[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The point mavdog is trying to make (not very convincingly, IMO) is that Sanger used the eugenics movement to further her cause.

nope, never made nor suggested that at all. nice attempt at a strawman tho.

the point that I have made (convincingly I might add) is sangers embracing of eugenics later in her life has no beasring on the movement she championed earlier in her life, that being the drive to stop the prohibition on sex education and the dissemination of contraceptives. the philosophy being that women were merely chattle at the time, and that repeated childbearing not only made such enslavement impossible to free themselves of but also that the repeated pregnancies placed a heavy burden on the entire family in the pursuit of economic mobility.

sanger (and many others at the time) embraced the eugenics philosophy, most were subsequently turned off by the fact that nazism has eugenics as one of its principles, and we saw where that led to.

That is, she wasn't so much interested in eugenics as she was interested in using the eugenicists' movement. (and to keep things in context, eugenicism was a widely accepted thing among progressives and leftwingers back in the day).

and rightwingers, and racists in general for that part.

but no, sanger embraced the movement, but not to "further her cause", but rather because she obviously believed in it.

I think this interpretation of her life is a bit on the revisionist side of things -- kind of a transparent effort to deny by ommission the collectivist and malthusian aspects of her outlook in order emphasize those parts her work which are more palatable to 21st century Liberal notions.

no, she moved in her philosophy, which happens to a lot of people. sometimes it's a good movement, sometimes it isn't.

....kind of like with Lincoln -- we remember today part "a" of his plans - free the slaves!! That much is cool. Yeah Lincoln! Part 'b', where he wanted to ship all of the darkies back to africa, is commonly (and conveniently) forgotten.

cultural relativism...do not attempt to transpose the current ideals onto times long ago where those ideals were not prevalent and attempt to assign right and wrong. it doesn't work.

but I digress....

My larger point, regardless of whether Sanger was a eugenicist deep down in her soul or someone using eugenicists, is the ease with which birth control (then), retroactive birth control (now), and eugenicism can be melded together. It's a very steep and very slippery slope.

again, there is no dispute that sanger became a eugenist believer.

people make decisions in regard to their reproduction that may or may not be ethical. abortions, not a good thing in general. abortions based on the fact it is a downs fetus? I certainly understand why one would terminate. abortion due to the "wrong" sex? not very good ethics.