Tag: father

  • Commemorating Smallpox Eradication – a legacy of hope, for COVID-19 and other diseases

    On 8 May 1980, the 33rd World Health Assembly officially declared: ‘The world and all its peoples have won freedom from smallpox.’ 

    The declaration marked the end of a disease that had plagued humanity for at least 3 000 years, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone.

     

    It was ended, thanks to a 10-year global effort, spearheaded by the World Health Organization, that involved thousands of health workers around the world to administer half a billion vaccinations to stamp out smallpox.

    The US$ 300m price-tag to eradicate smallpox saves the world well over US$ 1 billion every year since 1980.

    Speaking at a virtual event hosted at WHO-HQ, involving key players in the eradication effort, WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “As the world confronts the COVID-19 pandemic, humanity’s victory over smallpox is a reminder of what is possible when nations come together to fight a common health threat.”

    The world got rid of smallpox thanks to an incredible demonstration of global solidarity, and because it had a safe and effective vaccine. Solidarity plus science equalled solution!

     

    Dr Tedros highlighted that smallpox eradication also offers hope for efforts to eliminate other infectious diseases, including polio, which is now endemic in just two countries. To date, 187 countries, territories and areas have been certified free of Guinea worm disease, with seven more to go. And the fight against malaria has so far resulted in 38 countries and territories certified as malaria-free. In the case of Tuberculosis (TB), 57 countries and territories with low TB incidence are on track to reach TB elimination.

    At the event, Dr Tedros unveiled a commemorative postal stamp to recognize the global solidarity that drove the initiative and honour the efforts of health workers who ensured its success.

    The stamp, developed by the United Nations Postal Administration (UNPA), in collaboration with WHO, signifies what national unity and global solidary can achieve. Numerous countries, such as Guinea, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Togo and others issued smallpox stamps to show support for, and raise awareness about WHO’s Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme launched in 1967.

    WHO Regional Director for Africa, Dr Matshidiso Moeti’s earliest memories of smallpox is of her father. “I was visiting WHO headquarters, and I saw a photo of my Dad, standing with the other experts on the Global Commission. I remember him going out, doing follow-up visits with patients.  He often would go with a driver and disappear into the bush for days. I felt in awe of his tireless work. The strategies used to eradicate smallpox still apply today.”

     

    “Lessons learned from smallpox are used today to respond to disease outbreaks. For example, house-to-house active case-finding underpins the polio eradication programme, and ring vaccination of contacts is helping to combat the spread of the Ebola virus disease. Similarly, surveillance, case-finding, testing, contact-tracing, quarantine, and communication campaigns to dispel misinformation are central to controlling COVID-19, “ explained David Heymann, Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and  Distinguished Fellow, Global Health Security at Chatham House, London.

    Following smallpox eradication, WHO and UNICEF launched the Expanded Programme on Immunization, under which 85% of the world’s children are vaccinated and protected from debilitating diseases.

    With the potential of a COVID-19 vaccine ahead, ensuring sufficient supplies and reaching people in hard to reach places is a high priority. Addressing vaccine hesitancy poses a significant challenge to stop the virus. Access to accurate public health information and education is critical to ensure that the public has the facts to keep themselves and others safe.

    To permanently commemorate the eradication of smallpox and the lessons learned on a global scale, rather than every 10-years, WHO is calling museums, exhibition companies, designers, curators and associations to develop an immersive, interactive and educational exhibition on smallpox and its relevance for COVID-19 and global health security.  The exhibition, which will be unveiled later this year, will promote a better understanding of public health and empower people to keep informed and safe during a pandemic.

    Notes to the media

    Smallpox stamp

    The smallpox stamp is in the denomination of CHF 1,70. It was designed by Sergio Baradat (United Nations) in collaboration with the World Health Organization and is available for purchase at unstamps.org. The stamp can be used to mail postcards and letters around the world, provided that they are sent from the UN headquarters in New York, Geneva or Vienna respectively.

     

    Smallpox Eradication dates

    On 9 December 1979, a global commission certified that smallpox had been eradicated, and this certification was officially accepted by the 33rd World Health Assembly in 1980.

    Museum Exhibition

    Exhibition design companies, museums, curators and other companies/organizations in this field are invited to express their interest to develop an immersive, educational exhibition on smallpox and its relevance for COVID-19 and global health security by writing to privatesectorpartners@who.int

    Read More
    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08-05-2020-commemorating-smallpox-eradication-a-legacy-of-hope-for-covid-19-and-other-diseases

    Views: 0

  • THE SECOND STORY—BABY OYSTERS AND FISH

    The story of baby oysters.—Before telling this story to my little girls I reviewed the story of the plants. This refreshed in their minds certain very important laws that they had learned in the first talk. This talk was given when they were about six and eight years old.

    In studying the story of life among the plants, you will remember that we learned that in most plants the male and female organs of sex were in the same flower. Among the lower forms of animal life, we find both the male and female natures in the same animal. The oyster furnishes a good example. These little animals are surrounded with and fastened to a very hard and heavy shell. These animals live in great masses and their shells are cemented together. Growing in this way they cannot move about, or mix and mingle with each other. The mother parts of the oyster produce little eggs which are fertilized by a substance formed by other organs containing the father nature. The fertilized egg, when laid, floats off and becomes attached to the shell of some oyster on a nearby rock.{ Later, it hatches and the little baby oyster forms about its body a hard shell that is made larger as the little animal grows. In this way the little oysters come into the world. Among the oysters, we find the same laws that we found in the plants, i. e., each baby oyster must have a father and mother and the father and mother natures must unite. In the plants the father and mother natures unite in a little seed; in the oyster this union takes place in a little egg.

