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
God is in the Eye of the Believer
Is it not time to stop fighting for nothing and find the door that leads to everything? To believe is to belove (same origin of the word). God is in the eye of the one who is in love with what is right before him ― be it a person, a view, or the universe. Read the full article…
And the Mother did Weep
It is Good Friday today. Jesus may have existed. He may have died on the cross exactly 1990 years ago. His mother may have wept. She may have wept as if weeping would be there for always. Damned. I don’t know whether He existed or whether He died on the cross. I don’t think so, Read the full article…
Superficial Symbolism
There’s a lot of superficial symbolism around, especially in alternative medicines and New-Age spirituality, but also in old traditions such as freemasonry. Is ‘superficial symbolism’ possible? Not literally since symbolism itself is about depth. [see: “Symbolism: How-To”] But one can feign depth, or one can think to reach it by just putting stuff together that Read the full article…