Murder for the Rest of Us

How We Break the Sixth Commandment

Article by Afshin Ziafat Pastor, Frisco, Texas

You don’t need to grow up in church to know that murder is a wicked offense. Murder is treated nearly universally as a heinous crime. And it ought to be. God makes plain his hatred of murder the moment it appears in Cain’s slaying of his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8). God legislates death as the appropriate punishment for those who unlawfully put others to death (Genesis 9:6).

Yet for all of our hatred of the murder out there, we can fail to hate the murder in here. But Scripture, and the words of Jesus in particular, will not allow us to hate murder at a safe distance. The sixth commandment, “You shall not murder,” exposes a universal problem and a universal need for forgiveness.

Different Kinds of Killing

The word used for “murder” in Exodus 20:13, Hebrew rasah, denotes the unlawful, premeditated, or immoral killing of another human, while also covering the unintentional causing of human death through carelessness or negligence. Of its forty-seven uses in the Old Testament, this verb is never used to describe killing in war, nor is it thought to apply to slaughtering animals or defending one’s home from invasion.

God’s law differentiated between willful and involuntary killing. Exodus 21:12–14 clearly states that the premeditated murder of another person was deemed worthy of capital punishment (see also Numbers 35:17–21).

“Seek to reconcile quickly with others. Replace hate and anger with words that give life and bless others.”

The accidental or involuntary causing of another person’s death, however, carried a slightly lighter penalty. Though it was not grounds for the sentence of death, the guilty party was banished to an appointed place (which later God would reveal as cities of refuge, Deuteronomy 19:1–13). This place offered sanctuary from the vengeful relatives of the deceased, but it was also away from home. The banishment often lasted for life because the guilty party would not be released until the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:2528).

So while discerning between consequences for different killings can be difficult, we all know it is a great evil to unlawfully take another’s life.

Why God Hates Murder

God shows his hatred for murder the moment it appears in Cain (Genesis 4:8). But why does God hate the act of murder so much? Two reasons stand out in Scripture.

1. The act of murder is an assault on God himself.

After God made a covenant with Noah never to destroy mankind by a flood, he set up a system to protect human life. Any man who unlawfully took the life of another would have his own life taken, “for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6). Here we see how precious and valuable human life is to God. To murder another human being is to murder what is most like God in creation. It is tantamount to an attack on the Creator of all life. This is why abortion is so grievous to God and Christians.

The Bible is clear that human life begins in the womb and not at birth. David declares that we were fearfully and wonderfully made in our mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13). God says to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). All human life is precious in the sight of God, and it is evil to think of any human life as disposable — whether the unborn, the elderly, the disabled, or the sick.

2. Murder assumes the authority and right reserved for God alone.

Only God has the right to give life and to take away life (Deuteronomy 32:391 Samuel 2:6). Job declared that life belongs to the Lord to give and to take away (Job 1:21). Consequently, the one who murders another human being is guilty of assuming the right and privilege that is God’s alone. He is guilty of rebellion against God and attempting to put himself in the place of God. In this way, murder is the offspring of the very first sin and breaks the first commandment by having a god (self) before the Lord.

A Sin Not So Easily Escaped

Now, one may say, “Well, I have never — nor will I ever — commit murder!” But two considerations give strong reason to take heed to this command and see it as relevant to all of us.

Carelessness or Neglect

As stated earlier, the Hebrew word employed in the sixth commandment would include causing someone’s death from carelessness or neglect. This command would have instigated a holy fear in the community to strive for caution and prudence in the affairs of life so that no one would be guilty of unintentionally taking someone’s life through recklessness.

There is a reason harsh penalties are given to people who drive under the influence of alcohol. Or consider a carelessness closer to home: texting while driving. We may put others’ lives in danger more often than we assume.

And then there is the issue of negligence. The principle of the watchman of Ezekiel 33 comes to mind. The Lord painted a picture through the prophet Ezekiel of a watchman who was put in position to warn the city of the coming sword against it. If the watchman failed to blow the trumpet and was negligent in his duty, then the blood of the people would be on his hands (Ezekiel 33:7–9).

