Kids sometimes know more than adults
It seems we are born filled with certain knowledge. It also seems that as adults we can sometimes waste our lives trying to forget what we fundamentally knew as a child. We knew nature was beautiful; we took the time to study dandelions, our own shadows fascinated us, a fire could capture our imagination for hours. We had a reverence for the immensity of the world and other living things brought us joy.
But as adults, these innocent wonders can fade. We lie to ourselves, we argue more to convince ourselves than anything else, clinging to talking points to guide us, especially if we have glimpsed the logical conclusion of false convictions and do not want to face them because we fear the truth may demand too much. We become lost.
It’s easy to turn away and not look towards ultimate truth if there’s enough verbiage and distraction, and it can almost feel secure to memorize the points and be able to repeat them. But that isn’t security. We cheat ourselves out of living life to the fullest. It may seem hard to face the truth at first, but truth, and only truth, sets us free. I’ve been there. Part of opening my heart to God was to simplify my life, to remember what it was like to be a kid again. I didn’t realize how much I had forgotten, or worse, hidden from.
In the last few days there have been people commenting on this post about abortion. Some even say it is acceptable to kill a child like this 24 week old baby boy in his mother’s hands if he is still dependent on her to care for him. (Or as Leila Miller has pointed out on her blog, the question is ignored.) Abortion is legal up to this age electively; it is legal to kill an unborn child this age if he is unwanted. Too dependent, time to die. “Sorry kid. My body, my choice. Somebody give me the money to do it, and afterwards I’d like a gift basket and some cookies.”
There was a completely different reaction in my home yesterday. I had the picture up on my computer screen last night and my four daughters, ages 4-8 years, walked past it and exploded into one big ball of fascinated coo-ing, squealing, and questioning. No looking away, no silence. Quite the opposite.
“Ooohhh, look at that tiny baby. Mom, how old is he? Why is he so little? Was I that little? I want to hold him! Is he going to live?”
The eight year old remembers the early sonogram of her baby brother when he was literally the size of a peanut. He was about four weeks old. She had no idea what the doctor was doing or what she was about to see on the screen, but when we both saw a very tiny beating heart coming from the camera near my belly, she screamed, “There’s a baby in there. Mom! We have a new baby.” She just knew. She and her sisters followed the whole pregnancy with intense curiosity.
That baby is now barely a year old. He reacted very strongly to the picture of the tiny baby too, almost leaping out of my arms to reach the screen. I realized something. He knows what some adults have talked themselves out of knowing - he knows that little 24 week old baby is a precious child, a human being, a person just like him. A beautiful and joyful thing. He knows the truth. Please God, may his sisters never let him forget it. He’ll be a better man someday because of it.
Part of the "comprehensive sex ed" program around here
Category: Abortion, Personal, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Maybe children know the truth because they know love. Maybe those who facilitate abortion and those who abort do not know love.
The little baby in the this post looks cold. I feel like someone should wrap him up. I hope he is warm.
Those are my thoughts today.
“comprehensive sex ed” program! Excellent! Thank you for sharing the picture.
Ignored the question, did they? That’s not surprising. I get that all the time. Do they ever do any introspection at all? I like what Lena said, about the fact that children know love, and those who facilitate abortion do not know love. It’s a poverty, truly.
Great post!
Great post. You make an excellent argument, one that should be convicting to pro-choice people. The conviction is deeper than philosophical speculation. It’s deeper than scientific investigation. There is no way to deny that the picture is that of a child.
But I have to ask. What do you think the kids would say about this picture?
http://www.advancedfertility.com/images/8_cell.jpg
What does their innate knowledge tell them? Might it be that you have been indoctrinated to ignore own innate knowledge, in this case?
Thanks, Lena, Steve and Leila.
Paul, that’s a myopic question from a scientist. Appearance is only part of the properties of a thing. Two elements could look alike, they would still have different properties. And children get this. Par for the course in dinner time battles!
Our daughter has seen those images because she wanted to know how small she has been in her life. It fascinated her, it’s not that hard to grasp. That’s the child-like truth. She gets that she was that small, and it fills her with wonder and amazement.
She doesn’t stomp off in some pseudo-power dance proclaiming that, “It looks weird and so it’s OK to kill it.” That’s unnatural.
Would she have known without me? No. Knowledge is fiduciary. Parents are supposed to teach children these things about our origins.
Ah never mind…
I just realized you probably didn’t even read the end of the post before responding did you? FYI, a four week old embryo doesn’t look like much more than your image on a screen to a child. She knew anyway.
I got to the end.
A 4-week old embryo looks quite a bit more like a human… sort of like how a tadpole looks more closely related to us than eight marbles. Now, of course, both of these are collections of human cells. Neither of these are people.
Of course your daughter believes that single cells are people. Why wouldn’t she? You’re her mother, and you seem like an excellent mother, so you will have raised her with your values.
I suspect that my children will not have the same reaction about the handful of cells, because I try to be a good parent, and will attempt to raise them with my values. But maybe they will, and I will be surprised.
I hope we can both appreciate our radius of convergence. We agree about this issue for about 85% of the time, and about 100% of the abortion procedures.
But I am going to push you, in a friendly way, to reconsider the positions you either believe to be true (like single cells being people), or entertain (like geocentric theory, etc.), that are in my evaluation unreasonable. I do this because of my respect for you, and because I think that, if you change these views, it will be for the better, both for you and for many of the goals you have that we share.
I’m glad you push back.
Stacy, yes some of us deem to see things differently than you. And are willing to stand by what we think.
I have a question though? Can you really critique those who choose not to answer your questions, when you yourself refuse to answer some questions?
I saw that dividing cell picture and thought it looked like an exploding star, but that is because I have the planetarium on my mind. I knew it was human due to the context of this blog and conversation. I thought of the wonder of the universe and the wonder of our being. The physical world is pretty amazing.
Yep, we humans started out teeny tiny, and look what happens. Wow!
I’m sure children are pretty amazed to learn how they started out. This adult is still amazed how we start out. This adult is amazed how we people could make more people. Amazing.
Paul,
“Now, of course, both of these are collections of human cells. Neither of these are people.”
No, not “of course.” You already said that was just your opinion.
“I suspect that my children will not have the same reaction about the handful of cells, because I try to be a good parent, and will attempt to raise them with my values. But maybe they will, and I will be surprised.”
This is not intended to compare parenting ability, but I will offer my perspective as a mother with 64 combined years of experience raising children, and making mistakes. The reason (it’s not just arbitrary) for teaching a child that he or she was also a teeny-tiny embryo is so that when that child grows up he or she respects his or her own fertility and that of a spouse.
It is all connected, love, intimacy, marriage, procreation.
Children don’t really want to hear that they weren’t worth anything to the parents before they met certain criteria *in their opinions*. They want to hear that they are loved, and always were loved, unconditionally.
“I do this because of my respect for you, and because I think that, if you change these views, it will be for the better, both for you and for many of the goals you have that we share.”
Thank you, but I can think for myself and I don’t compromise my principles.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Alan,
You question on the other thread about suffering was unrelated and irrelevant. It’s subterfuge. It starts up a whole new series of tangents that cause so much confusion no one remembers the point of the original discussion.
You were trying to make the point, I believe, that if someone is suffering it is kind and loving to kill them. No, that isn’t true. That is no justification for killing unborn children. That is no justification for killing anyone.
Have I seen loved ones suffer and die. Of course, that’s part of being in a family. That is nothing uncommon. Suffering is a part of life. The older we grow, the more likely it is that we will suffer. It’s no reason to stop living.
Lena, EXACTLY! It is amazing.
Paul I’d like to reach out to you on your concerns about how difficult it is to interpret visual imagery.
You are so right. Did you know that the biggest intellectual hurdle St. Augustine had to surpass in order to become Catholic was his confusion that REAL = BODY. As an intellectual, he was taught that what is real equals what has visible and tangible extension in time and space. To be converted he had to separate himself from that artificial equating of REAL and EMPIRICAL. The IMAGE of a thing is not the THING ITSELF.
I’m ignorant of chemistry (which I regret), but even I understood that when my chemistry teacher showed us those models of molecules, that the model is not what the molecule really is, or in most cases it’s not even what it looks like if one could look at it.
Yet most of my intelligent friends, including you, Paul, seem to think that the image is sufficient to inform one about the nature of a thing. Really? That is such a foreign idea to me. It’s almost surreal for me to try to think that way. Go back to the molecule. You do know that the sticks and the bubbles and the different colors of the atoms are there to represent something that is after all not fully reducible to those sticks and bubbles and colors. Right? The image points beyond itself to the reality. The nature of a thing is absolutely not exhausted by its empirical manifestation. This is philosophy of science 101.
Here’s the punch line. I don’t care what the molecule model looks like. I get the point. It’s a scientific entity. A poorly displayed model of a molecule can’t be blamed for my inability to understand what the molecule really is. Similarly, the fact that a poor child can only manifest herself as a clump of cells, that’s not HER problem. That’s MINE. She’s manifesting herself the best way she can right now, thank you very much. Perhaps it’s I who need to follow my scientific impulses and recognize the reality that the image merely points to. Even Kant knew this, my goodness, shouldn’t a Catholic get it?
Stacy: No, not “of course.” You already said that was just your opinion.
If I said that I misspoke.
I consider this so obvious and clearly true that the alternative, accepting that single cells can be people, would require a deep religious faith to persist in, or great ignorance, or a lack of intelligence. The belief that single cells can be people is as irrational as thinking that ants are people. Only a strong religious motivation could possibly warrant such a belief, and bring it into the realm of the rational. If you want to justify this belief with your Catholic Faith or some similar source of authority, that’s perfectly fair and I respect that. But any other sort of attempt to justify such a belief, through science or speculative philosophy or even basic common sense, will end in absurdities. You will end up looking ridiculous and irrelevant.
Thank you for the parenting advice. Regardless of our beliefs about the embryo, it is important to me to show my children that I love them unconditionally, and I will want to emphasize that love throughout their lives.
