Killing Babies? – Nobody Does
No sane person likes killing babies.
I don’t like killing babies.
I don’t like the killing of babies.
I don’t like the idea of babies getting killed.
Babies should be respected as human beings.
But put one cell together with another cell, and there is no baby.
Calling that a baby is disrespectful to babies.
Calling that a baby makes it more probable that real babies get killed.
Because: where’s the difference? If you put it here and I put it there, we’re both against killing babies. So, we’re not arguing for or against killing babies. We’re arguing about definitions.
What is a baby?
There’s no progressive or conservative in this unless one lives by division.
A says B kills babies. B says A kills babies. Please don’t. It’s horrible to murder babies. But can one murder a cell? Two cells? Four? Eight? Of course not!
For instance: take those eight cells. Then take very many + eight cells — an adult human being. Then demolish those eight cells. That doesn’t make you a murderer. Of course not!
It’s not about babies. It’s not even about cells. It’s about very small differences in types of cells. Those differences can be brought back to the molecular level. It’s about molecules.
It’s a discussion about definitions about molecules — nothing more, nothing less.
Isn’t it weird?
No no no no no no no no no no. No?
Make it 80 cells.
8000.
8 million.
8 billion.
Somewhere along the line, there may be disagreement among people who are against killing babies, about whether they are ‘for abortion’ or ‘against abortion.’
But there are no such people because there are no strict delineations.
There are people who are against killing babies. I would hope there are no others.
Then we can discuss what a baby is. That’s a healthy discussion! We can strive toward making it as healthy as possible.
But if someone tears it back down toward a definition about some molecules, and if you don’t, and I don’t, then we may agree that such a person is hugely misguided.
Any sane person would agree, and especially God (who, in case of a baby being a few cells, would be killing millions every day).
This is not about believers versus non-believers,
but about rationality and depth.
Both are sacred to me.
Not one without the other, and certainly not what flies in the face of both.
Related Posts
Words Like ‘Soul’ Are Not the Exclusive Right of Religion
Not of any specific religion, nor of ‘religion’ in general. It is therefore high time for a kind of ‘science of the deeper self’ that distinguishes itself from ‘religion’ in the sense that it is not based on a dogma or a story. You can compare it with astronomy that has emancipated from astrology +/- Read the full article…
Open Religion in Every Religion
Open Religion can be seen as a direction that can be taken from any conceptual religion. Alternatively, it can be seen as potentially present within the latter ― making Openness more easily accessible to many. I write of ‘religion’ here in a broad sense. For instance, Buddhism is another religion in which Open Religion can Read the full article…
Religion of Anxiety versus Religion of Compassion
It seems to me that anxiety and Compassion are the two main – and mutually opposed – deep drivers of religiosity. All secondary drivers build on these. This goes beyond a God-fearing stance and any concretely conceptual belief. FYI, I am not an adherent to any denomination on the planet nor the universe. Nevertheless, I Read the full article…