    When God made the fish, lizards, snakes, birds and higher animals, he gave to one a papa or male nature, with suitable sexual organs; to another animal of the same kind he gave a mamma or female nature, with suitable female or sexual organs. In the plants we find that the female sexual organs, the ovaries, produced little seed. We found that the male sexual organs, the stamens, produced a fine powdery substance called pollen. Among the animals, the sexual organs of the mother produces little eggs and the sexual organs of the father produces a fluid called semen.

    The story of baby fish.—Now we will study the fish. In the spring season of the year thousands of tiny eggs are formed in the ovaries of the mother fish. When these eggs are matured, the mother fishes swim in large crowds, called “schools,” from the deep water of a stream, river or sea to some shallow place that seems to them to be suitable for a nest or home for their young. The mother fishes lay their eggs in a mass of albuminous substance, like the white of an egg, that spreads out in a very thin sheet holding the little eggs one in a place and close together. The father fishes swim along sometimes a foot, a yard or more behind the mothers and expel from their bodies the semen that unites with and fertilizes the eggs. This special fluid of the male fish is formed by his sexual glands, called testes. In this way the father nature unites with the mother nature to produce every little fish that comes into this world.

    Why the mother fish lays so many eggs.—The female fish forms thousands of these little eggs in her body each year. The female codfish has been known to lay as many as 6,000,000 eggs in one season. You could not count as many in a lifetime. The reason why the mother fish produces so many eggs is, that not one fish egg in twenty-five, on an average, will ever hatch and not more than one out of twenty-five little fishes ever grow to be an inch long. They have little, or no, protection, and they have so many enemies. There are hogs, turtles, crocodiles and alligators; the ducks, geese and other water fowls; as well as most of the fish that feed upon fish eggs and small fish. That the streams, rivers and seas may be kept supplied with an abundance of fish, God has planned for the mother fish to lay thousands of eggs.{

    All baby fish are orphans.—Most kinds of fish leave their eggs as soon as they are laid and fertilized and never see or know their young. There are a few male fish, known as game fish, which swim over and around the eggs until they are hatched to keep other kinds of fish from eating the eggs. As soon as the eggs are hatched, he leaves. In this way all little fish grow up as orphans. They never know or enjoy the presence of their parents. The parent fish do not labor or sacrifice for their young, and, for this reason, they have no love for them. Should they ever meet their young in the river or sea they would have no way of knowing them or of feeling any sense of joy.

    Fish do not pair off.—We found in the study of the plants that the seed were fertilized while in the pod or ovary. In the fish we found that the eggs are fertilized outside of the mother’s body. In nearly all the animals above the fish the eggs or ova are fertilized while in the mother’s body. There is no love between the male and the female fish. They do not pair off and live in families. Among all the spiders, lizards, serpents, many of the insects, crawfish, frogs and toads there is a tendency, at certain seasons, for the male to choose a female with a view to a home and family. But among all the animals we have named, many of the male and female animals part or leave each other as soon as the eggs are fertilized, and all{ the others leave each other as soon as the eggs are hatched. The love of the male for the female lasts but for a little time; while there is no love for their young after they are hatched. Before the young are hatched some of their parents show interest in their eggs and make some provisions for their young when hatched. But this is all done before the young are hatched. The young all grow up as little orphans.

    Extract from EBook of Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction, by T. W. Shannon

    Views: 0

  • THE FIRST STORY—BABY PLANTS

    The author’s experience.—When our girls, Fay and Fern, were six and four years of age, they became interested in learning about their coming into the world. Their mamma had told me of their puzzling questions. We agreed that I should tell them a story of life, every six months or a year, until they were nine or ten. Then their mamma should tell them the last story, the story of their life.

    A few days later some young men, whom we were helping through college, and I were working among the flowers, when one of the girls made some inquiry about the relation of birds. This naturally opened the way for my first talk. I promised her and her sister a very interesting story at the rest hour at noon. As ever, they were both anxious to hear a new story. Dinner over, they followed me into the greenhouse. I gathered a number of flowers and invited them to be seated near me while I told them the story.

    Praise a child for asking.—I opened the story by saying, “Mamma tells me that you have become interested in knowing where you were before you were born and how you got into this world. We have talked together about your interest in this matter and we are glad that you have asked these questions, and especially because you came first to us. For you to ask these questions so early in life indicates that you are very bright and intelligent. We are your natural teachers. We love you as no one else does or can. In the future, anything you wish to know about yourselves, come to us and we will take pleasure in telling you all that is best for you to know.”

    Why the child should be told gradually.—You would like to be able to read and understand all there is in the fourth reader. There is nothing in the fourth reader that could do you a particle of harm. There are many things in the fourth reader that you could not understand. Papa and mamma might read and try to explain them to you. Still, there would be some things that we could not make plain to you, for the reason that you are not old enough for your little minds to grasp them. You understand that you must learn first what there is in the first reader. When you have learned all there is in it, then you are ready for the second reader. The mastery of the second reader prepares you for the third and the third reader prepares you for the fourth. There are some things that you understand to-day, that you could not understand six months ago. This great world is full of things that you cannot understand now; but, as you grow older and your mind grows stronger, step by step, you will learn and understand things that you cannot understand now. There are so many things in this world that may be known, that no one lives long enough to learn them all. Just so, you would like to know how God brings little children into this world. This is God’s wonderful plan. It could not do you a bit of harm to know all about it, if you could understand it. But you are not old enough now. Papa can tell you a beautiful story about how God brings all the little sprigs of grass, weeds, vegetables and trees into the world now, and in a few months I can tell you about the mussels, oysters and fish. Then, when you are a year older, I will tell you about the birds; later, I will tell you about the higher animals. When you are eight or ten, mamma will tell you the last story—God’s beautiful plan of bringing little children into the home.

