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
Are You Open Religious?
The Open Religion Questionnaire (ORQ) is a list of 30 assertions (actually, in-depth questions) meant to make you think about whether you would qualify yourself as ‘Open Religious.’ The sum of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers is no more than an indication. It also depends on the relative importance you attach to each assertion. Moreover, your Read the full article…
Religious Belief Revisited
This is about any religious belief, credence, or denomination from any time and place. What does the girl in the image (Muslim or Catholic) think of this text’s title? Nothing religious without depth Anything purely conceptual – clear characteristics, crisp boundaries from other concepts – can be crystal clear but cannot have human depth since Read the full article…
Science x Religion = Disaster?
Combining the pragmatic possibilities of present-day science with the imagined truths of traditional religion is a combustible mixture ― a recipe for disaster. Humanity has gained super-human technological power. Yet, currently, we see science often focusing on externalities and religion being trapped in ancient dogmas that are mutually contradictory. We urgently need to get beyond Read the full article…