Chapter IV: The Proper Mate

_The Purpose of Marriage._—The essential thing to found a happy marriage upon is the choice of a proper mate. Marriage, even from the most modern standpoint, is something more than the satisfaction of the love desire. It is an institution upon which all of our social life is founded. More than that, it is the one undisputed method of gaining immortality. Men and women live on in their children, their grandchildren, forever. The perpetuity that they hand down must be the finest that they are capable of. If two incompatible people marry and live together, they give that incompatibility of temperament to all posterity. They bequeath dissatisfaction, unrest, misery to the world, for it is an undisputed fact that the children of unhappy couples are rarely rounded persons. So it is no light matter to choose a fitting mate.

The perpetuation of the race is one of the deep fundamental principles of marriage. It remains for each couple to see that their offering to this end is the best that they can possibly make. From the standpoint of the race, it is essential that only those who are fit should mate and give children to the future.

The majority of matings are haphazard. A young woman chooses a husband from among the men with whom she is thrown in contact. She cannot wait until she has seen and known all the available men. Too often she takes to the first one who pleases her. The economic independence of women will alleviate this slightly. A young woman no longer needs to marry in her earliest twenties. She can afford to wait. This gives her a better chance of selection. But even with necessity for marrying early removed, she knows little or nothing about the man she chooses. He is attentive, dances well, is amusing, so she marries him. She does not stop to consider his physical fitness to be the father of her children. Mere passion too often determines the matter. This is a thing that comes very easily, and on the crest of its urge, people marry. As easily it goes, when there is no fundamental compatibility behind it. Then marriage is wrecked. A young woman should not marry hastily, nor choose as a basis of this estate the momentary thrill of a kiss, nor the charm of a man’s dancing ability. We are not suggesting long tedious engagements, but as deep a knowledge of the man as is possible before the girl enters into matrimony with him.

_Eugenics._—The girl is confronted with the problem, What is the fitting mate? Her own inclinations should be the first guide, but when they have singled out a possible choice, she should bring common sense to their aid. In general, all persons turn to their opposites. This is right. Opposites in appearance and temperament are usually the most congenial. This does not mean violent contrasts. A man who cares nothing for the theater, dancing, social life should not pick a girl whose whole life is bound up in these. If a woman feels immense or insistent love for a man whom she knows is not a fit father for her children, she should either forget the desired mating or the children. Eugenics, or the choice of proper mates, is being more carefully studied from a scientific point of view, and will ultimately be invaluable, at least as far as procreation goes.

Eugenics is the science of improving the stock; of making the offspring as nearly perfect as possible. It has been practiced in the breeding of animals for a long time. Every farmer knows the value of having the best cattle he can obtain, and having them, of mating his cows with thoroughbred bulls. Yet people still shudder at the thought of applying its principles to the human race. Its formulator, Francis Galton, defined it as “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race.” He further explained this idea and expanded it, saying that the aim of eugenics is

to check the birthrate of the Unfit instead of allowing them
to come into being, though doomed in large numbers to perish
prematurely. The second object is the improvement of the race
by furthering productivity of the Fit, by early marriages and
healthful rearing of their children.

There is much to be said for and gainst the wholesale acceptance of this theory. In essence, it imperils the personal selection for marriage; and comes very close to being an officious attempt to interfere with human freedom. Yet, it is gaining ground in the world’s legislation. To the individual, it may seem to impose unnecessary hardships and restrictions; but that is not its aim.

Extreme advocates of eugenics say flatly that “we should rather bring the propagation of the race to the level of the stud-farm, than that it should go on in the old haphazard way which surely leads to catastrophe.” While we do not want science for domestic animals and chance for men, the average thinking person will reject this stringent proposal. But some middle course lies open. Legislation prohibiting certain matings would be obnoxious, but certain laws making health attractive would meet with approval. There are extreme cases when laws should act, not to prohibit mating, but child-bearing. If the state should believe that certain persons were absolutely unfit for parenting children, it is possible, by a simple operation, to insure them against this, without detriment to the health of either sex. There are times when this is highly desirable. Switzerland, in ten years, largely abolished a certain type of feeble-mindedness by this method. If science believes that such traits as feeble-mindedness, insanity, epilepsy, dipsomania and syphilis are inheritable in such proportions that prohibition of offspring should be required, such a law should be resorted to.

But, since such laws are not at present prevalent, it remains for each man and woman to choose wisely and healthily. If a young woman is certain that she cannot be happy without mating with a man who is consumptive, paralytic or inflicted with some other inheritable disease, she should enter upon the marriage with a firm will against giving birth to any children. This may seem a very harsh stricture, but if the young woman will stop to realize that having children by such an unfit father may carry on the disease in a worse form through her children or grandchildren, she will grant the wisdom of the plan. No woman wants deformed or unhealthy children. If she marries a man in such a condition, she does it open-eyed, but to go through the trials of child-birth for the sake of a life that will be marred by illness, is another matter. It is not only unfair to the parents, but brutally unfair to the child. If people would get over the idea that children owe all to their parents, and come to realize how much parents owe to their children, they would see the sense of such reasoning. After all, it is a great responsibility to bring a life into the world. Remember that the person for whose life you are responsible had no choice in the matter. You bring them here. It is up to you to see that they arrive in a not too happy world, equipped with every possible weapon to gain happiness. The children of unhealthy parents are unfairly handicapped from the start.

_The Future of Eugenics._—Certain scientists do not regard eugenics as simply as we have done. Bertrand Russell, in _Icarus_, is sure that eugenics will become universal.

This power will be used, at first to diminish imbecility, a
most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the
government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels
of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives,
dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end,
there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the
usual school examinations.

He believes that the result will increase the average intelligence, and decrease brilliance.

Viscount Haldane, considered by some as a greater scientist, and a more brilliant critic, indicates that eugenics may come in by a pleasanter though more startling route. By 1950, he anticipates the production of the first ectogenetic child, or child born from a womb withdrawn from the mother’s body for all of the embryonic period. By a simple operation, he prophesies that science will be able to remove an ovary from a woman, and keep it growing in a suitable fluid for as long as twenty years, producing a fresh ovum each month, of which 90 percent can be fertilized, the embryos grown successfully, for nine months, and then brought out into the air. Many nations will hail this movement because of the falling birthrate that they are at present suffering from. He believes that such an absolute separation of reproduction from love will make a deep and profound effect upon morality. It will be possible then for each generation to choose only the perfect parents to produce the coming generation. There is much to be said in favor of this amazing idea, and of course, a great deal to be said against it. But the ever-increasing growth of intelligence will ultimately wipe out the majority of the objections.

The foremost thinkers of today regard eugenics as a matter worthy of their discussion and serious consideration. We offer what science may suggest as possible solutions of the race problem. How the state and country may regard these discoveries is another and quite unpredictable matter. It is very probable that things will not advance as briskly as these two quoted scientists anticipate. Nor need we be too much concerned with the fate of 1950. It remains for each individual to give his and her consent to adequate eugenic protection. Greater happiness will result from a certainty that the parties to any marriage are fit for parenthood.

_Birth Control._—The chief reason why many people are against eugenics is that it demands birth control. Many religions denounce this practice, and in general the state is against it. No doctor is allowed to give advice on this subject.

The very persons who shudder and brand any passion as animal, regard promiscuous breeding as human. There is nothing more animal-like than being merely a vehicle for breeding purposes. Yet that, according to the laws of state and religion, is all that marriage is for.

This theory is expected to apply to the poor; it does not concern the rich. Artificial methods of preventing conception are widely known among those who could well afford to have children. In many localities it is a crime to furnish this information. A doctor, though he knows that the parents are unfit for parenthood, may not do anything to prevent the birth of a child. The poor, therefore, who have the greatest need for the information, cannot acquire it, in general.

Of course, any form of abortion, or killing the embryo after it has been conceived in the womb, can be said to resemble murder. But the prevention of conception is another matter. No actual life is being terminated; then one is merely being prevented for the good of all concerned. One cannot expect human beings to remain continually continent. This is unnatural and wrong, to say nothing of being harmful to the parties concerned. Ultimately, the stringent laws on this subject will be altered for the general good of present generations and those yet unborn.