    Some things right one time and wrong at another.—You are both old enough to know that there are some things we do that is right for us to do under certain conditions, but would be very wrong for us to do under other conditions. Some things would be right to do during the week, but wrong if done on Sunday. Every few days you take an all-over bath. It is perfectly right for you to take these baths and for your mamma to help you. All people, who desire to live cleanly lives and enjoy good health, take frequent all-over baths. But you have noticed that when you take baths, other people are not invited to be present, not even papa is present. This is because our bodies are sacred. We wear clothing that our bodies may not be exposed to the gaze of other people.

    We do not speak the name of God and Jesus in a light and frivolous way because these names are sacred.

    Why we do not talk about the origin of life.—One of the most delicate, pure and sacred experiences connected with human life is God’s beautiful plan of bringing little children into the home. It is so sacred, pure and delicate that good people seldom speak of it, and never in a light and foolish way. It is for this reason that you have never heard your mamma and papa speak of it. It is right for fathers and mothers, husbands and wives to speak to each other about this matter; also, for grown people, when there is some good reason for doing so. It is not wise or best for little children to talk about how children come into the world except to their parents. We are your natural teachers and we want you always to feel free to come to us with questions about things of this nature. When you are older you will understand better why papa gives you this advice.

    Many men and women, boys and girls have not been carefully trained to be good. They get angry and quarrel or fight, use bad language, break the Sabbath, and do many other wrong things. Some appear to take pleasure in doing wrong and in leading others to do wrong. This class of people do not look upon God’s plan of bringing little children into the world as being pure and sacred. They use very bad language when they try to talk about the story of life or tell it to others. When little children hear these people talk about the story of life, their little minds and hearts are filled with bad words and very wicked thoughts. In this way many little boys and girls are started wrong in life and they are sure to have a hard and painful struggle to rid themselves of impure thoughts, words and habits in after life.

    It may not be very long until some schoolmate or someone older than you will say, “I know something that you don’t. You would like to know it and I will tell you, if you will not tell your papa and mamma about it.” Now, girls, whenever someone wants to tell you something and asks you not to tell your mamma and papa, you may be sure that it is wrong, that it will injure you, and most likely it is false. Mamma and papa would advise you to say to them, “We don’t want to hear anything that we cannot talk about to mamma and papa.”{

    Story of the plants.—The story of life that papa will tell you to-day will be about the plants, vegetables and trees, how their young come into the world. Papa has gathered some beautiful flowers with which to illustrate the story. This will be our first lesson in Botany. Every part of a plant has special names. Many of the names are too difficult for you to remember. When you get older you will learn and remember the names. The story of life in all flowering plants begins in the flower.

    The outer parts.—At sight, we notice that the many parts of a flower are arranged in whorls or circles. The outer whorl is called the (1) calix. You will notice that in some of these flowers, the calix is highly colored, in others it looks like little green leaves and in some of the flowers the calix is absent. You will observe that in some flowers the calix is composed of four or more parts. These separate parts are called (2) sepals. In other flowers the sepals have grown together so they appear to be only one sepal. In such flowers we count the sepals by the small notches on top.

    The second whorl is called the (3) corolla. This whorl is usually the most highly colored part of the flower. If either of these whorls is absent in a flower, it is the calix. Sometimes both whorls are absent. The separate parts of the corolla are called (4) petals. Sometimes the petals are separate from the base of the flower. In other flowers they are more or less united.

    The papa parts.—While the calix and corolla form the most attractive and beautiful parts, they are not the most important parts of a flower. The prettiest things are not always the best or most useful things. Let us now carefully examine these central organs. They are called the essential organs. Were it not for these organs in the flowers, no new grasses, plants, vegetables and trees would come into this world. Such a misfortune would rob this world of most of its beauty and much of its value. In this flower, the next whorl consists of a number of small slender organs. These are called (5) stamens. They are the father parts of the flower and possess the father nature. On top of these organs are little delicate bodies, poised lightly, and filled with a very fine dust. These little bodies are called (6) anthers. The fine grains of powder are called pollen. You can rub the pollen off with your finger. This dust varies slightly in color in different flowers.

    The mamma parts.—The central organ in this flower is called the pistil. The pistil is composed of three parts. At the base of the pistil is the (7) pod, more correctly called the ovary. In the ovary little seed are formed. On top of the ovary is a slender organ called the style. On top of the style is a spongy enlargement called the (9) stigma. The stigma, style and ovary form the mother part of the flower and possess the mother nature. In some plants each flower has more than one pistil.

    How the papa and mamma natures unite.—When the pollen is ripe, the anther cells burst open and the little, light, powdery pollen falls out and it is carried by gravity, the wind or by insects to the stigma. The little pores of the stigma open and admit the grains of pollen and the style carries the pollen to the ovary where it unites with the little seed. The seed are then said to be fertilized. This means that the father and mother natures have united in the seed. The seed grow and develop in the ovary. While this is being done, food for the little baby plants to live on while only a day or two old, is being stored up in the seed. In such seed is the tiny beginning of a future plant. The seed ripen in the pod. The pod bursts open and the seed fall upon the ground, or men gather them, and later plant them in the soil. The spring sunshine and rain cause the seed to sprout and as tiny stems appear above the ground, only an inch or so high, they are nothing in the world but little baby sprigs of grass, little baby weeds, little baby vegetables or little baby trees.

    When God created the first grasses, plants and trees, He commanded them to be “fruitful and multiply.” In this story you have learned how all the grown-up plants and trees obey this command of God.

