What is the difference between a baby and someone who has never harmed you?

There isn't any, I can kill both as easily. But why is speaking of hurting a baby such taboo? The baby isn't pure, he is merely unable to act.

Even Jesus, considered by many the champion and savior of humanity whipped up the citizens selling pets at a Jewish temple, and the bible says he never sinned once. The baby hurt its mother during labor. They have both hurt someone and have the potential of hurting countless amounts of others - the mother could have died during labor - no one is innocent or deserving of mercy.

I don't understand the hysterical sentimentalities and lugubriousness that emerges once the subject of hurting a baby is brought up amongst these circles.

Thoughts, if you have any.

Not really a comment, but more of an interjection...God made childbirth painful after he banished Adam and Eve from Eden.

Understood Double-J, I am aware of that. But that still does not change the fact the baby harms its mother during labor.

Ah, but back to the age old question of intent...does the baby intentionally hurt its mother?

Either way, original sin is wiped away through baptism in the catholic faith, and besides, what earthly sins could an infant partake in?

but i dont think it can do anything about it, the baby probly wants to stay in the womb, but the mother is contracting, pushing the baby out, so the baby is helpless to stop it

Intentionally or not the baby does hurt its mother. He has hurt someone.

Baptism can be seen as a form of selling indulgences - which was done everywhere and incessantly during the Middle Ages - specially when the baby hasn't chosen to be baptized.

yeah thats true

so that means that its impossible to go through life without hurting a single person

See,

Asking questions like this led me to belive ignorance IS bliss.

i agree

A baby IS pure and innocent! Incapable of inflicting intentional pain. A baby doesn't think or reason. A baby is a new life that should be respected and appreciated and not accused of causing pain.

Not intending to degrade any male understanding or appreciation of childbirth, and not really wanting to fall back on the "pains of childbrith" line that women use so often, I can only say that is one of the most painful, yet rewarding and worthwhile pains, and unfortunately only those who go thru it can fully understand it. It should never be looked at as a baby who is inflicting pain.

All women of all creeds (or no creed), races and ethnicities who have given birth and all fathers who know the joy of an "innocent and pure" baby,
surely don't hold a tiny life responsible simply because the process of being born causes pain to the mother.

TIS

AMEN TIS !!!

Lisa

Intentional or not - pain is pain, and I did not accuse a baby of causing pain, I stated clearly that a baby does cause pain; and not only during labor, either.

Who wouldn't be 'pure' and 'innocent' if they were not able to act? A tree is pure and innocent if one chooses to think along those lines. Not being able to do anything and not being willing to do it are two entirely different things.

Now I am not saying anyone should be harmed for any reason, but what differentiates a baby from a person who has never hurt me? To me, nothing. Humans appreciate not having any competetion and feel safe around babies - because the baby after he has been born [If he has not killed his mother during labor.] can not hurt anyone else as long as he remains in his crib, because he can not yet control his faculties, but does that make him special? Of course it doesn't. He should be killed just the same as a man who has lived and sampled the adversities of life, with no hesitations if need be.

So why are people so sentimental and defensive when it comes to these little organisms?

For the survival of the species we (well some) are genetically hardwired to forgive those which we gave birth to whereas we may not forgive the other Pain In The Asses that cross our lives. As a young man you may never fully understand and appreciate the 1000+ hormones that go into pregnancy, labor and motherhood. Innocence or guilt is not debateable because it does not matter, it will always defy male logic, but not nature's finely tuned mechanism.

Yes, some women are not genetically disposed to motherhood. In olden times Darwin would mandate that she who throws her kid in the preverbial dumpster will not pass on those genes.

The pain of childbirth is excruciating. I will not begin to explain how 36 hours of unmedicated labor feels like. Yet nature dictated that I forgave her the minute they laid the most gorgeous being on the face of the earth on my chest. Despite the dubious beginnings, the months of nausea and the horrendous birth process I always will forgive. I will defend them to the death and let logic be crammed up the ass who gets in my way.

Maybe because they're ours. Maybe because they represent our hopes and dreams. Maybe its the fact that we have some innate instinct to protect them at any cost.

GP - I figure you don't have any kids of your own, but perhaps you have a younger brother or sister, or perhaps you're an uncle. If so, wouldn't you run into a burning building, without thinking of your own safety, to save one of these kids? If some madman started shooting up the street, wouldn't you block the kid from the bullets with your own body?

In short, its called "love".

GP,

Let me try to explain it this way:

To answer your question: I have never hurt you, nor have the members here on the BB and I assume many many others in your life; a baby has never hurt you. The differences????? Like I said, a baby is innocent & pure and the others can think and reason and are capable of causing pain. It IS this "lovableness, pureness & innoncence of a baby that makes the difference.

You say you never accuse a baby of inflicting pain, yet use the term "KILLED his mother during labor", implying that a baby is a murderer! You don't really mean it that way do you??


TIS

Okay, finally.

It is only logical for a woman or whatever mammal to fight tooth and nail - using everything in her power - her best or worst qualities and any other meidum in between to protect her 'investment.' Sex, blue-balls, etc. depending on circumstance. I do not blame them. I, however would not go as far as to call this nature's finely tuned mechanism, because I know for a fact that after one reaches logic he can employ it to adjust, change or assemble a new order (Humans at least.), though some animals have their instincts but some have the ability to deal with simple abstract situations.

Darwinistic principles and envirnmental science would also dictate that whoever does not do what is necessary to survive will suffer from primary or secondary sucession. Thus, a man who compartmentalizes his feelings and his logicality apart is likely to win over the sentimental one with lofty, inconvenient and unorganized precidents.

Without logic there is nothing but disorder, obviously. Let emotions inundate the heart of the fool and lead him to his death. Feelings have most often gotten in the way and found themselves up their 'owner's' lower end of the alimentary canal.

Logical to whom? Where would our species be if a mother was not emotionally attached to her child? There is LOTS of evidence to show what happens to a baby if it is neglected, and certainly death does nothing to further it. Nature's LOGIC, not man's, works well here. I would go as far as saying that the warmth women feel for other's children is a survival mechanism for the community of the tribe where shared care used to be a necessity amongst the hardship of just daily dying and living. There is a plethora of articles, studies, etc on how the biology of organisms is linked to the sociology of their behavior. I think it is simply fascinating AND logical from a genetic standpoint. It is hard to adapt against something so inherently coded within us.

Yet mutations happen all the time.

This is not to say I do not agree with you that some over-emotions can be a person's downfall. I always liked the adage 'Sentiment is egg on your plate. Sentimentality is egg on your face.' There are too many examples of what happens when we throw logic out the window and give in to the sappiness that creates our doom. But that is entirely different from this topic I believe.

I am not an uncle -- yet. I do not want a child with autosomes genetically identical to mine around me at any point.

By asking me those questions I don't believe you will receive the same answers as if you had asked a conventional individual or at least the answers you expect. However if there was a fire and the child had some characteristics which I valued - relative or not - perhaps I would be inclined to run into a burning building to save its life, so that it can piss, shit its diapers and sleep, but I would do so not because I cared for the child but for my own selfish and very personal reasons. Depending on who the child belonged to I might, but because the earthly guardians of the child are emotionally attached to this child hysterically, not because I thought the child deserved it.

Regarding the madman, though I don't value life as much as most do I would probably observe who he wanted to shoot, if he wants to blow away the insolent neighbor's brains all over his crotch after having done whatever to him it's fine by me. If he wanted to kill me or started shooting in my direction, I would attempt to wrest the gun from him and would then do things I would rather not say here because they could result in this thread's accelerated demise.

As I have already explained in an earlier post, the parents hopes and dreams rest in a child because they perhaps were not competent enough to carry them out and have invested time and money into the child. Realistic expectations are rightful. Love is stratified selfishness to a high stature.

This one is for Iraq, then I'm off to bed; dear Salad.

Logical for whoever has invested something to expect something else back, and to protect that investment somehow. If I raise crops, I will try to defend them from getting trampled. We have adapted employing logic, I would call that man's logic.

Judging by the thoughts you expressed in this thread, I don't imagine you understand anything related love. The vast majority of humans love babies and wouldn't remotely consider any of the heinous actions you may inflict on a baby.

Guineapig, you appear to fall into that very small circle of asocial deviants who have little regard for the human race and most likely yourself. There are similar groups of people like yourself who are strapping bombs to their bodies; convinced that they have the answer to societies problems.

I appreciate love, but not for something or someone who has done nothing for me. Relationships and anything related to them are based on selfish hopes, granted and anyone who wishes to not be disappointed by them should understand such principles. You have clearly allowed your feelings to pollute a logical discussion, MaryCas; digressed by instead of analyzing the topic itself analyzing me. This discussion was based on the what makes a baby different from a human who has never harmed you? And the answer to that question is: Nothing does. Not on what might have lead to that understanding, at all.

Read my other posts, and concentrate on the topic being discussed in its entirity and only on that if you wish to discuss it with me.

If someone is willing to die for what they believe in I would certainly hope they believe they have the answer to something and can accomplish something by sacrificing their lives for a purpose. I have regard for certain groups of the human species. Comparing me to a suicide bomber is at best very stupid in about all provinces.

Discussing what something subjective is, is pointless so it would be abortive for you to attempt demonstrating how I do not 'understand' love, specially when you do not know me.

Sorry, I didn't think the topic was worth analyzing, but I thought your motivations were. And now after reading your response I realize my mistake was responding to your post. That mistake will not be made again. Good bye Guineapig.

See GP,

I can imagine a child intentionaly hurting the mother. Besides if it did intentionaly hurt the mom, the kid will hurt her again in someway. Its in our intrest to hurt and destroy all.

A no, nothing is pure! No one exept for God and A Newborn. No newborn or child that is currently being birthed wants to cause pain. It doesnt even know about pain or death for that matter. that is purity. When a child learns he can make pain his purity is gone forever.

Farewell.

its really sad, but sometimes babies do kill their mothers while bieng born, but theyre not murderers, because as i said before, they cant do anything about it

I used to have similar ideologies in my late adolescent stages. I had little respect for alot of things and was very insensitive to alot of situations and people. I'm ashamed to say it but I had little regard for another human life that I didn't know. Even for a house fire a few years ago in my town in which 2 people, including a baby, died. It didn't affect me. I only expressed sympathy to conform to social understanding. At the time I thought it was illogical to have any sypathy for this situation, it didn't have anything to do with me and I regarded it as "something that happens, that's life".

But you get older and you grow out of these shit thoughts you start to BEGIN to learn how the worlds works. You set out to make it on your own with your own life and EVERYONE is entitles to that. Without fear of being killed or their baby killed by some madman who can't find a difference between them and was thinking far too philosophically for his age. Wait till you retire to come up with these, you'll have plenty of time then. But I doubt you'll even have remotely similar thoughts by then.

I agree with you completly Turi; everyone is entitled to life, and to have peace in their lives without worrying about a mad man who was thinking too philosophically for his age. (By whatever standards.)

As for me, I don't see a reason for anybody to worry, I of course would never go out of my way to harm anyone who had not harmed me. If I had qualms with the parent of the child I would attempt to resolve those with him, and not with his child - I would never involve the innocent children in any of it, or any innocent person. I hate philosophers and all philosophies by the way. But I will always have time to think logically without worrying about what is conventional and "how the world works" [In the minds of regular people].

Thanks for the story.