Malola's Reviews > Woman and the New Race

Well, this definitely didn't age well, that's for sure.

It was somewhat interesting. Margaret Sanger (MS) clearly tried to be as thorough as possible bringing as many statistics as she could to present her point properly.
I definitely believe her position is mostly out of compassion rather than racism or eugenics and whatnot. (But she was racist and she was pro-eugenics.) However, given that her statistics don't apply now (we understand a lot better of nutrition and overall health), a good chunk of her arguments go out the window.

Given how we understand ethics/morality nowadays, I can see why many people find this unappealing. (Goodness knows if they can argue objective moral values, though, in order to state that in a feasible way.)
Though I think they're mostly right, that position does strike me as too anachronistic for my taste.
Shall we throw Aristotle or Socrates/Plato (or basically ANY author) who sided with slavery (or things that now are considered unethical) to the lions... or shall we keep (as we have) the good (which is level GOD) on their work and dismiss the useless and clearly wrong??
Of course, MS does not have such level of genius as Chad Aristotle or Chad Socrates/Plato. (Who does but a VERY few authors? Postulating this comparison will be VERY blasphemous for some.) But that's not the point. Arguing against MS because of her nulle ethics is arguing in an anachronistic fashion.

Agreeing on the former point by no means require any of us to believe that what she wrote was any good (either in content, presentation, argumentation or anything else), of course.
Therefore, are there things to agree with her or is everything she wrote here garbage? Well, as someone who's very pro-choice, I have to say that at least the overall message is good: Women should have autonomy over their own bodies... even in cases of conflict in rights. Stripping women from agency over their bodies is wrong and abortion does allow better family planning.
Is it better not to get pregnant in the first place? Well, DUH! But there are many events in a person's life (even during pregnancy) that make me her make that decision.
Women should have a saying over their bodies if they don't want to become incubators.
So, Dobbs overturned Roe, wrong decision in my opinion. *shrugs*

Anyways, the presentation of her ideas was mostly good, the content was good as well... But as I've postulated, some of her arguments hardly pass.

As for the narrator, Becky Cook, her voice suits well for this type of readings. Good intonation, very well paced. Definitely a reader I'd follow.

I would recommend this book to people who are into the history of abortion and to religious zealots who love to play the false dichotomy game of "if you don't follow MY religious morality, you're evil and are with/of the devil".
This book will prove to be historically informative for the first group (though currently almost completely outdated) and will fuel the religious nonsense of the second which is obviously their kick (and, let's be honest, fundamentalists and extremists groups loOoOove this type of books in order to waive their "better than thou" flag and throwing everyone who disagrees with them in the same "evil" pot).