We can be negligent in failing to warn others of danger or to speak up on behalf of those who are vulnerable and powerless. It is easy to condemn the silence of so many in Germany who did not speak out against the murderous atrocities of the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. But are we equally vocal against the murdering of so many unborn here in our own country? Are we willing to speak up for the marginalized and the oppressed in our own culture?

Anger as Murder

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges his disciples to live according to the standards of the kingdom of God and not the standards of the world or even of the religious establishment around them. He tells them that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20), who sought merely outward conformity to the law instead of inward transformation of the heart.

Jesus displays this exceeding righteousness by using the refrain, “You have heard that it was said, but I say to you . . .” He is not saying that what was written in the Old Testament is not true. Rather, he is correcting what they heard the Old Testament saying and giving them the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, especially in the light of his coming.

You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, “You fool!” will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21–22)

The world understands that murder is a crime. The religious establishment focused on this outward nature of not murdering anyone. But the standard of the kingdom of God is not merely to avoid the shedding of blood. To be focused on the mere act of murder is to miss the heart of the command.

“It is not enough to not murder; you must eradicate hatred from your heart.”

Jesus insists that it is not enough to not murder someone; we must eradicate hatred from our hearts. Murder is not merely an action without any reference to the character of the murderer. Something more fundamental is at stake here. The sinful anger and wrath that lurked behind the deed itself is blameworthy and will be subject to judgment. John writes, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). The stakes could not be higher.

Repenting of Heart Murder

Do you feel the weight of this? Jesus is saying you are not safe from punishment just because you have not shed blood. If you have harbored anger, contempt, or malice toward someone else, you are guilty. Have you ever wished someone harm or, even worse, wished they were dead? Have you ever rejoiced over someone’s misfortune? Have you ever put someone down in your heart? Then your heart has known murder.

Again, the radical righteousness that Jesus demands is not merely a refraining from outward sin but a transformation of the heart by his love and grace. Our only hope is Christ, who fulfilled all righteousness and offers it to us as a free gift to be received by faith. So what must we do?

1. Confess.

Turn to God and confess the sin of anger. Make no excuses for it. The story of Jonah is instructive.

In Jonah 4, Jonah is angry with God because God didn’t destroy Nineveh. The Lord asks him, “Do you do well to be angry?” (Jonah 4:4). In other words, God is calling Jonah to look at his own life and his own heart. Is his anger justified? Does he not depend on the same mercy from God that God has given to the Ninevites? Does he have the right to decide who receives mercy and who doesn’t?

We too rarely look at our own hearts to see the root of the problem. But it starts here with a confession: I am sinfully angry.

2. Receive the gift of God’s grace in Jesus.

Abel’s blood cried out to God for justice. But Hebrews 12:24 tells us that Jesus’s blood speaks a better word. The blood of Abel speaks a word of condemnation: the murderer deserves death. And we are guilty as charged. We break the sixth commandment with the anger in our heart.

This is why Jesus came. He lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, and rose so that we could have life in him, now and after death. For those who believe in him, the blood of Christ speaks a word of forgiveness and acceptance. By faith, receive this gift of grace!

3. Reconcile specifically.

So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23–24)

Jesus calls for a specific action here toward a specific brother. And notice that it isn’t someone that you are angry with. No, this is someone who is offended by you. You have done something to offend him, and God brings it to your mind. The first act of worship is for you to make it right with him.

God calls us to sensitivity in our relationships with others — not a vague sensitivity to imagined offenses, but rather dealing with real offenses that the Holy Spirit brings to mind against specific people. Seek to reconcile quickly with others. Replace hate and anger with words that give life and bless others.

And when we reconcile, we can go forth and resolve, God helping us, to “let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31–32).

Afshin Ziafat (@afshinziafat) is lead pastor of Providence Church in Frisco, Texas. His passion is to teach the word of God as the authority and guide for life, to preach Jesus Christ as the only Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and to proclaim the love of Christ as the greatest treasure and hope in life. He and his wife, Meredith, currently reside in Frisco with their three children.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/murder-for-the-rest-of-us

VIDEO Thunderous Applause—We Can Kill Our Children And Change Our Sex

January 8, 2021  by Shane Idleman

“THE WICKED FREELY PARADE AND PRANCE ABOUT WHILE EVIL IS PRAISED THROUGHOUT THE LAND” (PSALM 12:8).

Almost a year ago, I wrote an article with a similar title when the so-called Reproductive Health Act passed in New York with thunderous applause in the state Senate chamber. I could not believe what I was reading: People actually applauded the slaughtering of children. Was I having a dream . . . a nightmare? Was this real?

As I’m writing this, the final results of the Georgia election and the presidency are still up in the air. Regardless of your political views, we should all be heartbroken at the state of our nation today. For example, by supporting certain candidates, many are cheering that healthy 9-month-old babies can be removed limb-by-limb. You may say, “But I’m not cheering abortion.” If you support those who support it, you are—let that sink in.

You’re also cheering that children can be influenced by transgenderism and be encouraged to change their sex (which is not possible by the way). Cheering that Congress will attempt to remove all male pronouns. The list of insanity that you’re supporting is endless.

Granted, these issues have been in America for years, but there is a huge difference between a politician who encourages perversion and murder, and one who fights against it. And I’m getting very frustrated at those who say, “But the Republicans haven’t done much to stop abortion either.” The reason is that adversaries in the House and Senate have fought for abortion rights. The enemy of our soul has done a great job preventing the shutting down of abortion mills and silencing churches via silent pastors. The view that Republicans haven’t done much is really just an excuse and a straw man argument.

I’m not writing this from a political party standpoint—I’m writing this from a God-fearing standpoint. When human life is devalued, atrocities such as the Holocaust, slavery, sex-trafficking, and abortion occur. God help us when we ignore our calling to confront evil. But how did we get here and what can we do?

THE CHURCH MUST BE REVIVED

As I said in my recent sermon and article, both titled, The Great Reset of the Church: In the same way that Jesus warned the lukewarm church in Laodicea, He warns us today: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot . . . So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” (See Revelation 3:15-17.)

I believe that the church in America resembles the Laodicean church more than at any other time in our history. Sadly, conviction is replaced with complacency, and God’s glory is often replaced with gimmicks and marketing ploys. Just look at the top sermons viewed on social media today. The preachers are motivational speakers, not voices “crying in the wilderness.” It’s about being bigger and better instead of holier and humble.

Like many today, the Laodiceans thought that they were in the center of God’s will. They were large, wealthy, and involved in the community. They looked at numbers, but Jesus looked at the heart and said that they were “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” His strong words were meant to convict and challenge, not coddle and comfort. In order to confront the massive cultural shift mentioned above, the church must be revived: “Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?” (Psalm 85:6).

TWO PRIMARY AREAS OF UNGODLY INFLUENCE

How did we get here? A deathlike, deep slumber, has overtaken the church and God has allowed the complete breakdown of society. The beacon of light has faded, the salt has lost its savor, and the message of the cross has been edited out of most sermons. We have lost our fervor for the truth. Consider the following and how they may have played a role in where we are today—applauding murder and perversion:

The media is influencing the church. The politically correct police are on high alert. You can mention God as long as you don’t mention His absolute truth. You can mention Jesus as long as He was just a good teacher. And you can embrace religion as long as it’s all-inclusive. Pastors are required to be politically correct rather than biblically correct to be accepted. The trend in churches is to be welcoming, but primarily affirming. Sermons are designed to tickle the ear but not convict the heart. God help us.

Additionally, many Christians enjoy programs about the occult, vampires, witches, zombies, illicit sex, and other perversions of the truth. A Christian should not be entertained by darkness. If we are, our heart needs spiritual resuscitation. “If your sinful nature controls your mind, there is death. But if the Holy Spirit controls your mind, there is life and peace” (Romans 8:6).

