[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Jesus Loves The Little Children
Source: The Aquila Report
URL Source: http://theaquilareport.com/jesus-loves-the-little-children/
Published: Jul 23, 2015
Author: Kevin DeYoung
Post Date: 2015-07-23 15:42:28 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Pro-Life*     Subscribe to *Pro-Life*
Keywords: None
Views: 6302
Comments: 38

Oddly enough, it’s sometimes progressives who are most eager to move the culture backward.

As we reflect in horror at the utter callousness with which some persons and organizations speak of (not to mention crush) the tiniest humans, it’s worth remembering that the ancient world was unabashedly open to the killing of children. For starters, they had almost none of the sentimentality we have towards kids. There was no Disney, no summer camps, no play dates. Family life–even if there was such a thing–certainly did not revolve around children. In general, children, were useful at best, burdens at worst, and almost never coddled.

If there was one dominant fact regarding children in the ancient world it was their high mortality rates, especially among infants. Many newborns were stillborn or died in labor. Those who made it safely out of the womb often went hungry. There were too many mouths to feed and too little food. As a result, children were often abandoned, exposed to the elements, literally left on trash heaps to die. From 230 B.C. onward, the most common family in Greece was a one-child family. Families of four or five were rare. Some families might want two sons, but rarely would they want two daughters.

Unwanted children were disposed of, often sold into slavery. Others were aborted in the womb. Many more were simply killed as infants. Newborns were not considered part of the family until the father officially acknowledged them and received them into the house by religious ceremony. Consequently, ancient Greeks and Romans thought little of little babies and did not hesitate to get rid of them.

In the ancient world, it was uniquely the Jewish people who prohibited abortion and infanticide, the latter of which was not outlawed until Christianity took on a privileged place in the empire. Christians have always opposed killing children, whether infants outside the womb or infants inside the womb. The two were one and the same crime. “You shall not abort a child or commit infanticide,” commanded the Didache, a late first century church constitution of sorts. Despite the muddled arguments of progressive Christian groups and denominations (whose obfuscation with language is positively Orwellian), opposition to abortion and infanticide is not simply one position for Christians, it is the Christian position.

Jesus welcomed children when others wanted to push them away (Mark 10:13-16). He said the measure of our love for him would be measured by our love for children (Mark 9:36-37). He took the children in his arms as if to say, “Honor these little ones, and you honor me. Send them away because they are weak, socially insignificant, and bothersome, and you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand the values of the kingdom.”

As abortion is again in the public eye (though willfully ignored by major media outlets), let’s pray for our society to change its mind regarding the smallest and most helpless of its citizens. Let’s pray for the church to lead the way in protecting, honoring, and caring for children–not matter how unborn or unwanted. Let’s pray that every judge, politician, and doctor becomes convinced of the sanctity of unborn life and acts accordingly. Let’s pray for the flourishing of pregnancy centers and women’s clinics that provide an alternative to abortion. Let’s pray for the women contemplating such a tragic choice, and for the family members encouraging them in the wrong direction. Let’s pray for men to be men, to stop fooling around and to stop fleeing when they have. Let’s pray that hundreds of politicians, thousands of pastors, millions of would-be moms and dads, and 300 million hearts are gripped by a Jesus-inspired view of children.

Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world. Even the ones with an umbilical cord.


Poster Comment:

The West is regressing to its pagan roots of disposable children.Subscribe to *Pro-Life*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

#12. To: redleghunter, All (#0)

Have you seen the latest trend that is gaining traction in the medical " intellectual class " ? A couple years ago , a couple of medical 'ethicists " proposed that since babies aren't really fully developed after birth ,that it is moral and ethical to do "after-birth " abortions .

Publishing in the Journal of Medical Ethics ;"two philosophers", Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argued that If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

jme.bmj.com/content/early...edethics-2011-100411.full

They don't give a time frame when that baby is actually a person . Maybe it's a day or 2 . Maybe they are thinking more in line with Herod ,using a 2 year window. Does it matter ? The same arguments for offing a fetus can be applied to a baby evidently . Why wouldn't it then be a standard applied to the infirmed or the elderly ? It's all the same moral base ..... someone else deciding someone elses worth as a human ,and having the power to terminate that person.

tomder55  posted on  2015-07-24   6:19:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: tomder55, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator, BobCeleste, Don, Chuck_Wagon, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Pericles, SOSO, nolu chan, *Pro-Life* (#12)

Have you seen the latest trend that is gaining traction in the medical " intellectual class " ? A couple years ago , a couple of medical 'ethicists " proposed that since babies aren't really fully developed after birth ,that it is moral and ethical to do "after-birth " abortions .

Publishing in the Journal of Medical Ethics ;"two philosophers", Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argued that If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

jme.bmj.com/content/early...edethics-2011-100411.full

They don't give a time frame when that baby is actually a person . Maybe it's a day or 2 . Maybe they are thinking more in line with Herod ,using a 2 year window. Does it matter ? The same arguments for offing a fetus can be applied to a baby evidently . Why wouldn't it then be a standard applied to the infirmed or the elderly ? It's all the same moral base ..... someone else deciding someone elses worth as a human ,and having the power to terminate that person.

Tom, can't say I am shocked but yet did not think some would be so overt as in the days of Sanger.