    The two natures do not always exist in the same flower.—In the flowers we have studied, we found both the male and female organs in the same flower. Each flower possessed the two natures, male and female. But this is not true of all plants and trees. In some plants and trees flowers can be found having only stamens. These would be father-flowers. They could not produce seed or fruit. On some plants and trees may be found flowers having only pistils. These are mother-flowers. Flowers of these two kinds may be found growing on the same limb of a plant or tree, or on different limbs, or on different trees. The poplar and willow trees are examples of the last kind.

    In the case of the Indian corn, the ear of corn, including the cob, the grains, shuck and silk form the mother part of the cornstalk. The tassel of the cornstalk is the father part and contains the father nature. The tassel produces a great deal of pollen. You have, on passing through a patch of corn, noticed the pollen falling everywhere and covering everything. Ears of corn sometimes have as many as 1000 grains of corn to the cob. Each grain sends out one or more little silks beyond the shuck to catch some of the pollen. Should these little silks fail to catch the grains of pollen, no grains of corn would form on the cob. The father and mother natures must unite if little seed are formed. From this we learn why it is that every little sprig of grass, weed, vegetable, and tree must have a father and mother and their natures must unite.

    The three methods.—We mentioned three ways by which the pollen from the male organs is carried to the stigma of the female organ: wind, gravity and insects. In the corn, the ears are below the tassel and gravity is all that is necessary to carry the pollen to the silks. Where one tree bears bloom having only stamens and another tree of the same species bears flowers having only pistils, nature may use both the wind and insects in carrying the pollen from the male to the female tree. In some plants and trees the blooms are so constructed that gravity and the wind are of but little service. In such flowers a sweet juice is formed at the base of the flower. This attracts the bees and insects. As they press down into the flower to sip the sweet juice they rub off some of the pollen on to their wings, legs and back. The next flower they enter, some of this pollen is rubbed off on the stigma of that flower. In this way the seed are fertilized. From this we see that the real purpose of the sweet juice in the flower, is not produced for food for the insects, but for the purpose of attracting the insects so they may carry the pollen from one flower to another.

    A most wise, sacred and beautiful plan.—In this little story, you have learned in a general way God’s plan of bringing all little grasses, plants, vegetables and trees into being that come from a seed. You have learned two great laws, namely; every plant that comes from a seed must have a father and mother, and, the father and mother natures must unite in the seed. These two great laws are just as true in the animals and in the human family as among the plants. When we most admire a beautiful bed of flowers or a blooming tree, when we gather a bouquet of flowers to wear, or offer to a friend, at that very moment the two natures are uniting for the purpose of increasing their kind. God is the author of the male and female organs of the plants and for this reason the union of their two natures is sacred and pure. Plants were the first living things that God made; man was the last. The plants were at the bottom of God’s work of creation; man was at the top. If the same laws we have found in the plants, that enable them to bring their little children into the world, are the same laws that enable human fathers and mothers to bring their little children into the world, and since we found this plan to be sacred and pure among all the flowers; then this same plan, when used in the human family, must be pure and sacred. If man is so much higher in the scale of life than the flower, then these laws must be even more sacred in the human family. This will show you how very degrading it is to entertain low and vulgar thoughts about the coming of little children into this world, as some people do.

    Extract from EBook of Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction, by T. W. Shannon

    Views: 0

  • THE GIRL’S RELATION TO THE HOME

    The girl in the home is a member of the partnership plan of the family. She should have the same financial, social and moral rights of her brother. Her moral training should be no better than his. If she is properly trained in the home, her services are as valuable as her brother’s and she should have the same financial rights.

    The girl and her father.—The father, if worthy of being such, should have the confidence, respect and love of his daughter. She should feel free to approach him with her wishes and her problems. His advice and council will be of great value to her in her social relation with young men. Many girls fail to show themselves interested in their father. Girls should be attentive, kind and loving in their relations to their father.

    The girl and her mother.—A mother should not forget the experience of her girlhood. Though busy and burdened with many cares, she should take time to talk, often and intimately, with her daughter, of her own girlhood, her own temptations, her own experiences in the various vicissitudes of life. By wisely cultivating the relation of a sympathetic companionship, the mother can often bridge her daughter over that period of adolescence, when many girls come to regard their mothers as “old fogies.” This is a stage of growth in a girl’s life. It usually occurs when they are in the high school. They openly and unkindly criticise their mother’s dress, speech, advice, council and religion. This is a period of development that girls pass through. The right relation between the girl and her mother would save the mother from many tears and heartaches and the girl from many regretful memories of misconception and blindness.

    Fortunate, is the girl, who has never had an attack of “high school snobbery,” who has never spoken lightly of the imaginary deficiencies of mother; but, who has always found it a joy to divide gifts with mother, to hand her the prettiest rose and to read her a choice story.

    The girl and her brother.—Girls do not always appreciate the influence they are exerting over their brothers. A boy’s estimate of woman is often received from his sister’s influence. A sister has it largely in her power to make her brother gentle, true and pure. She can make home attractive and pleasant for him and thus save her brother from seeking pleasures in questionable places and ways. Brothers and


    Chums in the Home

    Chums in the Home

    sisters should grow up together, be educated together, play together and, as far as possible, help each other. Their joys and sorrows, aims and purposes should be mutual. Her lack of physical strength, her natural tastes and aspirations, her duties and mission in life, being in many respects different from her brother, require a line of preparation unlike her brother receives.

