"3. They are a source of physical decay and moral contamination, and thus menace the integrity of the entire social fabric."[77]
Society has long since admitted that it is desirable to restrict the reproduction of certain classes of gross defectives, and criminals, by the method of segregation. The ground for this is sometimes biological, perhaps more often legal, as in the case of the insane and criminal, where it is held that the individual is legally incapacitated from entering into a contract, such as that of marriage. It would be better to have the biological basis of restriction on marriage and reproduction recognized in every case; but even with the present point of view the desired end may be reached.
From an ethical standpoint, so few people would now contend that two feeble-minded or epileptic persons have any "right" to marry and perpetuate their kind, that it is hardly worth while to argue the point. We believe that the same logic would permit two individuals to marry, but deny them the privilege of having children. The reasons for this may be considered under three heads.
1. Biological. Are there cases in which persons may properly marry but may properly be prevented by society from having any offspring, on the ground that such offspring would be undesirable components of the race?
The right of marriage is commonly, and may well be properly, regarded as an inalienable right of the individual, in so far as it does not conflict with the interests of the race. The companionship of two persons between whom true love exists, is beyond all question the highest happiness possible, and one which society should desire and strive to give its every member. On that point there will be no difference of opinion, but when it is asked whether there can be a separation between the comradeship aspect and the reproduction aspect, in marriage, whether any interest of the race can justifiably divorce these two phases, often considered inseparable, protests are at once aroused. In these protests, there is some justice. We would be the last ones to deny that a marriage has failed to achieve its goal, has failed to realize for its participants the greatest possible happiness, unless it has resulted in sound offspring.
That word "sound" is the key to the distinction which must be made. The interests of the race demand sound offspring from every couple in a position to furnish them—not only in the interests of that couple,—interests the importance of which it is not easy to underestimate—but in the interests of the future of the race, whose welfare far transcends in importance the welfare of any one individual, or any pair of individuals. As surely as the race needs a constant supply of children of sound character, so surely is it harmed by a supply of children of inherently unsound character, physically or mentally, who may contribute others like themselves to the next generation. A recollection of the facts of heredity, and of the fact that the offspring of any individual tend to increase in geometric ratio, will supply adequate grounds for holding this conviction:—that from a biological point of view, every child of congenitally inferior character is a racial misfortune. The Spartans and other peoples of antiquity fully realized this fact, and acted on it by exposing deformed infants. Christianity properly revolted as such an action; but in repudiating the action, it lost sight of the principle back of the action. The principle should have been regarded, and civilized races are now coming back to a realization of that fact—are, indeed, realizing its weight far more fully than any other people has ever done, because of the growing realization of the importance of heredity. No one is likely seriously to argue again that deformed infants (whether their deformity be physical or mental) should be exposed to perish; but the argument that in the interests of the future of the race they would better not be born, is one that admits of no refutation.
From a biological point of view, then, it is to the interest of the race that the number of children who will be either defective themselves, or transmit anti-social defects to their offspring, should be as small as possible.
2. The humanitarian aspect of the case is no less strong and is likely, in the present state of public education, to move a larger number of individuals. A visit to the children's ward of any hospital, an acquaintance with the sensitive mother of a feeble-minded or deformed child, will go far to convince anyone that the sum total of human happiness, and the happiness of the parents, would be greater had these children never been born. As for the children themselves, they will in many cases grow up to regret that they were ever brought into the world. We do not overlook the occasional genius who may be crippled physically or even mentally; we are here dealing with only the extreme defectives, such as the feeble-minded, insane, and epileptic. Among such persons, human happiness would be promoted both now and in the future if the number of offspring were naught.
3. There is another argument which may legitimately be brought forward, and which may appeal to some who are relatively insensitive to the biological or even the humanitarian aspects of the case. This is the financial argument.
Except students of eugenics, few persons realize how staggering is the bill annually paid for the care of defectives. The amount which the state of New York expends yearly on the maintenance of its insane wards, is greater than it spends for any other purpose except education; and in a very few years, if its insane population continues to increase at the present rate, it will spend more on them than it does on the education of its normal children. The cost of institutional care for the socially inadequate is far from being all that these people cost the state; but those figures at least are not based on guesswork. The annual cost[78] of maintaining a feeble-minded ward of the state, in various commonwealths, is: