Dr. Steyko Aleythos
Quote 5 by Margaret Sanger: “These conditions give her (mother with child) the choice between the surgeon’s instruments and the sacrificing of what is highest and holiest in her—her aspiration to freedom, her desire to protect the children already hers.” (1)
It should leave us gasping as we read of Margaret Sanger’s two choices.
1. Either “the surgeon’s instruments” thereby resulting in the killing of her unborn infant or,
2. Having the child and thereby “sacrificing what is highest and holiest in her—her aspiration to freedom,” and “her desire to protect the children already hers.”
Does not such unrighteous reasoning arise from a wicked heart?
“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” (Matthew 15:19).
Is it an “evil thought” in a mother’s heart when she ponders the murdering of God’s “heritage, reward and blessing” to her and her husband? Instead of being “happy” as we read in Psalm 127, verse 5, she views her pregnancy as a problem to be solved, which the Supreme Court has termed a “right to privacy”, among other reasons, a choice resulting in the destruction of what in reality is God’s precious gift.
Mothers who go to the “abortionist’s table”, cannot be said to love their unborn children, can they? (See Quote 4 in Part 4f.) We do not murder those we love, do we?
“Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10).
The unborn child’s first neighbor is his or her mother, right? Then it follows that the child is also his or her mother’s “neighbor”!
“And he, Our Lord Jesus Christ, opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, (Matthew 5:2), Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
The word “men” means all human beings including the most helpless among us, the infirm, the elderly and the unborn.
In returning to Quote 4 in Part 4f, the assumption Margaret Sanger makes is that if she does not go “ to the abortionist’s table”, meaning she does not have an abortion, then her “aspiration to freedom” is “sacrificed”, and her “desire to protect the children already hers” is also “sacrificed”.
Does she not conclude, therefore, she will no longer have an “aspiration to freedom” and even no freedom itself, if she does not have an abortion? Loss of “an aspiration to freedom” certainly sounds un-American, does it not? She also believes her ability to protect her remaining children would also be in jeopardy. Margaret Sanger attempts to construct an irrefutable argument for the murdering of unborn children.
Is it not, indeed, a pernicious web she insidiously weaves to persuade others to agree with her? Our government, although not every individual citizen, has come to concur with her and have, as it were, permitted and authorized the so-called “doctors” who agree with her to destroy unborn children.
However, doctors used to take the 5th century B.C. OATH OF HIPPOCRATES, part of which concerning euthanasia and abortion is quoted below.
“I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.”(Medicine and Surgery, History of,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973, Volume 15, pp. 94-95.)
Doctors, in opposition to euthanasia and abortion, use to pledge, “I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.”
This is what we find at the end of the Oath: “If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.”
Here we have the doctors of former times acknowledging certain consequences for failing to keep the Oath as follows: “If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times;”
Then, conversely, the Oath taker recognized consequences for failing to keep the “Oath”: “…but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.” The “reverse” would be the opposite of a doctor being able to “enjoy his life and practice his art,” as well as being “respected by all men and in all times;”
See the following website for further information on the original Hippocratic Oath and a “modern version”:
Needless to say, the modern version, “written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today”, is not the Hippocratic Oath.
There is no doubt that Margaret Sanger, John P. Holdren, President Obama, the Supreme Court (at least the majority) ignored and dismissed the Hippocratic Oath, which has been respected, advocated and observed by many physicians, heads of state as well as many American citizens. However, this is not open to a vote. A popular vote or poll should never be the standard by which laws are made. Certain principles are fixed. God’s precepts and commands are fixed. The responsibility to protect all human life is fixed.
Is this not further evidence of the “slippery slope” upon which our nation has found itself? Do not all slopes end?
Is there an inconsistency with the following comment by John P. Holdren regarding Planned Parenthood? “Their founders, (the founders of Planned Parenthood in Europe, like Mrs. Sanger), were motivated primarily by concern for the health and welfare of mothers and children, and their campaigns emphasized these considerations”. (2)
We can see this inconsistency when we compare Holdren’s previous statement to Margaret Sanger’s words below.