    Her first and most valuable training.—Marriage is not the only goal toward which a young woman may turn, but it is the most natural, important and worthy. Most all girls look forward to marriage as a possible and desirable goal. Perhaps no woman would refuse marriage, if the right man should propose. It is for this reason that every girl should prepare herself thoroughly to be a housekeeper, a wife and a mother. This should be her first and most thorough training. She should not rest satisfied until she has learned every phase of how to keep house, to care for the wants of small children and to manage hired help. This training should begin in childhood. A girl should be able to dress herself and to keep her own room by the time she is ten years old. Whatever may be her career in life, she will always be the better off because she is a good housekeeper. She may not have to be a housekeeper, for she may have servants, still she is all the better off, as she will understand how to manage the servants.

    The independent girl.—In addition to having prepared herself for a housekeeper, a wife and a mother, she should now prepare herself for some vocation in life. The right man may not present himself, she may be called upon to support an aged mother or father, or an invalid husband, and she will need to know how to earn a living. A girl, unprepared to support herself, waiting year after year for some man to come and marry her, is an object of profound pity. If the right man comes along and marries her, all is well. But she often marries the wrong fellow, or waits for many weary years and yet, he never comes. A generation ago few opportunities of earning a support were open to a girl. Conditions have changed, woman’s ideals have grown and the world offers her other vocations than housekeeping, wifehood and motherhood, and unless these come in very attractive form she can choose the vocation of art, music, teaching, stenography, book-keeping or some other calling. By the time she is eighteen, a girl should be able to keep a house or earn a living in some business way. This will give her an assurance of independence. Regardless of the wealth of her parents, she should have these two qualifications. If her parents are poor and she is ambitious, she can now work her way through college, if she desires.

    If the morals of a girl have been properly safeguarded by her mother’s training and teaching, the independent girl is little more likely to fall than the girl who remains at home and waits for a husband.

    The independent girl who goes out into the world with her brother, shoulders the same burdens, wrestles with the same problems, fights the same battles and overcomes the same difficulties, will meet a better class of men than those who would likely seek her out in her home. She is more likely to be happily married, than if she remained at home. She is now better fitted to be a housekeeper, wife and mother, than if she had remained at home. She has learned how to produce a dollar, she now knows the value of it and how, wisely, to spend it.


    Mother’s Responsibility.

    Mother’s Responsibility.

    Extract from EBook of Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction, by T. W. Shannon

    Views: 0

  • THE FATHER’S RELATION TO THE HOME

    The father is the head of the home.—The character of the home determines the character of the church, society and the nation. The home is the most important of all earthly institutions. The problems of society, the church and the nation, if ever solved, must be largely solved in the home. The home is both a civil and divine institution. Civil and divine law place the husband and father at the head of the home. No teacher sustains a more vital relation toeacher sustains a more vital relation to society, no minister to his congregation, no king to his empire, or president to his republic, than does the conscientious father, who does his best to build an ideal home. He is truly serving God and his country, in the highest sense. In the work of building a home, he is serving society and the church in a higher sense than he would be, were he neglecting his family, by writing books, teaching school, delivering lectures or preaching sermons.

    His relation to his wife.—The relation of husband and wife is a partnership affair. In every sense they are equal partners. Their rights and privileges are equal. Their part in building a home is not, in all respects, the same. The service of one is as important as the other. Neither can build a home without the other. Their service is incomparable.

    He is to furnish financial support.—Nature has fitted man mentally and physically for devising means of earning a support for his family. Whatever occupation, calling or profession he may engage in, he should put forth the best effort of which he is capable to produce an income that will support his family decently.

    The amount of money he can furnish his wife, will depend upon his earnings. They should talk over this matter as partners. One has as much right to the income as the other. They should not spend more than is produced. If the income is small, both should economize. They should endeavor to save something each year, even if the income is small. Money is stored-up human energy. If the income is large, they should be more liberal in the use of it, but it is always a sin to waste money. The husband has no right to cause his wife to beg him for money, to meet her personal expenses or the expenses of the children. The money is not exclusively his own. Home building is a partnership in which every member of the home is interested in every dollar produced. Legally the father may spend his money on his selfish indulgences. Morally{ he has no right to spend the home company money in a way that will not benefit each member of the home. For a father to annually spend fifty or more dollars on tobacco or drink and refuse corresponding amounts to his wife and children to be spent needlessly by them, is as dishonest, as for a member of a firm, or the president of a bank to misappropriate the funds of a partner or a depositor.

    He is to furnish moral support.—For a man to build a reputation for honesty, truthfulness, sobriety and virtue and to possess a good character are of more value to his wife and children, as a home builder, than to be able to produce large earnings and to be free with the same. When a man assumes the responsibility of building a home, his family have a right to demand of him honesty, integrity, sobriety and virtue. He has no more right to rob them of one than the other.

    He is to love his wife.—While the romance of courtship and the honeymoon cannot be continued for life, yet he should always show her a deep respect, a manly courtesy, a true love and absolute loyalty to his marriage vow.

    The relation of the father to his children.—Each child born into the home is a new member added to the partnership. The children have financial, social and moral rights that should be respected by the parents. While civil law and God place the father at the head of the home, this does not give him special rights and privileges, or constitute him a boss or ruler, but he should so conduct himself that the family will regard him as their protector, supporter and adviser. He should not swear, tell vulgar stories, use tobacco or indulge in strong drink unless he is willing for each member of his family to follow his example. As partners in the home, they have the same moral rights as himself. He should be to his children a chum, a friend, a companion. He should constantly endeavor to make the children happy. There are times, in the home, when the father’s decision must be law. He must support his family. The law holds him responsible for their support and for their deportment as citizens. As long as they are under age, if they contract a debt or damage property, the law holds the father responsible. This responsibility makes it necessary for him to decide some things, in a way that a child may not wish to coincide. This should be done in a dignified and pleasant way.

