On the Species. Discourse I.

...it receives nourishment from that source from which it was generated, as stated in Aristotle's Politics, book 1, last chapter. Just as it is better for every thing to be in its own matrix original: "matrice," meaning the source or mother-environment and it exists more perfectly there than in another (which is evident in plants when they are transplanted), so too the fetus will be nourished more healthily and better by that milk with which it shares a natural kinship, rather than by that of a stranger. In France, it has been accepted by law that women who conceive through fornication shall be subject to the death penalty original: "extremo supplicio" for the mere act of giving birth and clandestine burial, even if it is not proven that the infant was brought into this light alive. Papon, book 22, title 4, decree 2. They place such high value on the neglect of maternal storgē original: "στοργὴν," a Greek term for the natural instinctive affection of parents for their children. On the care of children, see Cardano, Treatise on the Use of Adversity, chapter on page 970, and Jerome, Letter to Laeta on the Instruction of a Daughter, beginning "The Apostle Paul," and also in the Letter to Gaudentius, beginning "Because of a difficult matter," etc.

II. A controversy arises regarding these matters: Should a monstrous birth be reared? It is held as a settled matter by all that a birth which is utterly monstrous and deviates from the form and species of a human being should by no means be nurtured. Daneau, Christian Ethics, book 2, chapter 13; Forster, on Roman Jurisdiction, page 185. I discuss this in my Commentary on titles 5 and 6, book 1 of the Digest, number 20. Indeed, monstrous births are almost always ominous and portentous. Richter, Economic Axioms, 17. However, in the case of a child procreated from incest, it is more likely that the parents are compelled to provide nourishment. I argue this in my Commentary 1 on the title of the Digest concerning Justice and Law, law 1, question 23. For Civil Law cannot take away from children the nourishment owed to them by the Law of Nature. Cevallos, volume 3, question 757. Moreover, the equity of Canon Law The body of laws and regulations made by Church authority has corrected this rigor of the Civil Law, extraordinary chapter 13, on who the legitimate children are. Thus, even a natural daughter original: "filia naturalis," meaning a daughter born out of wedlock must be provided with a dowry. Servin, volume 3, pleading 20, page 436.

III. Aristotle, in Politics, book 7, chapter 16, suggests preventing the excessive multiplication of citizens by procuring the abortion of women, which is contrary even to all natural reason. (Yet some defend him by suggesting he is merely reviewing the customs of others there.) See Timpler, Politics, book 1, chapter 7, question 5; Grégoire de Toulouse, chapter 14, section 8 and 9. This crime is rightly punished today as homicide. Law 38, section 5, where the doctors of law discuss punishments; Lactantius, book 6, chapter 20.

IV. Parents also owe a defense to their children; for it is likewise agreeable to natural equity that one should be defended by the person from whom they draw their origin. Therefore, I cannot approve of the opinion of Vaudus and Obrecht, who deny that parents can rightly kill a robber or another unjust aggressor for the sake of rescuing their children from danger. I discuss this in my Commentary on Law 3, on Justice and Law, question 15.

V. Conversely, since children receive their life and the sustenance of life from their parents, and owe them all natural things, children must therefore show the greatest reverence and obedience to their parents...