Sanctity<\/strong><\/p>\n To me, life is its own sanctification. It doesn\u2019t need a sanctifying instance, even if there were one.<\/p>\n If you want sanctification to come from \u2018anything\u2019, then \u2013 to me again \u2013 that \u2018anything\u2019 sanctifies life through<\/em> life itself. This means that from here on, you too, dear reader who agrees with the basics, can at least understand my concerns apropos the rest of this text.<\/p>\n Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2018Sanctity of life\u2019 has many implications regarding culturally debated issues. Humans live with life and death all the time. Moreover, its borders are especially meaningful to us.<\/p>\n I expect they are to you.<\/p>\n The beginning<\/strong><\/p>\n Generally seen, life is a continuum, flowing over generations. It doesn\u2019t start at the point where two gender cells meet. The fact that a new individual can emerge from the meeting is only possible within \u2018life\u2019 already present, at least within nature as we \u2013 still \u2013 know it today.<\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t diminish the importance of the meeting. It is indeed a special occasion. Without one very specific one, I wouldn\u2019t be writing this text. In fact, even without many specific ones in the past going back to times immemorial. So, here again, we come to life as an eternal flow.<\/p>\n An \u2018eternal flame.\u2019<\/p>\n The sanctity of the flame just \u2018is\u2019. It doesn\u2019t need anything else.<\/p>\n As a physician, I have known women who suffered severely from an abortion that happened some thirty years before. From early on, life has sanctification that should be reckoned with. An abortion isn\u2019t just \u2018something.\u2019 There is a lot of deep meaning attached.<\/p>\n The end<\/strong><\/p>\n Life should be valued\/sanctified at every drop of it. Huge implications.<\/p>\n There should not be a basic right<\/em> to carry a weapon of mass destruction in a suitcase. Nor any weapon at all together with the intention to kill as many people as possible. If you give the carrying right to 100 million people, of course, one of them is bound to be a lunatic with such intention. This means you\u2019re playing with statistics.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a balance between freedom and the sanctity of life.<\/strong><\/p>\n One can kill with a gun, with a car, with a knife\u2026 The balance is always relevant.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not just a question of freedom.<\/p>\n At the other side of this balance:<\/strong><\/p>\n ending a life should not be a matter of \u2018guilt.\u2019 Its sanctification goes way beyond.<\/p>\n It should certainly not be a matter of ego-revenge. Here it\u2019s easy. The importance of any ego-thing obliterates in relation to life.<\/p>\n Health<\/strong><\/p>\n Healing, whole, holiness.<\/p>\n Taking care of one\u2019s health is also related to the sanctity of life. At any moment, one can take this towards concrete action.<\/p>\n This way, disregarding health \u2013 for instance \u2013 is incompatible with reinstating the death penalty.<\/p>\n It\u2019s one balance. Eventually, your balance.<\/p>\n You are life.<\/strong><\/p>\n The sanctity of life is the sanctity of you.<\/p>\n