Why weren’t there any children?

[Belloc]

With the exception of Elizabeth Stride, all the women likely attacked by Jack the Ripper had given birth to children before going to live in the East End of London. Once there, some of the women engaged in prostitution on a fairly regular basis, and most of them lived with a man for at least some of the time.

How is it, then, that – so far as we know – none of them became pregnant after leaving their husbands?

Please let me know what you think.

[rjpalmer]

With the exception of Elizabeth Stride, all the women likely attacked by Jack the Ripper had given birth to children before going to live in the East End of London. Once there, some of the women engaged in prostitution on a fairly regular basis, and most of them lived with a man for at least some of the time.

How is it, then, that – so far as we know – none of them became pregnant after leaving their husbands?

Please let me know what you think.

Middle-age, shockingly bad health, birth control, miscarriages, abortion.

[Pcdunn]

And poor nutrition, linked to poverty and poor health. There were methods that street-walkers knew to prevent job-related pregnancies, including how and where they allowed the man to release his seed (i.e., on the upper thighs, rear, etc.)

[Belloc]

Thank you, rj and Pc, for your thoughts. The reasons you give for the absence of pregnancies make sense.

But I still wonder, and I’ll try to explain why.

Age:
The two oldest victims were about 43 when they first came to the East End. The others were in their twenties or thirties. According to Wikipedia, most women go through menopause between the ages of 45 and 55. It seems likely that most of the women were still young enough to become pregnant.

Health:
Whilst some of the women had chronic ailments, the findings of the post-mortems regarding their general health are surprising. For example:
▪ He [Dr Haslip] described the organs as generally normal (Emma Smith’s inquest, Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, April 7, 1888)
▪ …the body [Martha Tabram] was very well nourished…the heart was…rather fatty…the liver was healthy…the stomach…was perfectly healthy…(Testimony of Dr T. R. Killeen, The Times, Aug. 9, 1888)
▪ Questioned by jurymen, the witness [Dr Llewellyn] said the deceased [Mary Ann Nichols] was a strong woman (East London Observer, Sept. 8, 1888)
▪ There were probably signs of great privation. (My emphasis. Testimony of Dr George Baxter Phillips at Annie Chapman’s inquest, The Daily Telegraph, Sept. 14, 1888)
▪ We found the body [Elizabeth Stride] fairly nourished. (Testimony of Dr George Baxter Phillips, The Daily Telegraph, Oct. 4, 1888)
Nothing in these surgeons’ remarks suggests the victims were incapable of bearing children.

Abortion:
Another notable feature of the post-mortems is that none mentions any signs of past damage to the women’s uteruses caused by abortion instruments.
Some sources claim there was frequent resort to abortionists by working class women and prostitutes in 19^th century London. Here “abortionists” means people paid to end the pregnancy of another person. However, of the thousands of criminal cases heard at the Old Bailey between 1800 and 1899, only ten abortionists were convicted. That’s one for every decade. Hardly indicative of an epidemic of illegal abortions.
There’s plenty of evidence that pregnant women sometimes tried to induce a miscarriage by taking supposedly abortifacient herbs or berries in some form, and perhaps this was also the case with some of the East End victims. But there’s a lot of doubt that the herbs did anything except make the women very ill.

Contraception:
By the 1880’s, mass-produced rubber condoms were certainly available from various outlets, but no condoms were found amongst the possessions of the victims, so it seems unlikely that “French letters” played any role in preventing conception amongst them.
In most brothels, douching with lemon or vinegar was probably commonplace, but there’s no evidence it was practiced by those who plied their trade on the streets. The facilities to douche just weren’t available to them.

Outercourse:
No doubt most prostitutes would try to avoid being penetrated whenever possible, but in the rough world inhabited by East End streetwalkers, some customers may not have been satisfied with frotting or masturbation. The really violent johns probably forced themselves into the prostitute, regardless of her best efforts.
There’s also the fact that most of the victims had ongoing relationships with one or more men. Do we really believe the extent of the sexual activity between these couples was limited to hand jobs and blow jobs? That’s pretty hard to swallow.

So, I hope you can understand why I’m skeptical of the customary explanations.

Do I have an alternative to suggest? Unfortunately, no. The absence of children may just be another enigma to be added to the long list of mysteries about the JTR case.

