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

From Symbolism to Psychosis

I see a continuum between both. That should not be a reason to avoid symbols. Quite the contrary. Mainly: no blame to anyone! A continuum Working with symbols may in unfortunate circumstances lead to a darker progression. This needs to be managed. Actually, any symbolic experience [see: ‘Symbolism lost. Symbolism regained.’] can be seen as Read the full article…

Sea of Faith

It’s an excellent idea, all religions coming together in a sea of faith. For someone outside of any organized religion, this may feel like coming home for oneself and everyone else. It didn’t work out in the past. On several occasions, in places as remote from each other as the Netherlands and India, attempts have Read the full article…

Rituals

An action becomes a ritual when it is repeated and when it is deeply meaningful. For this, one needs to be open to it. ‘Open’ as in ‘Open Religion.’ A ritual is a repetitive action to which one attaches ‘deeper meaning’. Without ‘deeper meaning’, a ritual has no, well, meaning. It’s like an empty box, Read the full article…

Translate »