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

The Real God

Yes, I know. But it’s time we get to religious adulthood, isn’t it? Even then, there’s a long way to go, so let’s start moving. You don’t have to follow me if it makes you feel bad. Please follow yourself and enjoy the journey. I can only invite you. We might meet each other eventually. Read the full article…

Science x Religion = Disaster?

Combining the pragmatic possibilities of present-day science with the imagined truths of traditional religion is a combustible mixture ― a recipe for disaster. Humanity has gained super-human technological power. Yet, currently, we see science often focusing on externalities and religion being trapped in ancient dogmas that are mutually contradictory. We urgently need to get beyond Read the full article…

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…

Translate »