It is a sad thing to hear that you are unwilling to change your mind on the single-cell person issue. The honest answer I have to give is, well, neither am I. I suppose this means we will have to agree to disagree, and I won’t bring this issue up again here.
But I am still hopeful to convince you of the even more serious nonsense about creationism, young earth and geocentric theory. I hope you will change your mind about those things.
Oh, one more thing: Could you point out where I said that this is just my opinion? Because I don’t remember saying that.
Jeff McLeod,
That is an excellent argument, with many good examples. I suppose there’s a sort of symmetry in the molecule picture: the model of the molecule is more than sufficient as a representation of what molecules can do, since it’s made up of molecules. But more to your point, the reason science is confusing largely due to the fact that so much is not well understood.
I am about 3 weeks away from getting a PhD in Astrophysics! I don’t really understand what an atom is.
So, to your core point. I must admit the possibility that I am wrong about the embryo. If I am wrong about the embryo, I am so mired in delusion and ignorance and false beliefs that changing my view on the embryo will involve changing my view on the entire world. And that’s not something that can be accomplished in comment posts. That’s something that, if it’s going to happen at all, will take divine intervention.
So please, pray for me.
Stacy
It was not subterfuge at all…..I am continually amazed at how you determine what my motives and points are. It was broached by you as well, so it was open and fair game. But if you don’t want to answer the question the adult thing to do is acknowledge that you aren’t going to answer and provide a reason. See I did that when you asked about my belief in god. It’s what adults do.
And see you do it again…..by telling me that “You were trying to make the point, I believe, that if someone is suffering it is kind and loving to kill them.”
That absolutely is not my point. But we will just leave this for another day. But please stop assuming what my points are. If you need clarification just ask. I have never intentionally tried to be vague or illogical, but my thought is you find me to be both because you just truly don’t want to see what I have to say.
This is a piercing story from a contributor at Ignitum Today, Brent Stubbs. He shows the other side of the story.
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2012/02/10/hhs-and-products-of-conception/
I suppose you could see an absurd and ridiculous man wanting to give his clump of cells a proper burial.
I see a father wanting to give his daughter the dignity she deserves.
Paul, you said this three days ago, “So, after I left the Catholic Church, I had to ask the big questions about what I thought about abortion and the fetus and the zygote. I am of the opinion that likely the first trimester fetus is not a person.”
Here: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/how-the-pill-kills/
Taking a break now…
I see the misunderstanding.
I am of the opinion that likely the first trimester fetus is not a person. But opinion isn’t enough.
I am positive that the group of cells, before brainwaves, is not a person. Not an opinion. Certainty.
At 10 weeks, the group of cells exibits brain-waves, so that group of cells may be a person, and because of the uncertainty, should be treated as though it is a person (extreme erring on the side of caution).
What a devastating loss. Even if this wasn’t a person, what a terrible thing to happen.
Brainwaves – or we don’t have the equipment to detect brainwaves that early?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45241387/ns/health-health_care/t/some-people-vegetative-state-are-aware-mri-shows/
You have faith they do not exist – a theory – not a certainty – and willing to bet 50 milion lives on that theory….
We have faith that a human is a human at conception – and science will continue to bear that out. Sort of like God created Heavens and the Earth not the heavens and everything else….. my favorite quote….
Earliest estimates for brainwaves are 6 weeks. If brainwaves are established to exist sooner, then the demarcation is moved to sooner.
Regardless:
http://www.advancedfertility.com/images/8_cell.jpg does not have brain waves.
Do brainwaves determine life? Isn’t a single cell life?
Brainwaves – is that when the soul is breathed into the body….
I’m gonna theorize brainwaves can be found….. at conception, because that is when a new human being has been brought into existence.
Remember, everyone thought that vegetative state was dead….. they were dead wrong… I guess you can believe every theory that comes your way….. like heliocentrism…..
Brainwaves determine persoonhood, not life.
Single cells are alive. But most people don’t think killing skin-cells constitutes mass murder.
Great post. And while I agree that appearances aren’t the key proof that a baby is human, babies start looking like well, babies, *so* early in pregnancy it’s just astounding to me that people want to argue the contrary, splitting developmental hairs (while never able to draw a concrete line other than fertilization).
Today, my Dh and I saw our little 9-week old, 1-inch “thing” “non-human” “pile of cells” via ultrasound. This was actually our second ultrasound (first was at 5 weeks gestation, and the first thing the ultrasound tech said was, “Oh! I see your baby!” It’s just natural). It’s amazing how heartless many of these discussions now sound when viewing baby with his/her little beating heart (167 beats per minute!), the little arms and legs curled up, taking a nap. I am sure my nieces and nephews could ID their cousin as “baby” easily.
I’m not entirely sure how I ended up here. I had been exploring Twitter and wound up here. But that being said, I couldn’t help but notice Mr. Rimmer comments about persons vs. not persons.
To which I’m slightly confused, given the following:
Person: A living human.
Human: a human being.
Being: a living thing.
Living: having life.
Life: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
Now I admit I hated biology in high school and I avoided it like the plague in college, but I’m pretty sure the bolded part describes the cells involved in human development from conception forward.
Am I wrong?
Oh and hi Stacy! *waves*