The church cannot be political . . . unless it’s “politically correct.” I’m often reminded of God’s words to Jeremiah, “I have not sent these pastors but they ran. I have not spoken to them but they spoke. But had they truly stood in My counsel, they would have turned the people from their evil ways” (paraphrasing Jeremiah 23:21). I agree with Leonard Ravenhill here: “We need more prophets in our pulpits and less puppets.” God uses true prophetic voices to confront and convict.

I make no apologies for the controversial content of this article. When we fail to confront, we confirm. When we fail to confront destructive ideas and philosophies, we are, in essence, confirming them. To state the obvious, we become part of the problem. We cannot change what we will not confront.

As I often say, This battle is for the very soul of our nation. It’s our choice—stand or fall. Watch the video on defending the faith here.


VIDEO Does having an abortion take an innocent human life? – Through the Eyes of Hope

Truelife.org

Abortion is by far one of the most controversial topics in our society. Needless to say, there are people on both ends of the spectrum and all in between when it comes to the question of whether or not abortion constitutes murder. Since the discussion centers on such an important issue (the issue of murder), it is incredibly important to give careful thought and consideration to this all-important question.

First, it is necessary to define the term murder.  What can make this issue difficult and confusing is that society accepts various definitions of the word murder. Mirriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines murder as “The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.” In addition, most legal definitions of the word are similar in nature with varying degrees which are subdivided into first and second degree murder. This is where some confusion arises.

It should be noted that under a legal definition of murder, legal abortion would not fit the requirements. In other words, under the law of man instituted by civil government, abortion is not unlawful and would not be defined as murder. However, it should also be noted that the death of an unborn child can be legally counted as murder if there is premeditation, malice involved  and done without legal authority (see the Unborn Victims Child Act of 2004- 18 U.S. Code § 1841 – Protection of unborn children).

It is clear that legal definitions change with current law enactments. In 1973, abortion became legal (with some regulating factors) in all of the U.S. with the passing of the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade (and its companion case of Doe v. Bolton). Before this time, abortion (with some limited circumstances) was legally considered a crime in many states. Also, many states even considered abortion illegal under common law rules. Because of this, a strict legal definition is not universal, timeless, or absolute. A problem arises when these legal definitions change the undeniable and accepted principles of “morality.” For example, at one time, slavery was legal in the U.S.  That does not mean that it was morally okay, or that it should have been legal. However, at one time in the U.S., black people were considered by many to just be property, and without the same rights as non-blacks. But does this mean that the very nature of slaves actually changed depending on the legal determination? Of course not!

It should be clear, then, that there is a far greater and more accurate definition of murder. This definition transcends the law of man, and is determined by the law of nature, nature’s true God, and His Word.  Throughout all history, virtually every civilization understood that there was a universal moral law that all reasonable people intuitively understood. Acts such as lying, stealing, and murder are written on the hearts of men. They are irrefutable, universal, and absolute evils. But how do we know these things are wrong? If there is an undeniable moral law, there must be a moral law giver, one who must set the standard. Who could this be, if not God?

Not surprisingly, the Holy Bible declares this very same truth. Romans 2:12-15 explains how all human beings have this moral compass imbedded in their conscious minds. It is the Almighty God of the universe that has placed it there.

Before humans ever wrote down civil law, God determined what defines murder. Based on Scripture, a proper definition would be the willful unjustified killing of an innocent human being. From the very beginning, God called it murder when Jesus described Satan as a “murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Later, God instructed Moses to write down this law of the heart very plainly when He commanded, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). In light of this, it is clear that from God’s perspective murder has existed from the beginning of creation and is a universal moral wrong that applies to all people, in all cultures, and in every age in human history.

It could be argued that the term murder is still a legal term in a biblical sense and perhaps in some sense, it is. In other words, God as the supreme law-giver has said, from the beginning that murder was a violation of His law even before it was written down in the Law of Moses.

Of course, it must be noted that not all killing is murder. This is true both in human civil law, and the law of God. In the Bible, God both commanded and allowed killing in areas such as war (Genesis 10-12; Deuteronomy 2:33-34), and the death penalty in civil and moral law (Genesis 9:5-6). Killing is a broader term than murder.

