If liberals used Margaret Sanger's arguments in Roe v Wade, they would have much of the right on their side

Join My Facebook Group:
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead and now liberals are fretting that Trump will appoint a pro-life justice and Roe v Wade will be overturned. The idea of abortion is usually considered to be a strict left vs right issue, the left is always pro-choice, the right is always pro-life, but could the division be being created by the way the liberals argue for abortion rights? 

Pro-lifers, usually Christians, try to tie abortion back into the original birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, even though Sanger herself was very anti-abortion and only promoted the use of birth control to maintain population control. But many of those who were in the birth control movement were no liberals as would be considered today, no they were dyed-in-the-wool eugencists who openly sought to maintain the population of certain classes (Margaret Sanger herself was not a racist and did not promote birth control on racial grounds, only economic). While eugenics could have been seen as a liberal agenda in the 1920s-1940s, with the support of many socialists, today it is usually considered just the opposite with liberals shunning the eugenics movement while it now finds support more among the right-wing, particularly those in the right-wing who are not particularly Christian. 

Now, Margaret Sanger herself was not an advocate of abortion, but her organization Planned Parenthood would soon begin the process of entering abortion into the eugenics debate.  Alan Frank Guttmacher who not only was president of Planned Parenthood but also vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, it was likely Guttmacher's dedication to eugenics which pushed him to launch the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964. Today, Planned Parenthood actively performs "search and destroy" abortions where the fetus is tested for genetic abnormalities for the purpose of aborting those which would be genetically diseased. If this is not eugenics then nothing is. Frederick Osborn, a founding member of the American Eugenics Society, said in 1973 "Birth control and abortion are turning out to be the greatest eugenic advances of our time", and he was right!

In her work "The Pivot of Civilization", Margaret Sanger dedicates an entire chapter to anti-Communism. Sanger, in a more right-wing-like argument states that the proletariate are actually responsible for their own exploitation in part to the fact that they breed too incessantly, and that because they are superfluous they are cheap and expendable. Indeed, Communists were very averse to birth control in Sanger's time because they believed that birth control would ease the suffering of the masses and that would snuff out the flame of revolution. Today the Western world is again on the brink of revolution, and again it is due partially in part to the fact that the underclasses have bred beyond their means to afford their children, the poor still breed faster than the well-to-do and this drives the march of revolution. Sanger's answer to this would be more access to birth control and especially abortion as those who cannot afford birth control would more likely become pregnant and need the abortion in the first place. Abortion must become associated with anti-Communism rather than leftism as it is today. 

Sanger also spoke of "cradle competition", again the fact that the socially unfortunate breed faster than the haves of society. It is very hard to get intelligent people who are conscientious of how many children they have to have more children, at least under the current system. Yes a mechanism must be produced to increase the numbers of the industrious classes, but as of yet we are not fully ready for the feat. If the less fortunate are allowed to breed at a rapid rate they will overcome those who are more fortunate and thus change the color of society. People with means already have more access to birth control and that is why they need less abortions, abortions are more prominent among the poor, and that is where they are needed most so as to even out the numbers of the classes until a sufficient system can be produced to increase the numbers of those who would otherwise be too wise to have too many children. 

So what is the difference between Sanger's argument and those of liberals today? Sanger's arguments were mostly about the good of society at large (though she did care for the suffering of those who had too many children to feed) while the liberals of today who want to keep Roe v. Wade are more interested in arguing from the position of individual rights. Sanger did speak about individual rights but her broader message was about the eugenic uplift of the entire society. Abortion is a touchy subject, even liberals struggle with the idea of abortion at times. To couch the entire thing in the light of individual freedoms cannot speak to the masses at large, only to the individual and particularly only to women usually. If liberals want to bring some of the right-wing to their side they need to use eugenic arguments to show they have a broader and collectivist agenda that will benefit the nation and this will hopefully overcome the right-wing's personal objections to abortion.