FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201  
202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   >>   >|  
ysgenic grounds of chronic inebriety, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, insanity or any other serious inheritable physical, mental or moral defect. This view of the eugenic value of divorce should not be construed as a plea for the admission of mutual consent as a ground for divorce. It is desirable, however, to realize that mismating is the real evil. Divorce in such cases is merely a cure for an improper condition. Social condemnation should stigmatize the wrong of mismating, not the undoing of such a wrong. Restrictions on age at marriage are almost universal. The object is to prevent too early marriages. The objections which are commonly urged against early marriage (in so far as they bear upon eugenics) are the following: 1. That it results in inferior offspring. This objection is not well supported except possibly in the most extreme cases. Physically, there is evidence that the younger parents on the whole bear the sounder children. 2. That a postponement of marriage provides the opportunity for better sexual selection. This is a valid ground for discouraging the marriage of minors. 3. The better educated classes are obliged to marry late, because a man usually can not marry until he has finished his education and established himself in business. A fair amount of restriction as to age at marriage will therefore not affect these classes, but may affect the uneducated classes. In so far as lack of education is correlated with eugenic inferiority, some restriction of this sort is desirable, because it will keep inferiors from reproducing too rapidly, as compared with the superior elements of the population. While the widespread rule that men should not marry under 21 and women under 18 has some justification, then, an ideal law would permit exceptions where there was adequate income and good mating. Laws to prohibit or restrict consanguineous marriages fall within the scope of this chapter, in so far as they are not based on dogma alone, since their aim is popularly supposed to be to prevent marriages that will result in undesirable offspring. Examining the laws of all the United States, C. B. Davenport[91] found the following classes excluded from marriage: 1. Sibs (i.e., full brothers and sisters) in all states, and half sibs in most states. 2. Parent and child in all states, and parent and grandchild in all states except Pennsylvania. 3. Child and parent's sibs (i.e., niece and uncle, nephew an
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201  
202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

marriage

 

classes

 
states
 

marriages

 

restriction

 

affect

 

prevent

 

education

 

offspring

 

parent


mismating

 
divorce
 
eugenic
 

ground

 
desirable
 
brothers
 

elements

 

superior

 

population

 

sisters


justification

 

widespread

 

compared

 

rapidly

 

correlated

 

nephew

 

uneducated

 

inferiority

 

inferiors

 
Parent

reproducing

 

Pennsylvania

 
grandchild
 

permit

 

United

 
chapter
 

States

 
consanguineous
 

supposed

 
Examining

undesirable

 

result

 

restrict

 
adequate
 

income

 

exceptions

 
popularly
 

prohibit

 

Davenport

 
mating