A poster at Steve Gregg's forum, using the handle "Suzana" made an interesting argument in favor of the supposed innocence of young children. I've presented here basic argument below, followed by my response.
Suzana's basic argument is based on Psalm 106:37-38
37Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, 38And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
Then, her implicit argument was that because it says "innocent blood" it means that the children had no guilt of sin.
My response to is as follows:
With respect, I think you're overreaching to view "innocent" there to refer to absolute innocence. It seems easier to understand that passage as referring to innocence in the eyes of man's law. Compare, for example, Deuteronomy 19:10, in which the person who kills his neighbor without malice is considered "innocent," even though surely you would agree that a person who is old enough to be out chopping wood has committed at least one sin in his life in view of "all have sinned ...."
If then it is simply a statement that the children did not commit any capital crimes, then there is no reason to infer absolute sinlessness to such people.
It's actually a frequent idiom in Hebrew to say "shed innocent blood" as a way of saying "murder." (see, for example, 2 Kings 21:16, Proverbs 6:17, Isaiah 59:7, Jeremiah 22:3 & 17, and Joel 3:19).
Let us not hesitate to stand up against the shedding of innocent blood at the hands of women and their doctors, who sacrifice their children not on the altar of Molech but to the altar of convenience.