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 about the Jesus Politics?
The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament depict a figure intensely focused on Compassion, humility, and the internal transformation of individuals rather than directly on political systems. Jesus was not overtly political by today’s standards; rather, he presented principles that were radical for the time and remain thought-provoking today. If we consider these teachings, Read the full article…
AURELIS and ‘Esotericism’
If it’s your intention to be open all the way, then you have to be open to all sides and not closed to some specific one. Unless it would be the of being-closed itself. This certainly is important when it’s not easy, when people tend to misunderstand, when people interpret their attachment to certain ideas 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…