[rjpalmer]

[FONT=Calibri]
Some sources claim there was frequent resort to abortionists by working class women and prostitutes in 19^th century London. Here “abortionists” means people paid to end the pregnancy of another person. However, of the thousands of criminal cases heard at the Old Bailey between 1800 and 1899, only ten abortionists were convicted. That’s one for every decade. Hardly indicative of an epidemic of illegal abortions.

I would suggest the cases at the Old Bailey aren't very helpful, though.

Illegal abortion is a special class of crime; it's not like burglary or mugging or embezzlement where the victim is going to run to the police and report it, so prosecution rates are not going to give you a realistic indication of how widespread the procedure was. The 'victim' herself is complicit in hiding the crime, so arrest rates or conviction rates are almost meaningless. Even if the woman is left badly mangled, she may not report the crime out of embarrassment or shame or fear that her partner might be prosecuted, since it is often the male who encourages her or pays for the procedure. That's why these crimes were so hard to discover or successfully prosecute and why we know so little about a trade that certainly did exist. Even now, it is said that over 60% of sexual assaults are never reported; in a society where abortion is illegal, what percentage would be reported? None of them will be reported unless the procedure goes very wrong indeed and the police catch wind of it.

As for there being no evidence of prior abortion among the victims, what evidence would we expect to find? Unless the procedure is 'botched,' there wouldn't be any. In two of the victims the uterus was missing, and in other cases we have no description of any kind to guide us.

I also tend to believe that working-class women would be a lot more knowledgeable about birth control methods than the polite ladies of the west end.

I can't say whether or not the story is apocryphal, but regarding Pcdunn's comments, when Donald Rumbelow used to give his walks in East London, he gave an account of an old streetwalker who allegedly died a virgin.

[c.d.]

Do we really believe the extent of the sexual activity between these couples was limited to hand jobs and blow jobs? That’s pretty hard to swallow.

Ummm.....ummmm...... Ok, is it just me or....oh, never mind.

c.d.

[Belloc]

It's just you, c.d.

[MsWeatherwax]

With the exception of Elizabeth Stride, all the women likely attacked by Jack the Ripper had given birth to children before going to live in the East End of London. Once there, some of the women engaged in prostitution on a fairly regular basis, and most of them lived with a man for at least some of the time.

How is it, then, that – so far as we know – none of them became pregnant after leaving their husbands?

Please let me know what you think.

Abortion is obviously a contentious subject these days, but it's been happening since the dawn of time.

Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 commercially prepared abortificants which were available in the 1800's (The Widow Welch's Women's Pills, Hooper's Female Pills and a couple branded with the word "Benedictine" in the name, don't remember the full name in it's entirety).

They obviously didn't advertise themselves as being used to cause abortion - it was more along the lines of "we all know women's reproductive systems are a bit useless, these pills will clear up any pesky blockages!". I'm pretty sure one of the brands I've just mentioned specifically stated only being useful for virgins, and most of them mentioned being useful for the restoration of 'colour and appetite'.

I'd have to chase it up, but I read a Victorian article some years back, where the author was lamenting the loss of thousands of 'embryo babies' as use of these pills was so common place.

I suspect that the few cases we've seen being tried in the Old Bailey are just the people unfortunate enough to be caught - after all, illegal abortion is one of the few crimes where it's not in the victims interest to report, and in almost all cases, it's in their interest to make sure the crime stays hidden.

Besides that, there's plenty of methods of herbal abortion that have been handed down over the centuries, and carried out with varying degrees of success.

'Fun' Fact: Read the lyrics to Strawberry Fair, then think about what's actually being said when you know that parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme have all been used as abortificants...

[Belloc]

Thanks very much, MsWeatherwax, for your very informative response. You make a strong case for some form of abortion having been used by the victims to end any pregnancies that occurred.

Now I’m wondering about the bottles of medicine and lotion – supposedly from St Bartholomew’s Hospital – that Annie Chapman left in her locker at 35 Dorset Street the day before she died. There were also some pills which she carried with her, two of which remained when the police inventoried her belongings. Could Annie have been pregnant? As rjpalmer has pointed out, two of the victims had their uteruses removed. Unfortunately Annie was one of those victims, so we’ll never know.