On 7/23/2012 2:30 PM, Crmccann wrote:
> Which proves nothing, other than conservatism has, as one meaning, "to conserve."

Actually it proves precisely what I was saying: that progressives (self defined)
saw themselves as in conflict with conservatives (by their definition).
At least, it proves that Sanger saw things this way.  We could move on
to other cases if you like.

> Saying something is progressive does not, therefore, prove that it
> is desirable, or that the efforts taken to its manifestation are not abominable.

Of course.  Has anyone implied otherwise? Bu just as obviously,
Sanger (and other self-identified progressives) considered
progressivism to be a good thing.

> She also seems to be at odds with
> the Social Gospelers and Ely, among others, but yet not outside the camp of the Progressives.

She is certainly and explicitly siding with being Progressive.

> Sanger's philosophy was reprehensible

You seem committed to the project of judging her.
I am taking up the issue of what she actually said.
That would probably be a useful preliminary to your project as well.

Your response to my quote ("Let us look at this matter from
the point of view of the children who survive.") was as follows:

> Again, predicated on the notion that the INDIVIDUAL does
> not matter -- she could not possibly have cared for the
> welfare of the INDIVIDUAL child who survived, as his
> survival was 1) at the expense of those not born, and 2)
> valuable only to the extent that eliminating the surplus
> or causing the inferior elements not to reproduce would
> lead to a more perfect human race.

As I have explained and supported by quotes, that is simply
a misreading of Sanger.  Your challenges to the quotes are
not persuasive and rely on the same kinds of reading *into*
Sanger instead of reading *of* her.  She is very clearly
interested in "progressing" toward a world where individuals
have more choices and more opportunities to fulfill
themselves.  She supported free speech and a free press for
this reason, and it was a core reason that she supported
birth control.  Any other reading of The Pivot of
Civilization is untenable.

"Birth Control concerns itself with the spirit no less than
the body. It looks for the liberation of the spirit of woman
and through woman of the child. To-day motherhood is wasted,
penalized, tortured. Children brought into the world by
unwilling mothers suffer an initial handicap that cannot be
measured by cold statistics. Their lives are blighted from
the start. ...  [Birth Control] is not aiming to interfere
in the private lives of poor people, to tell them how many
children they should have, nor to sit in judgment upon their
fitness to become parents. It aims, rather, to awaken
responsibility, to answer the demand for a scientific means
by which and through which each human life may be
self-directed and self-controlled."

Now you may say (and I am sure you would) that she *also*
said things that are in conflict with her interest in the
well-being of other individuals.  Fine: I began this
conversation noting that real individuals generally have not
developed fully coherent philosophies (nor committed
themselves to a "social ontology").  If you could sit down
with her and chat, you could insist on this and if you
persuaded her, you could find out what values she kept or
discarded in an effort to become more consistent.  But you
cannot do that, and you are not allowed to simply pick and
choose among her ideas in order to construct a parody that
you can demonize.  Instead you must consider all that she
said, some of which remains attractive to 21st century
sensibilities and some of which appears shocking.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac