Killing Babies? – Nobody Does

January 1, 2020 Open Religion, Sociocultural Issues No Comments

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.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Jerusalem — City of God

This is meant to be(come) the city where people of all creeds can be together in Open Religion (see this category). No deeply religious insight, feeling, or motivation needs to be discarded. If you are religious, please try to deepen the feeling ― an endless direction. If a non-enemy of thy enemy can only be Read the full article…

Interreligious – Deep – Dialogue

Interreligious dialogue holds profound potential, yet all too often it stalls at superficial levels. Such Interreligious Superficial Dialogue (ISD) seeks comfort over transformation, leaving deeper engagement untouched. By contrast, Interreligious Deep Dialogue (IDD) reaches into the shared spiritual core of humanity. IDD invites participants to transcend ego, embrace vulnerability, and embark on a collective journey Read the full article…

Spontaneity

is the most important characteristic of life. It is very deeply falling within, then coming all the way out again and ‘meeting the world.’ Religion, Eastern enlightenment… Big words, emphasizing that, seemingly, very important stuff is going on. That is correct. It’s important stuff with huge consequences. Think of the misery that has been brought Read the full article…

Translate »