@okie,
Sorry, what Sanger supported is a philosophical thread now considered "negative eugenics," which sought to limit hereditary deficiencies as opposed to "positive eugenics," which encourages the educated and the fit to produce large families. Positive eugenics is best illustrated by Hitler's policy of awarding medals to women judged to be Aryan who gave birth to many children.
Sanger wanted parenthood to be assumed by responsible people. She opposed government control over reproduction and believed parents should make decisions to limit the size of their families. That does not sound like the American right which seeks to abolish not just abortion but, at its most extreme, the abandonment of all birth control measures.
Just look at how many leading Republicans can't keep their flies zipped! I hope they've had vasectomies as those who tout "personal responsibility" should!
So-called negative eugenics is better described with a phrase you often use and for which you are rightly mocked on these boards. That phrase is common sense. A couple descended from Ashkenazi Jews might practice negative eugenics by undergoing genetic testing for heritable diseases common among the Ashkenazi, such as Tay-Sachs. Similarly, an African-American couple might seek genetic counseling because close relatives suffer from Sickle Cell Anemia. Granted, Sickle Cell Anemia is not as common among Blacks as Tay-Sachs is among Ashkenazi Jews, but there are more African-Americans than there are descendants of the Ashkenazi.
However, why would a married couple with Ashkenazi roots produce a child who live no more than four years in vegetative state?
There are right wing elements to Sanger's world view. She wanted to limit immigration to keep out undesirables, much as the people of AZ want to do now.
But your -- to use my father's word -- "harping" on Sanger is a straw man. Sanger's philosophical make-up contained some progressive elements but was largely conservative. You use a straw man because you do not understand facts and you have no idea how to argue. You also lack common sense.
Let me give you a fact, in Sanger's own words: In a chapter from Woman and the New Race (1920) titled "Contraceptives or Abortion?," Sanger wrote, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
Sanger did not promote free love. In fact, she supported sexual constraint, which is consistent with the beliefs of her generation.
However, because Sanger was horrified by the use of abortion by poor women to limit the size of their families, she promoted birth control. Her concern was for maternal health.
Interestingly, you join some very progressive people (do I hear your shower running?) in condemning Sanger's desire to purify humanity. However, Sanger also worked to improve the lives of minorities and was admired by many mid-20th C. civil rights leaders, including MLK.
While there are times, okie, when I just wish you would go away and pull your blankets over your head and sleep, there are other times when I think it is good for you to be here, no matter how you are (justifiably) berated. Your lack of intellection and your poor powers of reasoning just might be elevated.
Certainly, you are given information that you could seek out yourself. The down side is that you simply would not be able to interpret it.
