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
What is Open Religion?
Open Religion is a project by itself. Its aim is to be able to talk religiously and at the same time put religion itself – as a phenomenon – into sub-conceptual context. [see: ‘About ‘Subconceptual’] There are many religions. In the course of time, there have been many more, now forgotten or not practiced anymore. Read the full article…
One Sacredness for All
People from any religion can feel that sacredness transpires through their religion. Can they also feel sacredness transpire through other religions? Can you? Sacredness versus reductionism For the reductionist, the only ontologically real entities are particles in motion, to which any other complexity in the universe can be reduced and explained. Sacredness is the faith Read the full article…
Every Religion Is Open
Many existing religions are incompatible with each other. To me, these incompatibilities are – one way or another – as many signs of superficiality. Underlying this is Openness, as in: ‘Open direction to God.’ [see also: “Religion IS Openness”] Dare I speak of God? Dare you? God is a ‘concept’ that means something different to Read the full article…