Are you sure I didn't read it?

"But such attainment is unthinkable if we continue to breed from the present race stock that yields us our largest amount of progeny. Some method must be devised to eliminate the degenerate and the defective; for these act constantly to impede progress and ever increasingly drag down the human race."

"When we consider that the mentally deficient reproduce more rapidly than those of normal intelligence, we may well look into the future with dismay. Unless a halt is called, and that speedily, our race is doomed to inevitable deterioration."

My alternative is you didn't understanding it. Throwing out block quotes does suggest you read the first two paragraphs. If you made your point using your own words instead of throwing titles and quotes out I'd have a better chance of understanding it, whatever it is.

Again, when she says race she means "human race". And she's arguing for perfectly reasonable outcomes. Adjust for the fact that the language is 100 years old and context changes over time.

Her argument is that people should have access to birth control. People, in the current era, now have access to birth control. The world is a better place for it. That is one of the best parts of eugenics - people should be able to plan their families.

Her argument is that we use birth control to eliminate "undesirables" and it's basically a dog whistle for certain races.

And you call that "perfectly reasonable outcomes"? Holy shit.

> and it's basically a dog whistle for certain races.

You think, in 1923, someone would feel a need to dance around the bush if they wanted to say nasty things about other races? The civil rights movement didn't even start until the 50s. Political correctness wasn't even a phrase before the 70s. If she meant black/Italian/Scottish/whoever she'd have said it.

She is probably talking about things like Down syndrome and people who are stupid. You don't have to like it, she may indeed be badly wrong on some points, but the problem with that is when governments start implementing forceful eugenics policies (a la the Nazis) and not the ideas themselves (and note she specifically argues against eugenics by statute). It seems likely that people will be choosing to genetically engineer their kids regardless if the option is available - how many parents would purposefully let their children have congenital issues if it could be avoided?

She is arguing for birth control - an issue which most people are very glad she and people like her won on. She makes a number of good points, and a couple of questionable but reasonable ones.

Mother of god. Stop defending her. Even planned parenthood dumped her over her racist views.

I want to see you defend this.

In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

You don't need to work to persuade me that people in the 1920s were racist. But that quote, in context, might easily be read as "we don't want them to think this [because it isn't true]".

I wouldn't be surprised if Sanger didn't like black people, but based on the evidence you're throwing out in dribs and drabs she expected them to stop having children because that would make them better off.

Let me ask you straight up: are you arguing that black people shouldn't have access to contraception and abortion? Because Sanger is basically arguing that black people (and indeed, all people) should have voluntary access to contraception and abortion, and that black doctors should be trained to provide them as services. Even if you doubt her motives, it is a struggle for me to see what the complaint is. Would that my enemies were so dedicated to giving me options.

Also, note that she is very direct and willing to use phrases like 'colored people' and 'negro population' when she is talking about black people. No dog whistles.

You are doing everything in your power, including a vigorous waving of hands - "maybe she meant something else" - to defend a known racist eugenicist. What game are you playing here?

Planned Parenthood is doing it's best to create as much distance between itself and Sanger, yet you're here defending her. Why?

> Planned Parenthood is doing it's best to create as much distance between itself and Sanger, yet you're here defending her. Why?

You're out-of-context quoting someone who has been dead for no less than the better part of a century, and based on the evidence that you've drawn my attention to she was a tireless advocate of sensible family planning. I think that deserves some defence.

You said PP distanced from her because of her racist views. Ok, fair enough, everyone in history was basically a racist so that seems like a fair call. But her work as a 'eugenicist' seems to be commendable and most of what you have been bringing up today has ranged from commendable to reasonable in context. From what I've seen here it seems to me that this woman lived a life well spent. I'm not seeing anything that doesn't look like a reasonable option in the modern era - it is still the case that educated and wealthy families generally go with fewer children and are more likely to plan out their family for example. I support free and easy access to abortions.

> "maybe she meant something else"

I'm happy to be a bit stronger than that. She obviously meant something else. Voluntary access to family planning tools and training black ministers has to be one of the worst schemes to eradicate out the black community that I've ever encountered. It strains credulity, in fact.

A woman claims we need to eliminate “undesirable races” through “selective breeding” but apparently in your mind that’s something as you put it “commendable”.

Congrats, I guess?

Apparently you see nothing wrong with a woman Planned Parenthood is trying desperately to distance themselves from.