Now that we have a clear definition of murder, it is equally important to define the term abortion. Once again, confusion arises because there are various acceptable definitions.  A simple dictionary  definition (Mirriam-Webster) would be “a medical procedure used to end the pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus.” However, other nuances of the term would include both induced and spontaneous expulsion (miscarriage) of the fetus. However, it is very obvious that a miscarriage and an abortion are two very separate and opposite terms. Though in both cases, a fetus dies, one is voluntary and the other is not. This makes all the difference in the world. If a woman has a miscarriage, neither she, nor anyone else has done anything intentionally to end the life of her child. On the other hand, the medical procedure of abortion to end the life of a child is deliberate (on purpose).

Is the fetus a human being? This is also an important part of the discussion, since the fetus would have to be human if killing it were to be considered murder. Biologically, it is clear that it is. If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. From conception, when sperm and egg unite, the embryo grows through cellular reproduction. If the unborn has human parents, it must be human. Human beings reproduce after their own kind. The fetus is not part of a human, but is, in fact, a complete human organism, different than the mother and father. In addition, God has clearly called the unborn human beings, and has stated that life begins at conception. Psalm 139:13-16 states that the unborn are created by Him in the womb and Psalm 51:5 describes the unborn having a sin nature, and being alive at the moment of conception.

So, is abortion murder? The answer is certainly yes. Abortion is the willful and unjustified killing of an unborn child.  Regardless if abortion is legal by human government, it is a violation of the universal moral law of God, which supersedes man’s law. It should go without saying, in any regard, abortion is morally wrong, and a sin according to Almighty God.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

— ONLINE RESOURCES —

Southern Baptist Seminary Blog – The Witness of Scripture: Abortion is Murder. (http://www.sbts.edu/blogs/2016/01/22/the-witness-of-scripture-abortion-is-murder/)

Got Questions – Is Abortion Murder? (http://www.gotquestions.org/is-abortion-murder.html)

CARM – Is Abortion Wrong? (https://carm.org/abortion-wrong)

— PRINT RESOURCES —

Francis Beckwith – Defending Life  (http://amzn.com/0521691354)

J. Budziszewski – Written On the Heart  (http://amzn.com/B002R0JXJU)

Scott Klusendorf – The Case For Life  (http://amzn.com/B00294YEJI)

https://www.truelife.org/answers/is-abortion-murder


Through The Eyes Of Hope / LACEY BUCHANAN


America Burning: ‘Law and order’ have become ‘riot and mayhem

George Floyd’s name and death will forever be associated with the abominable barbarous behavior exhibited this weekend past. The organized riots and destruction taking place since the death of Floyd have been nothing less than a nationwide satanic black mass intended to honor destruction, lies, terrorism, thievery, murder, hatred, ad nauseam under the pretense of skin-color injustice.

It will be interesting to see if the absence of masks and the complete disregard for social distancing causes a spike in COVID-19 numbers in the cities infested with rioters and looting. But I digress.

Loathsome Democrats are using the death of Floyd to spread the damnable lie seized upon by the abysmally ignorant and uninformed whose assertions of national racism are foolishly preposterous.

America is not a racist country – a lie pushed by fools, idiots and skin-color pimps such as Tom Perez, chairman of the Democrat National Committee (DNC). Perez seized upon the death of Floyd to foment victimhood, hatred, rage and riot as a form of lucifarian equipoise for blacks that makes neo-Leninists and Alinskyites proud. But then, that’s what Democrats do despite them having a documented uninterrupted record of racism and bigotry for centuries.

Civilized human beings would have protested with the decorum of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. No one can point to savage animalistic barbarianism in one single protest led by Dr. King. His marches and protests were peaceful despite Democratic mayors, governors and police departments who vented their hatred with fire hoses, dogs and clubs.

TRENDING: Biden campaign staff caught financially supporting Minnesota riots

America is a nation of laws despite what’s argued by Democrats, fools and those who would be perennial gold medalists if being uninformed and ignorant were an Olympic sport. Consider LeBron James who has taken it upon himself to become the bipedal personification of George Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory, which argues, “Psychological disorder is any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent invalidation,” i.e., repeating the same thing failure after failure is a psychological disorder.

