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