be true. Why was it never found out before?” In reply I would remind my readers of Christopher Columbus and his egg! And is there not a saying, “The greatest truths are the simplest?”

My final word is this: Time will prove, more and more abundantly, that the knowledge disclosed to us by nature’s teaching deeply concerns the whole scheme of life, and must have its effect on the welfare of the human race.

There may be—there is—more to learn and to discover. I do not assume complete knowledge of every contingent problem, but what I set out to do has been accomplished in so far that every woman can, with certainty, claim complete mastery in the regulation of the sex of her offspring.