The DNC’s Perez wrote in an email letter addressed to me: “Your commitment to electing leaders who believe this country can live up to the basic ideals of its founding is what continues to move us [i.e., Democrats] forward.”

Perez is right about my “commitment to electing leaders who believe this country can live up to the basic ideals of its founding.” That’s why I support President Trump. It’s precisely the reason that I’ll work tirelessly to defeat Democrats and RINOs.

The Founders of America set forth a Constitution and system of laws that were not to be abrogated by mobocracy and pagan villainy that’s been used to destroy entire neighborhoods and the lives of the innocent. What has transpired in the aftermath of Floyd’s death isn’t what our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Reasonable people must conclude that because we’re a nation with a system of jurisprudence, we allow the courts and departments of investigation to unravel wrongful acts, which when adjudicated to be wrongful acts, are punished to the extent consistent with the crime. And, if disappointed by a finding, pursue the legal recourses available for same. Like it or not, that’s our system.

I’m not defending the police officers nor am I defending Floyd. I’m defending our system of law and order, because it’s glaringly transpicuous that “law and order” have been exchanged for riot and mayhem.

And who benefits from such behavior? It certainly isn’t the dead man’s family. It certainly isn’t those businesses and property owners who have their lives destroyed by thugs and criminal elements who should have fire hoses turned on them. Why should innocent men and women die, be mauled and suffer the loss of property for those who view the death of Floyd as a shopping spree opportunity?

To that end I argue that Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is culpable for the riot and mayhem in large part, because in my opinion, he was the accelerant that fueled the fires of destruction.

Frey rushed to the cameras and made incendiary remarks, including calling the death of Floyd murder, casting himself as prosecutor, judge and jury. It was Frey who incited violence by using verbiage that generated Pavlovian response by blacks who were enjoined by corrupt domestic terrorist groups like Antifa, who are funded unwittingly by taxpayers and by design through Soros-funded groups.

We’ve witnessed professional athletes who are almost as skilled at punt, pass, kick and score baskets as they are producing babies out of wedlock, getting arrested for battery, rape and busted for any of a plethora of drug offenses protest – only to have the outcomes prove law enforcement not guilty of charges against them. We saw this in the Michael Brown shooting, and we saw this with Freddie Gray in Baltimore and other similar cases where law enforcement were found innocent after all of the evidence was examined during trial.

The one thing I can assure every person reading this article is that the fear of police shooting and beating a person for absolutely no reason other than color of skin ended when Democrats were ousted of power in the South and racist Democratic domestic terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan were defanged.

I conclude with the fact that from 1976 to 2011, 94% of all blacks killed, which was approximately 280,000, were murdered by other blacks. Where’s the riot and protest over those lives? Why isn’t the domestic terrorist group Black Lives Matter protesting and rioting over the number of dead black young men killed by other blacks, in Chicago in the past two weeks? Why aren’t black ministers, actors, so-called black athlete-activists decrying the industrialized murder of blacks by abortion?

White Planned Parenthood, baby-killing death centers are singularly responsible for the extermination of more than one-third of the black population. Why isn’t “Low-Bron” James protesting that? Could it be because he and his boyz need them to send their women to?

 Mychal Massie’s new book, “I Feel the Presence of the Lord,” a collection of devotions intended to encourage the reader to seek and see the Lord in every aspect of life.

Original here


Late-Term Abortionist Offers Mothers The Chance To Cuddle Their Dead Babies

The open practice of killing then cuddling does not simply represent a ghastly declaration that children are both fully human and disposable. It signifies a war against the mother-child bond.

Late-Term Abortionist Offers Mothers The Chance To Cuddle Their Dead Babies

The infamous abortionist LeRoy Carhart invites women to cuddle with their freshly killed babies. His clinic also offers them take-home keepsakes such as photographs and footprints of their child.

Carhart specializes in third-trimester abortions, those done when the baby is approximately 24 weeks of gestation and older. You may recall that he was at the center of the debate on partial-birth abortion when the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in 2000. Seven years later, the court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion.

