The Murder of Innocents is Wrong and Every Human Being Knows It.

The Murder of Innocents is Wrong and Every Human Being Knows It. December 4, 2014


Human rights.

Does that phrase refer to unalienable human rights that are ours by virtue of the fact that we are human beings? Or, does it refer to laws and rules that can be shifted and changed by the whim of legislative bodies or the flick of a dictator’s will?

What are human rights, and where, if they exist as a separate entity, do they come from?

Thomas Jefferson, Deist that he was, got it exactly right when he said that human beings are “endowed by their Creator” with “certain unalienable rights.” By using those phrases, he chose to found this nation on the concept and reality of the fact that there are certain things that we, as human beings, know without being taught that we may not do. These things are written on our hearts, placed in our souls, from the moment that we begin to be.

We are never amoral. That is not possible for human beings because we are made in the image and likeness of God and His image shines through us in this undeniable and universal understanding of human rights that we are born knowing. From dateline to dateline, pole to pole, every culture, every people, every person, knows what murder is and that they may not do it.

Atheists often reference this when faced with the question of how they can possibly devise a morality of their own making, without reference to God. Everyone knows that murder is wrong, no matter what they believe about God they say. This is undeniably true, but it is not because there is no God. What they are doing without realizing it is affirming the teaching and the concept of Natural Law.

But, even though we know these things from our beginning, we are not automatons. We are not animals who operate by unchanging instinct. We are, from the moment we begin to be, free to chose. We can reject God or choose God. We can deny Him or follow Him. It is our choice.

We can — and we do — murder one another, oftentimes in great numbers and with a sadistic savagery that no animal can either feel or comprehend. We know that murder is wrong, but we can write laws to give ourselves permission to murder. We can create arguments that, however specious, allow us to fool ourselves into believing that murder is not only allowed, it is a positive good, and that we are taking the higher moral road by advocating for it.

I know.

I did this myself.

I was as convinced as a person could be convinced that legal abortion was a positive good that was necessary to save women’s lives and to further the just cause of women’s rights. I responded to the cruelties, discrimination and violence that I saw visited on women, oftentimes as a result of the fact that we are the ones who bear children, with a committed advocacy for legal abortion.

Later, when I realized the horror of what I had done, I was grieved beyond my capacity to bear. God showed me what I had done, and then He helped me bear and heal from the effects of knowing it.

Because of this experience, I am both the euthanasia advocate’s harshest critic and his or her most sorrowful and loving prayer warrior. I know what awaits them if they ever realize the full extent of what they have, by their advocacy, allowed, encouraged and done.

Innocent blood is on their hands and only  the shed blood of Jesus Christ can wash it away. But repentance for crimes against humanity of this type is not cheap. It comes with the price of knowing that you — you — are a monster. You have murdered innocents.

As much as I sorrow for them for what they are doing to themselves and others, I fear for them even more. They have locked themselves into their towers of unbelief and built moats of pride and hubris all around. Repentance for the murder of innocents is not cheap. But to live and die without repentance is to buy yourself a one-way ticket to eternal hell.

These advocates for euthanasia and their hapless followers are the most pitiable of all people.

At the same time, they, like the women who advocated for abortion, have raised issues and questions which must be answered. Evils like abortion and euthanasia have been sold to us as solutions for our own sins. The call for abortion didn’t just spring from the head of Zeus. The arguments which gave legal abortion sufficient moral gravitas to hook into the public imagination were based on real terrors such as rape and the fear of being forced to give a baby up for adoption.

These arguments found their traction in the sexual double standard and the vast cruelty and hypocrisy — oftentimes supported by the Church — that allowed it. Abortion was taken as an answer to violence against women, discrimination and prejudice against women, and the suffering of women because of these things. We turned to the murder of innocents rather than face our sins against women and repent of them.

In the same way, the arguments for euthanasia began as arguments for compassion for the suffering of dying people. Their traction in the public imagination was gained by the indifferent and cold way that people in our society died, hermetically sealed in hospitals and given only enough pain meds to keep then on the edge of screaming until death finally released them.

Once again, the answer for our sins was murder.

In the process of justifying these murderous answers to suffering and cruelty that we didn’t want to address directly, our intellectual class developed a whole set of arguments based on the concept that we are, all evidence to the contrary, just animals with big brains. We are nothing, they tell us, but chemical processes and meat.