    The father should never allow himself to become angry or to use hasty and abusive language in correcting a child. If he does, he demonstrates his own weakness and inability to be a real father. Punishment of some natural kind is sometimes necessary, but corporal punishment, as a rule, is brutal.

    The father should so conduct himself as to command the respect, reverence and love of his children. He should be sociable and gentle, as well as dignified and strong. He should have their complete confidence, so they will come to him with their problems and troubles. The sacred service of a true father in the home, can only be equaled by the service of the mother. The fathers who toil long and late, study and strive to support, educate and train a family of children to become good citizens and devoted Christians, will receive a rich reward here and a royal welcome yonder.

    Extract from EBook of Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction, by T. W. Shannon

    Views: 0

  • EUGENICS AND CHARACTER

    EUGENICS AND CHARACTER

    The rapidly growing interest in Eugenics, and the scientific consideration of the world-wide decline in the birth-rate have drawn attention to the study of the eugenic factors which determine the production of high ability in offspring. Many distinguished investigators have conducted long and exhaustive investigations for the purpose of ascertaining and summarizing all possible biological data concerning the parentage and birth of the most notable persons born in European countries, and to a lesser extent in America.

    The investigations are now acquiring a fresh importance, because, while it is becoming recognized that we are gaining a control over the conditions of birth, the production of children has itself gained an importance. The world is no longer to be bombarded by an exuberant stream of babies, good, bad, and indifferent in quality, with mankind to look on calmly at the struggle for existence among them. Whether we like it or not, the quantity is steadily diminishing, and the question of quality is beginning to assume a supreme significance. The question then is being anxiously asked: “What are the conditions which assure the finest quality in our children?”

    A German scientist, Dr. Vaerting, of Berlin, published just before the War a treatise on the subject of the most favorable age in parents for the production of offspring of ability. He treated the question in an entirely new spirit, not merely as a matter of academic discussion, but rather as a practical matter of vital importance to the welfare of modern society. He starts by asserting that “our century has been called the century of the child,” and that for the child all manner of rights are now being claimed. But, he wisely adds, there is seldom considered the prime right of all the child’s rights, i. e., the right of the child to the best ability and capacity for efficiency that his parents are able to transmit to him. The good doctor adds that this right is the root of all children’s rights; and that when the mysteries of procreation have been so far revealed as to enable this right to be won, we shall, at the same time renew the spiritual aspect of the nations.

    The writer referred to decided that the most easily ascertainable and measurable factor in the production of ability, and efficiency in offspring, and a factor of the greatest significance, is the age of the parents at the child’s birth. He investigated a number of cases of men of ability and efficiency, along these lines, and made a careful summary of his results. Some of his results are somewhat startling, and may possibly require the corroboration of other investigators before they can be accepted as authoritative; but they are worthy of being carefully considered at the present time, pending such further investigation.

    Vaerting found that the fathers who were themselves not notably intellectual have a decidedly more prolonged power of procreating distinguished children than is possessed by distinguished fathers. The former may become the fathers of eminent children from the period of sexual maturity up to the age of forty-three or beyond. When, however, the father is himself of high intellectual distinction, the records show that he was nearly always under thirty, and usually under twenty-five years of age at the time of the birth of his distinguished son, although the proportion of youthful fathers in the general population is relatively small. The eleven youngest fathers on Vaerting’s list, from twenty-one to twenty-five years of age, were with one exception themselves more or less distinguished; while the fifteen oldest, from thirty-nine to sixty years of age, were all without exception undistinguished.

    Among the sons on the latter list are to be found much greater names (such as Goethe, Bach, Kant, Bismarck, Wagner, etc.) than are to be found among the sons of young and more distinguished fathers, for here is only one name (Frederick the Great) of the same caliber. The elderly fathers belonged to the large cities, and were mostly married to wives very much younger than themselves. Vaerting notes that the most eminent men have frequently been the sons of fathers who were not engaged in intellectual avocations at all, but earned their living as humble craftsmen. He draws the conclusion from these data that strenuous intellectual energy is much more unfavorable than hard physical labor to the production of marked ability in the offspring. Intellectual workers, therefore, he argues, must have their children when young, and we must so modify our social ideals and economic conditions as to render this possible.

    Vaerting, however, holds that the mother need not be equally young; he finds some superiority, indeed, provided the father is young, in somewhat elderly mothers, and there were no mothers under twenty-three on the list. The rarity of genius among the offspring of distinguished parents he attributes to the unfortunate tendency to marry too late; and he finds that the distinguished men who marry late rarely have any children at all. Speaking generally, and apart from the production of genius, he holds that women have children too early, before their psychic development is completed, while men have children too late, when they have already “in the years of their highest psychic generative fitness planted their most precious seed in the mud of the street.”

    The eldest child was found to have by far the best chance of turning out distinguished, and in this fact Vaerting finds further proof of his argument. The third son has the next best chance, and then the second, the comparatively bad position of the second being attributed to the too brief interval which often follows the birth of the first child. He also notes that of all the professions the clergy come beyond comparison first as the parents of distinguished sons (who are, however, rarely of the highest degree of eminence), lawyers following, while officers in the army and physicians scarcely figure at all. Vaerting is inclined to see in this order, especially in the predominance of the clergy, the favorable influence of an unexhausted reserve of energy and a habit of chastity on intellectual procreativeness.

    It should be remembered, however, that Vaerting’s cases on his list were all those of Germans, and, therefore, the influence of the characteristic social customs and conditions of the German people must be taken into account in the consideration.