As I’ll try to explain below, the open practice of killing then cuddling does not simply represent a ghastly declaration that children are both fully human and utterly disposable. It signifies a full frontal war against the mother-child bond itself, the bond which is the fount of all empathic human relationships. To scorn it so openly cultivates social acceptance of infanticide. And it insinuates mothers in that very acceptance.

We’ll Help You Feel Better About Killing Your Child

On page seven of a brochure posted on the website for Carhart’s abortion clinics in suburban Maryland and Nebraska, you can browse an array of post-abortion services that seem more in line for a mother grieving over an unexpected miscarriage than a woman intentionally aborting her baby.

Carhart’s practice brazenly uses the word “baby” instead of fetus. In Orwellian manner, he references “delivery” of the child rather than abortion. As if this is not destabilizing enough, the brochure goes on:

Many patients request a remembrance of their baby to take home with them. The following lists items and services that some of our patients have found helpful in their emotional recovery. Every family approaches this experience with their own unique emotional, spiritual, and cultural background. There is no right or wrong way, just ‘your way.’ Once the process of healing has begun, you may want to consider a token of the precious time you and your baby had together. All of these features of our program will be discussed with you while you are with us.

Ignoring the possibility that the entire killing process may itself be the “wrong way,” the brochure offers the following “Services After Your Delivery: Viewing your baby after the delivery; Holding your baby after the delivery; Photographs of your baby; Cremation services referral; Funeral arrangements referral; Footprints; Spiritual and ceremonial accommodations [through the facility’s partnership with pro-abort clergy of various stripes]; Remembrance certificate.”

The page also shows a photo of an open gift box containing a soft toy ducky, a tiny knit cap, footprints, and the open lid inscription: “In loving Memory of Baby Doe who lives in the hearts of Jane and John Doe.” In other words, the warped idea is to first exterminate your baby, then hug your baby.

Pushing the Overton Window to Infanticide

Abortionists no doubt develop weird pathologies brought on by their gruesome choice of work. Consider, for example, the cases of notorious late-term abortionists Kermit Gosnell and Ulrich Klopfer, both of whom ghoulishly hoarded human remains.

Most tend to be unapologetically aware that they are in the business of killing people. Veteran abortionist Forrest Smith recently testified that he believed Planned Parenthood was deliberately inducing live births in order to get fresh and intact fetal organs to harvest.

As an expert witness in the recent hearings of undercover investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, Forrest stated: “There’s no question in my mind that at least some of these fetuses were live births.” And this (emphasis added): “You can kill a human being, which I admit abortion is, but you have to do it in certain ways.” By which he meant, inside the womb, not outside.

Forrest also indicated that Delaiden only uncovered the tip of the iceberg in his work. Indeed, in other testimony at that hearing, we learned of more gruesome practices, such as keeping the hearts of live-born infants beating so they are of greater value to the labs that pay for them and the trafficking of whole bodies for experimentation. Such blatant examples of infanticide and human vivisection should sicken all but the most barbaric of us.

A New Surreality of In-Your-Face Abortion

The abortion industry and its promoters have always known full well that they market in the death of human beings. But today they flaunt that fact as never before. Gone are the days when pro-abort legislators would deny and squirm when asked if they support third-trimester abortion. Talk about “hard choices” or “keeping abortion rare” is quickly disappearing.

Instead, we hear Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatrician, calmly discuss what to do if an aborted child is born alive, and whether to kill it after consultation with the mother and doctor. We see New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo lighting up the Empire State Building in pink to celebrate a new law that specifically boosts third-trimester abortions.

A campaign encouraging women to proudly “shout” their abortions took off last year. There are even subreddits that indulge in talks about abortion fetishes, in which a woman deliberately gets pregnant, enjoying both the pregnancy and the abortion, as does the male partner. The list goes on.

All such developments are a logical part of the trajectory of the pro-abortion culture. Lies get less manageable over time. At some point when denials no longer work, we can expect to hear taunting admissions in the gangster spirit of: Yeah, I killed them, and I’d do it again, so whaddya going to do about it?

