4 ms·

It is difficult to interpret her words in a generous fashion, without seeing her support for abortion of the "unfit": > Knowledge of birth control is essen

It is difficult to interpret her words in a generous fashion, without seeing her support for abortion of the "unfit": > Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race. > Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective. How other than abortion could she envision "... preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective."? Perhaps we could assume she means, by hiring clairvoyants and those who can see the future, and then forcing 100% effective birth control or sterilization on the the unwashed masses not consistent with her "cleaner race" qualifications? Attempting to white-wash Sanger's stances to be against abortion is disingenuous at best.

ceejayoz 7y ago
It's not so much "these attitudes are fine" as it's "these attitudes were the norm in the 1920s". Complaining about Sanger's beliefs on eugenics is a bit like complaining about Washington's on black people - abhorrent today, but hardly surprising given the time. As with Washington, trying to malign today's Planned Parenthood via normal-at-the-time opinions of its founder is dishonest and misleading. edit: Regarding clairvoyants, I'm not clear on your argument. Any determination of "defectives" that works early enough to use abortion against it is equally usable prior to pregnancy, permitting contraception. Eugenicists certainly advocated for sterilization - Georgia still has laws on the books permitting it, and adjusted them in the 1980s to pass SCOTUS muster.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  It wasn't my intent to claim the this is the mission of planned parenthood currently, just that a thought leader at the time purposed a policy that is abhorrent today and yet possibly effective. I'll have to do more research. The repercussions here are staggering if you take the time to consider them.

ceejayoz 7y ago

It's not so much "these attitudes are fine" as it's "these attitudes were the norm in the 1920s". Complaining about Sanger's beliefs on eugenics is a bit like complaining about Washington's on black people - abhorrent today, but hardly surprising given the time. As with Washington, trying to malign today's Planned Parenthood via normal-at-the-time opinions of its founder is dishonest and misleading. edit: Regarding clairvoyants, I'm not clear on your argument. Any determination of "defectives" that works early enough to use abortion against it is equally usable prior to pregnancy, permitting contraception. Eugenicists certainly advocated for sterilization - Georgia still has laws on the books permitting it, and adjusted them in the 1980s to pass SCOTUS muster.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
It wasn't my intent to claim the this is the mission of planned parenthood currently, just that a thought leader at the time purposed a policy that is abhorrent today and yet possibly effective. I'll have to do more research. The repercussions here are staggering if you take the time to consider them.