    Havelock Ellis in his well known work “Study of British Genius” dealt on a still larger scale, and with a somewhat more precise method, with many of the same questions as illustrated by British cases. After the publication of Vaerting’s work, Ellis re-examined his cases, and rearranged his data. His results, like those of the German authority, showed a special tendency for genius to appear in the eldest child, though there was no indication of notably early marriage in the parents. He also found a similar predominance of the clergy among the fathers, and a similar deficiency of army officers and physicians.

    Ellis found that the most frequent age of the father was thirty-two years, but that the average age of the father at the distinguished child’s birth was 36.6 years; and that when the fathers were themselves distinguished their age was not, as Vaerting found in Germany, notably low at the birth of their distinguished sons, but higher than the general average, being 37.5 years. He found fifteen distinguished sons of distinguished British fathers, but instead of being nearly always under thirty and usually under twenty-five, as Vaerting found it in Germany, the British distinguished father has only five times been under thirty, and among these only twice under twenty-five. Moreover, precisely the most distinguished of the sons (Francis Bacon and William Pitt) had the oldest fathers, and the least distinguished sons the youngest fathers.

    Ellis says of his general conclusions resulting from this investigation: “I made some attempts to ascertain whether different kinds of genius tend to be produced by fathers who were at different periods of life. I refrained from publishing the results as I doubted whether the numbers dealt with were sufficiently large to carry any weight. It may, however, be worth while to record them, as possibly they are significant. I made four classes of men of genius: (1) Men of Religion, (2) Poets, (3) Practical Men, (4) Scientific Men and Sceptics. (It must not, of course, be supposed that in this last group all the scientific men were sceptics, or all the sceptics scientific.) The average age of the fathers at the distinguished son’s birth was, in the first group, 35 years; in the second and third group, 37 years; and in the last group, 40 years. (It may be noted, however, that the youngest father of all the history of British genius, aged sixteen, produced Napier, who introduced logarithms.)

    “It is difficult not to believe that as regards, at all events, the two most discrepant groups, the first and last, we come upon a significant indication. It is not unreasonable to suppose that in the production of men of religion in whose activity emotion is so potent a factor, the youthful age of the father should prove favorable; while for the production of genius of a more coldly intellectual and analytic type more elderly fathers are demanded. If that should prove to be so, it would become a source of happiness to religious parents to have their children early, while irreligious parents should be advised to delay parentage.

    “It is scarcely necessary to remark that the age of the mothers is probably quite as influential as that of the fathers. Concerning the mothers, however, we always have less precise information. My records, so far as they go, agree with Vaerting’s for German genius, in indicating that an elderly mother is more likely to produce a child of genius than a very youthful mother. There were only fifteen mothers recorded under twenty-five years of age, while thirteen were over thirty-nine years; the most important age for mothers was twenty-seven.

    “On all these points we certainly need controlling evidence from other countries. Thus, before we insist with Vaerting that an elderly mother is a factor in the production of genius, we may recall that even in Germany the mothers of Goethe and Nietzsche were both eighteen at their distinguished son’s birth. A rule which permits of such tremendous exceptions scarcely seems to bear the strain of emphasis.”

    The student, however, must always remember that while the study of genius and exceptionable talent is highly interesting, and even, as is quite probable, not without significance for the general laws of heredity, still we must beware of too hastily drawing conclusions from it to bear on the practical questions of eugenics. Genius is rare—and, in a certain sense, abnormal. Laws meant for application to the general population must be based on a study of the general population. Vaerting, himself, realized how inadequate it was to confine our study to cases of genius.

    Another investigator, Marro, an Italian scientist, in his well-known book on puberty which was published several years ago, brought forth some interesting data showing the result of the age of the parents on the moral and intellectual characters of school-children in Northern Italy. He found that children with fathers below twenty-six at their birth showed the maximum of bad conduct and the minimum of good; they also yielded the greatest proportion of children of irregular, troublesome, or lazy character, but not of really perverse children—the latter being equally distributed among fathers of all ages. The largest number of cheerful children belonged to the young fathers, while the children tended to become more melancholy with ascending age of the fathers. Young fathers produced the largest number of intelligent, as well as of troublesome children; but when the very exceptional intelligent children were considered separately, they were found to be more usually the offspring of elderly fathers.

    As regarded the mothers, Marro found that the children of young mothers (under twenty-one) are superior, both as regards conduct and intelligence, though the more exceptionally intelligent children tended to belong to more mature mothers. When the parents were both in the same age-groups, the immature and the elderly groups tended to produce more children who were unsatisfactory, both as regards conduct and intelligence—the intermediate group yielding the most satisfactory results of this kind.

    Havelock Ellis makes the following plea for further investigations along these lines, in the interest of the well-being of the race: “But we have need of inquiries made on a more wholesale and systematic scale. They are no longer of a merely speculative character. We no longer regard children as the ‘gifts of God’ flung into our helpless hands; we are beginning to realize that the responsibility is ours to see that they come into the world under the best conditions, and at the moments when their parents are best fitted to produce them. Vaerting proposes that it should be the business of all school authorities to register the ages of the pupils’ parents. This is scarcely a provision to which even the most susceptible parent could reasonably object, though there is no cause to make the declaration compulsory where a ‘conscientious’ objection existed, and in any case the declaration would not be public.

    “It would be an advantage—although this might be more difficult to obtain—to have the date of the children’s marriage, and of the birth of previous children, as well as some record of the father’s standing in his occupation. But even the ages of the parents alone would teach us much when correlated with the school position of the pupil in intelligence and conduct. It is quite true that there are unavoidable fallacies. We are not, as in the case of genius, dealing with people whose life-work is complete and open to the whole world’s examination.

