https://rewire.news/article/2015/08/20/false-narratives-marg...
> Sanger opposed abortion. She believed it to be a barbaric practice. In her own words, “[a]lthough abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.” Her views are, ironically, in keeping with the views of many of the anti-choicers who malign and distort her legacy.
> In fact, Planned Parenthood did not even begin performing abortions until after 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalized the practice. Margaret Sanger had been dead for four years by then.
Contraception's harder to pin a start date on.
> 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.
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.
I'll have to do more research. The repercussions here are staggering if you take the time to consider them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.htm...
But yeah if this weren't the case then you'd have to explain away genetic engineering of livestock and crops over the millenia. That said - no one should be orchestrating that shit.
Also tyrannical in the long term, I believe future generations have a right to a genome that was made of only their ancestors (and retroviruses I guess). Maybe in 100 years it will be different but not yet.
I'm thinking of stuff like people prone to sickle cell anemia having increased malarial resistance.
I believe even an otherworldly morally correct implementation of eugenics would not account for unknown quirks like this and be counter productive in the long term.