Maybe the fig leaf of denial was blown off by Daleidan’s exposes of Planned Parenthood and the grim cruelties of late-term abortion practices such as Gosnell’s and Klopfer’s. Maybe one of the reasons for the decline in abortion rates is that fewer buy the lines about “clumps of cells” and “reproductive health” anymore. If so, that would be a promising sign that conscience still has an effect on people. But something else is afoot.

An Ominous Shift in Mood

In this broader context, how do we make sense of Carhart’s open offer of the post-abortion cuddle option? After 45 years of doing late-term abortions, Carhart is no doubt familiar with the need for emotional recovery. At the same time, he seems content to admit to “delivering” killed infants.

Later, what does the woman do with the memory of cuddling, the photo, the footprints of her dead child?

It’s a twisted and Orwellian picture. On the one hand, the cuddle offer is logical in an upside-down and calculating sort of way. The maternal bond is compelling and strong, no matter how much licentious men, their feminist stooges, and the leftist media try to tell women it’s just a matter of choice.

So maybe there is a superficially calming effect on some women who hold the baby afterwards, especially if the corpse is in fresh enough condition to look asleep and still be warm. On the other hand, it serves the abortionist by directing all responsibility onto the woman. A subtext could easily be: “Here’s your dead baby. See. You signed onto this. I only did what you paid me to do. I delivered on your decision.”

Later, what does the woman do with the memory of cuddling, the photo, the footprints of her dead child? Does the knowledge of her baby’s face haunt her? Or does it just harden her heart, perhaps even leading to a perverse sense of empowerment, as the “shout your abortion” cohort would recommend? The haunting would be a sign of hope for the maternal bond, a sign of conscience. But the hardening of heart, I fear, is where we may be headed with all of this.

This shift in overall mood among many abortion proponents—from denial of killing a person to defiant acceptance of it—is the stuff that brutal societies are made of.

Reminiscent of Ancient Attitudes about Child Sacrifice

Callousness is one logical outcome of denial and regret. If we consider the practice of child sacrifice, we might ask how consenting mothers got through it without hardening their hearts. James Michener’s historical novel “The Source” contains a harrowing scene in which a husband insists his wife sacrifice their firstborn son to Malek, the pagan god of ancient Palestine.

‘Could we just run away?’ she pleaded.

‘Timna!’ The idea was blasphemous for Urbaal . . .

‘I will not surrender my son,’ she persisted. . . .

‘We all do,’ he reasoned gently. . . ‘It is to Melak that we look for protection.’

‘. . . Why must he be so cruel?’ Timna pleaded.

‘He does much for us,’ Urbaal explained, ‘and all he asks in return [is] our first-born sons.’

The husband not only views his son as a disposable object, but also anticipates the status he will get from community elders for being so willing to make the sacrifice. Later, Timna watches helplessly as her baby is thrown into the fire. She starts to cry, “but with his free hand Urbaal caught her by the neck and preserved the dignity of sacrifice. He saw that the priests had noticed his action and had smiled approval.”

Modernity offers many parallels to that story. Just as child sacrifice was a male-dominated institution in the ancient world, most of the front-line pushers for unrestricted abortion in modern times have been men. Abortion is also a means to improve or maintain social status. After all, the idols of modernity “do much for us.”

Abortion appeases many of these idols, including the idols of cash flow, career advancement, the meticulously planned life, relationship preferences, social status, body shape, self-will, and sundry other shiny objects. At the same time, the men who impregnated the women along with the priests of modernity are those who most demand the sacrifice. Her choice, you see.

So destroy your baby, then hug the body. This concept signifies a chilling new level of acceptance for infanticide. Nothing more, nothing less. It adds grave insult to grave injury. It doesn’t matter how few women actually undergo that process if it gains cultural acceptance. To accept it is to give a nod to infanticide, an open invitation to ever more barbarism.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow Stella on Twitter.
Photo NataszaBlack / NeedPix.com

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/03/late-term-abortionist-offers-mothers-the-chance-to-cuddle-their-dead-babies/