LOL, not so fast.
You have no problem that the infants needed to be allowed to be conceived, by a supposed god which wanted them destroyed, not by its own efforts (which it could have avoided having to do so, by preventing their conception), but by the hand of a man, ordered to stomp, chop and slice babies as if they were scrub vegetation? I don’t believe you. Mind you, their short lives would also imply that they didn’t have any free will to exercise their options, as to whether they truly deserved “Hell” or not. If this god could foresee their eventual behaviour beforehand, then what was the point of their conception in the first place, and their premature destruction before they actually committed evil? If you don’t see a problem with the entire arrangement, I don’t have much to say other than that I assume you are lying (to yourself, and to me) about your level of comfort with it.
You would have to endure massive levels of cognitive dissonance almost to the level of what would classify as a psychological disorder, in order to “zone out” of the internal contradictions you are forced to deal with, here. On top of that, accepting such a god for its “recorded” behaviour would make it impossible for you to make a moral case against someone’s belief in, say, Allah. Since your version of god can do anything it wants (even contradict itself) then where is the limit? Nowhere.
The point about the spontaneous abortions was to highlight the callousness of existence, of suffering which has no meaning, no purpose. There is little that can be done to save them because their destruction was induced by the mother’s body due to mechanisms evolved which prevent her body from bringing these embryos to term - because of the risk they would eventually pose to the mother’s survival. Artificial intervention to force a body to continue a pregnancy to term which would have naturally been ended would involve causing more damage than good. Not to mention privacy violations because devices would have to be put in place in the mother’s body to detect such a fertilisation, as the mother herself is not aware most of the time.
Work your way through all this and let me know your thoughts.
Since you are an atheist, all you have is reason. And liver.
The laws of thermodynamics guarantee the extinction of all life: we know of know life anywhere except Earth, so focusing on life is actually an instance of the narrow, provincial "geocentrism" for which the medieval Christians were so roundly castigated.
And if all you have is probabilities, then you have no morality from which to declare "killing is wrong."
What you are doing is taking an emotional view, using it to try to bootstrap socially shaming arguments, and trying to bludgeon me into agreeing that Christianity is unaware of evil.
Which is absurd even on the social level, since the worldwide symbol of Christianity is that of a religious minority, an itinerant manual laborer under military occupation, who was betrayed by His friends, convicted by a kangaroo court of His culture, and executed under torture by the occupying authority, by a method so painful that its very name has become a synonym for "painful torture".
And even more absurd on a Theological level, for Christianity's tenet is that this Man is God Himself, come to partake in our suffering and death ("he has tasted death for every man") and in doing so, to destroy the ultimate power of death.
Your opinion is inconsistent. I'm comfortable with mine.