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.
I only brought up the past because I thought it's use against Sanger to try to discredit birth control, abortion, etc. was selective and disengenuous (charitably). In fact the use of Sanger herself can be so characterized. I'll bet most woman of today know hardly anything about her, regardless of their position on the issues. So let's drop the past and consider the issues of today on their own terms.
I know plenty of pro-abortion people. None of them consider an abortion to be a great joy. At least one of my closest friends experienced bloody nightmares for years after undergoing one. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are casual about it. I'm saying I don't know them and can't speak for them.
The difference between pro-abortion and pro-life is one of different perceptions of reality and different ethical structures (not ethics vs. no ethics). Pro-abortion people believe that it is entirely unrealistic to expect people to give up sexuality outide of marriage, or to be be willing to see off-spring result from such unions. Therefore it is as reasonable to legalize abortion as it is to legalize alcohol. Or - in the contrary - it is as unreasonable to prohibit abortion as it was to prohibit alcohol.
Pro-life people respond by saying there's a great difference between drunkenness and murder. And so there is. Sub-rosa of course there's the religious issue. But there are legitimate questions - probably never resolveable scientifically - about when human life actually begins. And there are questions about who actually holds life to be sacred, regardless of what is said. I was struck by the Freeper response to 911. Nuke 'em! It's not a legal issue! War! Well, we all know what that means; the mass death of innocents including babies, dogs, trees, the old, the weak, flowers. I wonder how many of those expressing such sentiments are pro-life? And of those how many will justify their position by saying that there are considerations which transcend a baby's right to life?
And finally there's the issue of birth control. Far too many pro-lifers are against birth conrtol (except abstinence) and do everything they can to prevent dissemination of information and devices - despite what you say about its morality.