    “The good and clever child is not necessarily the forerunner of the first-class man or woman; and many capable and successful men have been careless in attendance at lectures, and rebellious to discipline. Moreover, the prejudice and limitations of the teachers have to be recognized. Yet when we are dealing with millions most of these fallacies would be smoothed out. We should be, once for all, in a position to determine authoritatively the exact bearing of one of the simplest and most vital factors of the betterment of the race. We should be in possession of a new clue to guide us in the creation of the man in the coming world. Why not begin today?”

    Considerable attention on the part of the American thinking public has been directed toward the investigations and researches of Casper L. Redfield. Mr. Redfield combats the orthodox scientific position that the acquired qualities are not transmitted to offspring; and he most positively states that such characteristics are transmitted to offspring, and are really the causes which have tended toward the evolution and progress of the race. But he insists upon this vital point, namely, that the parent must already have acquired improved quality before he can transmit improvement to the offspring—and that before he can have acquired this improved quality, he must have lived sufficiently long to have experienced the causes which have developed improvement in himself. Consequently, he holds that delayed parentage produces great men.

    Mr. Redfield several years ago offered a prize of two hundred dollars to anyone who could show that a single one of the great men of history was the product of a succession of young parents, or was produced by a line of ancestry represented by more than three generations to a century. But no one ever claimed the prize money. According to Mr. Redfield’s doctrine, race improvement is and will be accomplished as the result of effort, physical and mental, upon the part of prospective parents, particularly if the period of effort is sustained over a considerable number of years previous to reproduction.

    The following quotations from Mr. Redfield’s writing will give a general idea of his lines of thought and his theories. He says:

    “At some time in the past there was a common ancestor for man and the ape. At that time the mental ability of the man was the same as that of the ape, because at that time man and the ape were the same person. From that common ancestor there have been derived two main lines of descent, one leading to man and the other to the ape of today. In the line leading to man, mental ability has increased little by little so that today the mental ability of the man is far above that of the ape. While it may not be literally true for each and every generation between that common ancestor and man of the present time, still we will commit no error if we divide the total increase in mental ability by the number of intervening generations and say that each generation in turn was a little superior to that which produced it. Now it happens that mental ability is something which is inherited—is transmitted from parent to offspring. Take that fact with the fact that there has been a regular (or irregular) increase in mental ability in the generations leading to man, and it will be seen that each generation in succession transmitted to its offspring more than it inherited from its parents. But a parent cannot transmit something which he did not have. Where and how did those generations get that ability which they transmitted but did not inherit?”

    Mr. Redfield in his writings shows that what is true of the human race is true of high-bred domesticated animals, namely, the cow of high milk producing breeds; the fast running and trotting horses; and the highly developed hunting dogs. To each case he applies his question: “Where and how did those generations of animals get that power which they transmitted but did not inherit?” In his investigations he claims to have discovered the secret, namely, that the ancestors, throughout several generations, had each acquired the power which it transmitted, which added to the inherited power raised the general power of the stock. This arose from careful breeding, and directly from the fact that the average age of the parent was much higher in the highly-bred stock than in the “scrub” or ordinary run of stock. In other words, delayed parentage produced better offspring.

    Mr. Redfield proceeds to argue from these facts as follows: “At one time man and ape reproduced at the same average age, whereas now they reproduce at widely different ages. Going back to the time when man and ape separated, our ancestors survived by physical and mental activity in securing food and escaping from enemies. As time went on man reproduced at later and later average age until now he reproduces at about thirty years from birth of parent to birth of offspring. When time between generations stretched out in the man line more than it did in the ape line, the man acquired more mental development before he reproduced than did the ape, and he did this because he was mentally active more years before reproducing. The successive generations leading to modern man transmitted to offspring more than they inherited from their parents, and the generations which did this are the same generations which acquired, before reproducing, the identical thing which they transmitted in excess of inheriting.

    “Coming now to those rare men of whom we have only a few in a century, how were they produced? It should be noted that each one had two parents, four grandparents, and eight great-grandparents. Also that they are certainly improvements over their great-grandparents. If they were not such improvements, then there would be many ‘rare’ cases in a century. In looking into the pedigrees of these great men it is found that they were sons of parents of nearly all ages, but were predominantly sons of elderly parents. While we sometimes find comparatively young parents in the pedigree of a great man, we never find a succession of young parents. Neither do we find an intellectually great man produced by a pedigree extending over three generations. The great man is produced only when the average for three generations is on the elderly side of what is normal. The average age of one thousand fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers in the pedigrees of eminent men was found to be over forty years. Great men rise from ordinary stock only when several generations in succession acquire mental efforts in excess amounts before reproducing.”

    It is the opinion of the present writer that the theories of Mr. Redfield are in the main true, and that in the future much valuable information will be obtained along the same lines, which will tend to corroborate his general conclusions. One’s attention needs but to be plainly directed to the matter, and then he will see that it is absurd to think of a creature transmitting to his offspring qualities which neither he or his mate had inherited or acquired. If there were no transmission of acquired qualities there would be no improvement—and in fact, we know that the bulk of inherited qualities were at some time in the history of the race “acquired.” And, reasoning along the same line, we may see that the young parents who have not had as yet an opportunity to acquire mental power cannot expect to transmit it to their offspring—all that they can do is to transmit the inherited stock qualities plus the small acquired power which they have gained in their limited experience. And, finally, it is seen that offspring produced at a riper age of parenthood, continued over several generations, tend toward unusual ability and powers. Consequently, the people or nation with a higher average age of parenthood may logically expect to attain greater mental powers than the peoples lacking that quality. And what is true of a people or nation is of course true of a particular family.

    The subject touched upon in this part of our book is one of the greatest interest to careful students of Eugenics; and is one which calls for careful and unprejudiced consideration from all persons having the interest of the race at heart.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0