Pro-Life's Shadowy Past

I'm reading a book called Fatal Misconception and it's probably the most challenging read I've had in a long time. It's written in a very cynical voice, and at first, it appeared like the author was edging towards the pro-choice stance. However, after reading on, I see why. See if any of these phrases create a picture for you:

"After 1936, [the Soviets] withdrew contraceptives from the market, made abortion illegal, and offered mothers cash incentives to bear large families" (p.79-80)

"Women who failed in their duty to produce healthy workers soldiers, and settlers were also targeted..." (p.79)

I think the reason that people have diverged to the opposite extreme is because of motive. Obviously, though children are a blessing and abortion is murder, banning contraceptives and abortive surgery was not done on a moral belief- it was done to "benefit the state." There has to be a moral foundation for a law, otherwise people do not understand its benefit.

Likewise for feminism. I love love love the movie, Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio. It's based on a true story of a housewife in the 50's and 60's, and how she provided for her family of ten through entering poetry contests and jingle competitions- very encouraging. It's also a highly accurate representation of the times. The director found old footage of television clips, and intertwined them through the scenes. At one point, they ask a Miss America competitor, "If a woman was running for president, would you vote for her?" and she responds along the lines of, "I would not because women are emotional." Women may be emotional, but men are aggressive. Neither is essentially bad; they both have their place. However, men are designed to lead and they have God-given authority over their families. It would be wrong for a women to be president if it meant putting herself in authority over her husband.

The point of, the conversion to a pro-choice and feminist society was in rebellion to irresponsible beliefs. Banning contraceptives and abortions for one group, while eugenically discriminating against another only serves to benefit the state. Its racial preferance would naturally create tension. Similarily, saying women shouldn't lead because they can't is inacurate. I know plenty of respectable women who would probably do an equally decent job as some past presidents we have had. However, they love their place at home, and understand it's not for lack of ability, but a desire to serve elsewhere, that they do not hold that position.

I'm not sure if this makes sense. It's just something that has stood out to me as I have been reading this book. The ends don't justify the means, because the ends mean nothing without the means.