The concept of human rights as unalienable and universal was dashed to the ground and replaced by the nebulous idea of rights founded, not on a universal human right to life, but on the idea of a relative right to life that only applies to human persons who are able to justify their right to life by exhibiting a sufficient level of social utility. This definition of what is a human being who has right to be alive has narrowed down to the point that now it stands basically at the notion that only those humans who can advocate for their own lives in a court of law are deemed truly human enough to have a right to life,

I’m going to delve into this brave new world of killing in greater depth in future posts. But for now it is sufficient to say that the universal understanding of murder as something that we may not do has been massaged into nothingness by those who want to kill at will.

A small number of deadly thinkers have used the media and our educational institutions to infect the public and the body politic with such confusion about what it means to be human that they are no longer capable of responding rationally to the social problems before them. If murdering innocent people is the answer, we really have to ask, How valid is the question?

We are being given false dichotomies and told to chose. The truth is, we have, and we have always had other options.

Women’s human rights are not supported by being forced to soldier on in a misogynist world that gives them the “choice” of murdering their own child in order to be taken as fully human. By the same token, there are myriad ways to address human suffering. Killing the sufferer is not, no matter what we have been told, one of them.

So, is it a mistake in today’s jumbled up climate of a propagandized and totally amoral public debate to talk about “human rights” at all? Has the phrase become so bastardized that it no longer means what it means?

This question strikes to the heart of the anomie of our times. If language is destroyed, then communication is destroyed and more to the point, thinking becomes impossible. What I am saying is that the people who advocate these things have drunk a lethal intellectual kool-aid that has so seriously compromised their thinking capacities that they no longer are capable of intelligent discussion.

That’s why they veer off into personal attacks and vendettas rather than take positions and discuss them intelligently. It’s why they go in circles, endlessly repeating slogans. They are arguing a moot point with bastardized language and concepts that are not concepts but the product of propaganda. Slogans and epithets presented as absolutes are all they’ve got.

Human rights, on the other hand, has the huge weight of generations of intellectual, theological and even some scientific debate and discussion behind it. The concept of unalienable rights and natural law are even accepted by those who deny their existence when they are pushed to explain how they can be moral all of themselves.

Every human knows that the murder of innocents is wrong. That is the reason for the ridiculous arguments, the vast amount of energy wasted on propagandizing the populace and the body politic. If we didn’t know that murder was wrong, it would not be necessary to create fictions and then sell them relentlessly that murdering someone is, in fact, saving them. We must turn the idea on its head or no one will accept it.

Of course, this lie begins to break down as the reality seeps through. Killing is killing. The press and popular imagination can deny this so long as they keep their distance. But the reality of lost lives hits hard for those who vacuum the uterus or administer the drugs. They are actively doing the deed. They are, by their own hands, committing murder on a mass scale.

Just as the Nazis found that machine-gunning thousands of innocent people day after day broke the SS troops who pulled the triggers, the nurses in the abortion clinics have often broken. It will be the same with euthanasia.

Some people — the Mengeles, Eichmanns, Pol Pots, Stalins, the leaders of ISIS — do not break. They are like the Ted Bundys and John Wayne Gacys. They like killing. Abortion and euthanasia was made by and for folks like these.

But for those who are not killers, who actually have bought the whole line, the moment will come when they see and know what they have done. They will break, and in that breaking will be their salvation.

This is why I persist and will continue to persist in using the scuffed and battered phrase human rights. Because it is exactly the right phrase to describe what I am talking about. Because the truth of that is written in every human heart. Because I know — know — that if I persist, someone out there who I may never know in this life will hear me and understand.

I am writing this for that someone, that one person, who will read it, or maybe the next post or the post after that, and realize that human beings have certain unalienable rights and that among them are Life.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

14 responses to “The Murder of Innocents is Wrong and Every Human Being Knows It.”

  1. If all of mankind knew that murder was intrinsically wrong from the beginning, why did it take millenia for us to figure that out on the societal level?

    I think Natural Law fails to predict the gradual emergence and relative fragility of ethical reasoning, and so provides a dubious account of moral knowledge.

    EDIT: Look, if you’re going to delete my comments *after* you respond to them (lol), you might as well delete this one too. I promise I won’t be back. ^__^

  2. Your main problem here is a faulty premise based on inaccurate history. Every society has had laws against murder. What I think you may be referring to is the gradual growth of the Kingdom and its fullness of respect for human life and human dignity. This is what Jesus was referring to when He said the Kingdom was like a mustard seed or, in another place, leaven in bread.

  3. Just read C.S. Lewis’s “The Abolition of Man.” He has footnotes that show in ancient cultures what common laws and beliefs were. There have always been rules against murder, adultery, etc. because humans instinctively knew that certain things were wrong (breaking marriage vows of fidelity, taking another’s life, stealing).

  4. This is quickly going to get circular and when it does, I’m going to cut it off. For now, let’s go back to first cases. Civilizations have always held that murder is wrong. The idea of the intrinsic dignity of the human being is also there, although not so explicitly. Otherwise, murder would not be wrong.

    When Jesus told people that even the hairs on the their heads were numbered by God, He was referring to this. He also explicitly compared them to the birds of the air and said that they were worth much more than animals. There are ample precedents in the Old Testament condemnations of human sacrifice and well as in the Psalms and Genesis where God said that He made man in His image.

    If people did not know these things were intrinsically wrong, they would not be universal. What is different is your earlier comment about the “fragility of ethics” in this area. Indeed, it is “fragile.” In fact, “ethics” is simply a matter of fashion. “Ethical” discussions do not rise above the level of justifying whatever morality is fashionable, which is why you have famous “ethicists” advancing notions of post-birth abortion and euthanasia.

    Ethics, is not a moral construct. It is simply a philosophical excuse for doing whatever we want. So, it is inherently unstable, ever-changing and corrupt. It is precisely and exactly the biggest and the meanest making all the rules.

    Now, to return to your attempts to argue against Natural Law. You haven’t advanced an argument against Natural Law. You have advanced a parallel ideology, which does not hold up in light of actual human experience. You have also, by means of your refusal to accept Natural Law, neutered arguments that human beings can develop morality without God.

    Without Natural Law, we are back at the biggest and meanest, making all the rules. That inevitably ends up in mass graves of innocents. Euthanasia and abortion are two examples.

  5. One of the things that some societies have done is define themselves as “human” and immoral to murder and other tribes as not-human, so subject to murder. Hungarians, for example, refer to themselves as “Magyars” which translates as human but that word did not apply to non-Hungarians.
    That may fit with your discussion of ethics and it certainly applies to the utilitarian eugeniscists making policy today. Both Jonathan Gruber and Ezekiel Emmanuel argue from a utilitarian point of view that deformed babies for example, should be considered not human so they can be euthanized because their care is too expensive. They do the same with the elderly.

  6. To play the devil’s advocate for a post, to the eugenicist the fetus, the terminally ill person, the condemned criminal, and the poor all have a characteristic in common that makes them less than fully human: they are dependent.

    That is what makes their murder a good thing in the eyes of the eugenicist.

  7. I was literally knocked speechless when I read that a suit had been in place to extend human rights and personhood to a chimpanzee. Seriously, not a hoax, but a real court case. Thanks be to God Almighty that the suit was rejected…..but this is where our culture is?? An infant human in the womb is a blob of cells, and a chimp is human???

  8. The Ayn Randian superman, maybe?

    But in Libertarian Eugenicist terms- anybody currently making enough income and healthy enough to not need welfare, medicare, medicaid, or social security, and who is not living with their parents (I’ve seen proposals of “after birth abortion”, which I’d call infanticide, of the disabled).

  9. In historical fact, both abortion and euthanasia come from the eugenicist movement, which was not compassionate at all. What you describe is their marketing, the dishonest selection of manipulated perceptions and supposed sensitivities, used by the movement to encourage lower orders and lesser breeds to stop reproducing.

  10. No Alexander Pope…No Isaac Newton… no Ludwig van Beethoven… No masterpieces from the extreme old age of Verdi and Monet (who painted his sublime series of Water-Lilies when he was registered blind – an inconceivable thing for an eugenicist health maniac)…

  11. With due respect, Rebecca, you are conceding far too much to the modern prostitutes. Ethics means in Greek what Morals means in Latin, and both these words descrive the philosophy of behaviour. When Aristotle wrote a treatise in Greek on right and wrong behaviour, he called it Ethics; the same work in latin would be Morals. Both words are derivative of their languages’ words for “behaviour” – “ethos” (singular) in Greek, “mores” (plural) in Latin. They mean the same, and should never be separated. To allow the so-called ethicists of the modern age to steal this word is like allowing pornographers and prostitutes to appropriate the word “love”.