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to
one of its infant members is to kill it.”(3)
The “killing infant members of a large family”, as recommended by Margaret Sanger, is the opposite of having a “concern for the health and welfare of mothers and children” as asserted by John P. Holdren on page 741 of “Ecoscience”.(4)
Please, think about this, because we have “legally” been destroying unborn children since 1973!
Professor John P. Holdren et al agreed with Margaret Sanger who first published her book in 1920! The Supreme Court agreed in 1973. Many, though not all, in the Congress agree. The Democratic Party in their party platform for 2012 agrees. President Barack Obama agrees. Think about past Presidents. Which ones spoke against the sin of abortion? Is Barack Obama the first President who has openly advocated and defended it?
Certainly, the LORD our God does NOT agree!
Another problem is found in this quote, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it” found on page 63 of her book “Woman and the New Race” first published in 1920, is her denigrating of “the large family”.
God commanded Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” in Genesis 1:28. “Be fruitful, and multiply” is a command of God to have large families, is it not?
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
Who is right? Are Margaret Sanger and John P. Holdren right, or is the Lord our God right? What a ludicrous question to pose!
However, did Margaret Sanger say in her heart and is John P. Holden really saying in his heart, “there is no God”, as we read in Psalm 53:1? “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” Note that those who say such a thing “in their heart” are “corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity . . . .” Abortion is an “abominable iniquity”.
Then, in their view, there must be no Word of God to direct, convict and condemn them. Margaret Sanger must have thought there would be no consequences for her actions. She has passed away. Does she know now?
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12).
In arguing such a thing, Margaret Sanger has persuaded others to see a woman’s plight in a light or rather in the darkness of “what is highest and holiest in her”, “her aspiration to freedom and her desire to protect the children already hers.” Therefore, these two parts to the equation of “what is highest and holiest in her” are as follows:
First, is her desire or “aspiration for freedom” and …
Secondly, is “…her desire to protect the children already hers.”
She has erred. First, her children are not hers. They belong to the Lord our God as has been previously revealed in this series. Secondly, she did not know or believe that God makes all things. “…even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all” (Ecclesiastes 11:5).
Every human being born and unborn belongs to God!
As previously noted, “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4).
“Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine”
The LORD “made and fashioned us in the womb”.
“Did not he that made me in the womb make him (Job’s manservant and maidservant)? and did not one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15).
“Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews” (Job 10:11).
It is “the LORD, thy redeemer, that formed thee from the womb….”
“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” ( Isaiah 44:24).
“Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God” (Isaiah 66:9).
Which shall it be? Shall we continue with the holocaust of abortion, or will we repent and turn to the Lord our God? What shall it be? What are you going to do? Will you also repent of your sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved?
Repentance consists of the following steps:
1. Admission of Sin
2. Sorrow for Sin
3. Confession of Sin to God
4. Turning from Sin to Righteousness
5. Ceasing from willfully practicing sin
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31).
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:3-8).
“And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” (Luke 11:9-13).
“Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house” (Acts 16:29-34).
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:9-10).
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8-9).
“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)” (Ephesians 2:5).
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”(Galatians 2:16).
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” (Luke 1:31).
“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:20-21).
In the name of “freedom”, Margaret Sanger advocated the murder of unborn children to protect the remaining children in a family.
What is equally as heinous is that through her book, “Woman and the New Race”, she essentially has become a teacher for the past ninety-two years. What is the result? Margaret Sanger founded the organization called Planned Parenthood, so- called, one of the “means” used for the slaughter of over 54 million human beings in America and millions more throughout the world.
(1) Sanger, “Woman and the New Race”, p. 129.
(2) Paul R. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment”, (July 1978), p.741.
(3) Sanger, “Woman and the New Race”, p. 63.
(4) Ehrlich, Holdren and Ehrlich, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment”, p.741.