Slaughter Of The Innocents

When a left leaning propaganda magazine like Slate thinks the latest 'brainstorm' from the progressive "braintrust" is a little over the top, you have to know it's bad. And this time it's horrific. Remember - these are the people that honestly think that killing an unborn child is not murder, it's "contraception".

Fox newsman Brit Hume tweeted his shock over an article in Slate about the concept of "After Birth Abortions", however MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry thinks that murdering a living human is okey dokey as long as the parents think it's a good idea. But this is not a new concept, nor is this a new article as it was written in March 2012. After Birth Abortions are simply legalizing the murder of a baby after it's born if the baby is considered an inconvenience or imperfect. Also known as Post Natal Abortions this horrific sin has been the little unspoken nightmare that some people are working toward. While this may be a new low that our society is striving toward, it's not a new idea by any means, as God reprimanded sinful Israel:

²⁰ “Moreover, you took your sons and daughters whom you had borne to Me and sacrificed them to idols to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter? ²¹ You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire. (Ezekiel 16:20-21)

Of course in the modern world we don't worship idols, we worship ourselves. Only 5% of children that are aborted are done so for the health of the mother, health of the child, or as a matter of rape or incest. Regardless of the given reason the rest of abortions all come down to being done for personal convenience.

The arguments that philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva put forth to support their views are shallow and selfish at best. Their primary reason for killing babies is The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary. In other words "It's ok to kill babies because they're small and weird" How dare children come into this world without the necessary skills to live such as read, write, and apply for a job! then again if they do come into this world fully equipped, so what? Their development is just arbitrary, based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Right? Wrong, personal development is based on God rather than whim or random occurrences

³ “Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, And all the remnant of the house of Israel, You who have been borne by Me from birth And have been carried from the womb; ⁴ Even to your old age I will be the same, And even to your graying years I will bear you! I have done it, and I will carry you; And I will bear you and I will deliver you. (Isaiah 46:3-4)

Their next argument is a cold calculated lie; Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. According to Giubilini and Minerva "personhood" is an arbitrary condition that a blob of fetal matter enters into sometime after birth. When does this occur? That's not discussed so we can safely assume that like everything else in the pro-slaughter movement it would occur when it's convenient, and if a child is inconvenient then personhood  will never be convenient. Until the gift of personhood is bestowed upon this child Giubilini and Minerva consider it a "non person" who has no rights what so ever, including the right to live. "Non persons" are fair game to be murdered, slaughtered, sacrificed as a sin offering to the great god "Self" However the truth is that we were persons before we were conceived in the womb

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)

Again, this is not news, this has been going on in the background for ages. What is new is that our society has fallen so far away from God that "thoughts" like these are no longer considered by society to be disgusting. People have lost their moral compass so completely that some think that murdering a baby because it's inconvenient should be given consideration. A man named Pete Singer has been polluting our society with thoughts like this for years.

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher and an atheist (Surprise Factor = 0) who for years has been preaching that:

"...newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness and therefore killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person"

A rational human may successfully argue that killing a newborn baby is far worse than killing a grown person because the baby has done nothing to be considered a detriment to society and has potential to grow and improve society while a grown person has sinned and has done things that would be a detriment to society. Peter will discount this as he is against capital punishment because he claims that the death penalty does not deter crime, regardless of what the statistics show.

Singer is against eating meat because it's cruel to animals (while murdering babies isn't cruel?) and he has publicly come out in favor of: Abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, confiscation of personal property of the 'rich', surrogate motherhood, doping in sports, incest, incestous marriage, and bestiality. This man is a professor at Princeton and is allowed to speak to your children.

Probably the most heinous claim by Giubilini and Minerva is Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. In other words, if having a baby prevents mom from hanging out at the bar on Friday nights the child must die. Or maybe if it's just too much hassle to put a child restraint seat in a car so the child must die.

So the idea of childhood to these people is based on what they decide the worth is by their own Arbitrary methods that they so despise. But while these 'great philosophers' can find no value in childhood, the Son of God did: 

but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)