[liberallarry]

You know, until I read the Sanger Project response to Mosher's article it never occured to me that the article might be slanted or distorted. I accepted it as pretty factual. Why not? Eugenics was quite the rage at the time. Why shouldn't a thoughtful person like Sanger believe in it? And I thought the post was a good one because it's always interesting to understand who the "real" person is, and because the subject is important today.

After reading the response I see Mosher's article is quite slanted and biased (deliberately so since he didn't reveal some very important and relevant things about his background) - although not necessarily entirely wrong.

But it's the Freepers responses that really trouble me. Hitler explicitly cited America's treatment of blacks and Indians as a model for his actions. He also credited Henry Ford for his anti-Semitism. I see no mention of this among Freepers. The South of that time was filled to the brim with people whose attitudes made Sanger's (even Mosher's view of them) look tame. No criticism from Freepers.

The logic seems to go like this: Sanger advocated birth control. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. Hitler was a racist and a eugenicist. Therefore birth control is evil.

[MitchellC]

With regards to your last remark, see my 2nd paragraph in post #64.

[nicmarlo]

Hitler explicitly cited America's treatment of blacks and Indians as a model for his actions. He also credited Henry Ford for his anti-Semitism. I see no mention of this among Freepers. The South of that time was filled to the brim with people whose attitudes made Sanger's (even Mosher's view of them) look tame. No criticism from Freepers.

The logic seems to go like this: Sanger advocated birth control. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. Hitler was a racist and a eugenicist. Therefore birth control is evil.

I think, perhaps, why you do not see great criticism from Freepers toward our country's past sins (slavery, killing of Indians, etc.) is that our country has obviously taken steps to stop the mistreatment toward blacks, ended slavery (through white people dying in a civil war, decades ago), and condemned that type of behavior. What is outrageous is the practiced genocide ongoing in China, Africa, and other countries. Birth control is not evil. Killing babies is (abortion is killing babies). Therein lies the difference. Hitler's regime, Sanger's desires, and Aristotle's "utopia," are immoral and unethical--murder of all who do not "fit" because they are less than perfect.

[st.smith]

After reading the response I see Mosher's article is quite slanted and biased (deliberately so since he didn't reveal some very important and relevant things about his background) - although not necessarily entirely wrong.

Why exactly does Mosher's background matter? Everyone has a bias, the question is whether what he says is true or not?

But it's the Freepers responses that really trouble me. Hitler explicitly cited America's treatment of blacks and Indians as a model for his actions. He also credited Henry Ford for his anti-Semitism. I see no mention of this among Freepers. The South of that time was filled to the brim with people whose attitudes made Sanger's (even Mosher's view of them) look tame. No criticism from Freepers.

Nobody is defending the mistreatment of the Indians and nobody is defending the real evils of the Old South. (I certainly don't) However, Sanger's twisted views are being perpetuated by the population controllers every day, and the folks at Planned Parenthood and IPPF are her chief defenders.

The logic seems to go like this: Sanger advocated birth control. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. Hitler was a racist and a eugenicist. Therefore birth control is evil.

Not exactly, what Mosher is referring to is not just birth control, but coercive population control measures which are being carried out throughout the world in the name of 'reproductive freedom.' In reality, it is just the eugenic movement repackaged.