ilized and incapable of
bearing children, would be more prone to illicit intercourse, to adopt a
life of prostitution, and to spread venereal disease. It follows that
segregation would still be needed in the case of a very large proportion
of defectives, but, if they are segregated, sterilization is
unnecessary. On the other hand, there can be very little doubt that any
general adoption of sterilization would, in actual practice, lead to the
non-segregation of a large number of defectives who should be under care
and thus to an increase of the foul evils mentioned."

Having thus stated the arguments against sterilization the Committee
must now present the other side of the question.

In the first place, it is evident that, as far as the United States is
concerned, the extension of sterilization of the mentally defective has
received a grave set-back by reason of the declaration of the Supreme
Court of the United States that the laws in certain States permitting
sterilization are unconstitutional. This ruling, of course, does not
apply to New Zealand.

Further, opponents of sterilization ask to be shown its good results;
but obviously the results cannot emerge in one generation or in a
comparatively short space of time, but only in the ultimate lessening of
the proportion of mental defectives in the community by diminishing the
hereditary supply.

There is no doubt also that much confusion exists in the minds of the
public as to the meaning of sterilization and desexualization or
castration. The process of sterilization, as has been shown, involves
only a simple and safe operation and has the sole effect of preventing
reproduction. Sterilization, therefore, should not be loaded with the
objections which apply to the far-reaching effects of castration. The
former, unlike the latter, is not prone to produce harmful effects upon
the mind or morals of the sterilized individual.

The assertion that "sterilization at the present time is not a practical
proposition" is difficult to understand. It is certainly practicable,
and is as likely to be favoured as opposed by public opinion, especially
that section of the public that understands the difference between
simple sterilization and desexualization. As regards the suggestion that
sterilization may lead to new foci of venereal disease, it must be borne
in mind that the unsterilized feeble-minded are already prone to sexual
promiscuity, and there is no evidence that sterili