![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
That said, Henry Ford praised Hitler, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, Al Jolson peformed in blackface, blah blah blah ad infinitum. People are all products of their times. In the 1920's, eugenics was cutting-edge science- the DNA research of its day, if you will. It seems ridiculous today, but hey, in the 19th century, doctors actually believed that educating a woman would shrink her reproductive organs. So, progress changes what we understand to be true. And Sanger likewise eventually abandoned eugenics. In 1919, she said: "Eugenists imply or insist that a woman’s first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that is is her right, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother . . . Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment. (Source: The Birth Control Review, February 1919)" She was a product of her time. And at that time, eugenics was cutting-edge science, and the majority of whites believed science proved they were the superior race. But to say Sanger's interpretation of eugenics is the same as the Nazi's is ridiculous. In fact, her books were some of the first burned by the Nazis- probably because she believed control of women's fertility should reside with the woman herself, and not with the state. (For that matter, Sanger also opposed abortion, because she believed life began at conception. Wonder how that tidbit sits with the right-wingers who like to scream about her. )
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray |