What's ridiculously wrong is the idea that we started out thinking that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women. Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. People had to be taught, convinced, cajoled, and otherwise brought kicking and screaming into adopting the idea that pregnancy violated the rights of women. That was a means to an end, not the end itself.
I don't know where in the history books this happened. I do know that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to choose what she does to her own body, which isn't equivalent to brainwashing folks into believing that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women.
I challenge you to find anyone arguing that abortion was a "right" prior to sometime in the early-mid 20th century. That argument appeared right about the same time that the eugenics movements began suffering from image problems (which kinda reached a peak with that Adolf chap in Germany). I suppose we could say that it was a complete coincidence that the same people who 20 years earlier were arguing for enforced sterilization and abortions as means of population control and eugenics started arguing that abortion was a right and encouraging women to fight for that right along with other things like voting and equal pay. It's pretty darn obvious to anyone who isn't blind as a bat that the eugenics folks realized that they needed a new method to get people to adopt abortion, and found it in the suffragist movement.
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control. We can debate to what degree racist/eugenics played a role, but if you think this just sprang up out of nowhere as a rights issue, you are terribly confused (or terribly well indoctrinated)
Or you've put on your tinfoil hat again.
And yet, planned parenthood, the primary organization associated with "fighting for the reproductive rights of women", just happened to have been founded by a prominent eugenicist. I mean, I suppose it's possible that Margaret Sanger started out fighting for women's rights and then stumbled into the idea that encouraging poor colored women to use birth control and abortions would have the additional benefit of reducing the undesirable/unfit population, but it's far more likely that the process worked the other way. People tend to start with a goal and then look for ways to accomplish that goal rather than the other way around.
Doubly unlikely when you realize that for the claim that she started out as some kind of moral champion of women's rights to be true, we'd have to believe that someone who fought for those rights would then later adopt the position that society would be better off if those women hadn't been born in the first place, but then even later (after Adolph ruined it for everyone) change her mind and decide that they really were worthy of living, but just by coincidence she would focus her organizations efforts to encourage women to embrace their rights to abort in inner city neighborhoods with high minority populations. You know... just a coincidence.
Eugenics found in the women's rights movement a means to push their agenda forward without it being as obvious. Why is this so hard to get? Like I said, there are clear examples of cases where the agenda isn't about the right to abort, but the desire to increase the likelihood that someone will choose to abort. At that point, it's not really about rights anymore, is it?