ALL: ping to tomder55's post above. Pro-Life ping.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-07-24   9:05:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: redleghunter, tomder55, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator, BobCeleste, Don, Chuck_Wagon, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Pericles, nolu chan, (#14)

They don't give a time frame when that baby is actually a person . Maybe it's a day or 2 . Maybe they are thinking more in line with Herod ,using a 2 year window. Does it matter ? The same arguments for offing a fetus can be applied to a baby evidently . Why wouldn't it then be a standard applied to the infirmed or the elderly ? It's all the same moral base ..... someone else deciding someone elses worth as a human ,and having the power to terminate that person.

Well didn't SCOTUS establish viability as the test? What newborn infant is viable on its own - none. By that standard abortions should be legal up until about 18 (probably at least 26 if they are still on their parents medical insurance) and then again after one loses control of their bowels. After all according to ex-Governor Toe Head the elderly have an obligation to die - if they don't voluntarily do so then society has a right to move them on. Indeed it is a Brave New World, Dr. Kevorkian.

SOSO  posted on  2015-07-24   10:43:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: SOSO, redleghunter, tomder55, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator, BobCeleste, Don, Chuck_Wagon, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Pericles (#15)

Well didn't SCOTUS establish viability as the test? What newborn infant is viable on its own - none.

The viability test is not whether the fetus/baby can survive on its own. It is whether it can survive at all, even with proper medical care.

Roe was decided on which of the competing interests it considered paramount at various stages of pregnancy.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html

U.S. Supreme Court

ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

From Syllabus (Reporter's synopsis of holding)

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-24   16:14:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, tomder55, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator, BobCeleste, Don, Chuck_Wagon, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Pericles (#19)

The viability test is not whether the fetus/baby can survive on its own. It is whether it can survive at all, even with proper medical care.

Not so. But you may try to convince me otherwise. What encompasses proper medical care? Shelter? Feeding? Bathing? Clothing? Hygiene?

SOSO  posted on  2015-07-24   16:37:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: SOSO, redleghunter, tomder55, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator, BobCeleste, Don, Chuck_Wagon, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Pericles (#21)

What encompasses proper medical care?

Medical care to keep the delivered fetus/baby alive. If that is beyond possibility, the fetus is considered non-viable. It is the inability to keep the fetus alive outside the mother's body, generally due to underdeveloped organs.

I should reiterate one more time that I am not in agreement with the Roe court, but the opinion is what it is.

From Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1990)

Viability. Capability of living. A term used to denote the power a new-born child possesses of continuing its independent existence. That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child ma be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems. The constitutionality of this statutory definition. (V.A.M.S. (Mo.), § 188.015) was upheld in Planed Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788.

For purposes of abortion regulation, viability is reached when in the judgment of the attending physician of the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Colautti v. Franklin 439 U.S. 379, 388, 99 S.Ct. 675, 682, 58 L.Ed.2d 596. See also Viable, Viable child.

Viable. Livable; having the appearance of being able to live; capable of life. This term is applied to a newly-born infant, and especially to one prematurely born, which is not only born alive, but in such a state of organic development as to make possible the continu­ance of its life. See Viability; Viable child.

Viable child. Unborn child who is capable of indepen­dent existence outside his or her mother's womb, Libbee v. Permanente Clinic, 268 Or. 258, 518 P.2d 636, 637; even if only in an incubator, Sylvia v. Gobeille, 101 R.I. 76, 220 A.2d 222, 223. In most states a viable unborn child is considered a person under the wrongful death statute, e.g., DiDonato v. Wortman, 320 N.C. 423, 358 S.E.2d 489, and in some states is considered to be a person under a homicide statute, e.g., Comm. v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324. See also Child (Rights of unborn child) Unborn child; Viability; Wrongful death statutes.

The ability to sustain the life of an incompletely developed fetus/child, via artificial means, is ever changing in favor of sustaining life at an earlier stage of development.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-24   17:06:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#22)

A term used to denote the power a new-born child possesses of continuing its independent existence. That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child ma be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems.

There hasn't been a newborn infant ever, except perhaps Christ, that was capable of independent existence. Every infant needs shelter, food, water, clothes, hygiene, etc. None of that falls under the realm of natural or artificial life-supportive systems.

"Viable child. Unborn child who is capable of indepen­dent existence outside his or her mother's womb",

See above. Never, ever, ever.

SOSO  posted on  2015-07-24   19:05:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: SOSO (#24)

There hasn't been a newborn infant ever, except perhaps Christ, that was capable of independent existence. Every infant needs shelter, food, water, clothes, hygiene, etc. None of that falls under the realm of natural or artificial life-supportive systems.

I provided a detailed legal definition. You do not have to accept it.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-25   2:48:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 33.

#37. To: nolu chan (#33)

There hasn't been a newborn infant ever, except perhaps Christ, that was capable of independent existence. Every infant needs shelter, food, water, clothes, hygiene, etc. None of that falls under the realm of natural or artificial life-supportive systems.

I provided a detailed legal definition. You do not have to accept it.

It's not whether I accept it or no, it's that the concept of viability is open to legal challenge and attack.

SOSO  posted on  2015-07-25 13:05:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com