You ignore the significance of your own quotes.
 
"Every potential parent ... must be brought to an acute  realization..." is 
indicative of a mindset of coercion and a belief that  society has a real 
existence beyond the individual.
 
  And you neglect the following:
 
""The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should,  
indeed, not only be discouraged but PREVENTED [caps are mine] from propagating  
their kind" (Pivot, p.181).  The reason: they are a drain on society,  the 
existence of which must be real and beyond the individual.
 
"Eugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in  
the WELFARE OF THE WORLD [caps are mine] fifteen or twenty generations in the 
 future.  On its negative side it shows us that we are paying for and  even 
submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning  
class of human beings who never should have been born at all -- that the wealth 
 of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and 
the  progress of human expression and civilization" (p.187).  Who determines  
whether they "should have been born at all"?  Obviously it is Sanger and  
those who believe that Society has a purpose, an end, to the protection of 
which  all should strive.
 
Spare the Planned parenthood prepackaged sentimentalism.  Sanger was a  
racist and eugenist, who indeed held that society had a mission and a purpose  
above the individual.  How else to explain something as nonsensical as the  
need to protect the "welfare of the world"?  What about the rights of the  
individual?  The individual must be made to accept that fact, that his  
rights are secondary to those of the society, and respect his place in it.   And 
she was well situated in the early Progressive camp.
 
Finally (and I hope this will be final), you apparently did not read  
carefully enough the previous postings.  You insist on using the label  
"conservative" as though it will prove your argument.  In this you are  again 
mistaken.  As I said, the term has no meaning without the context --  Tim Leonard 
pointed this out in his earlier post respecting your Whiggish  interpretation 
of the period.  The argument is about Progressives, and  whether that 
"class" includes those whose views may be construed as  conservative is 
irrelevant.  The Social Gospel adherents were, on one  definition, conservative, but 
not Conservative as that term is understood  today.  I would recommend a 
reading list, but I fear it would be a  waste of time and effort.
 
CM