images (2)

I have always been a pro-life activist when it comes to issues of abortion or the death penalty and such. It has always been a matter of life preservation and on that i will never waver.

But there are many kinds of living things that we do not hesitate to kill and they’re living.Cancers and certain strains of bacteria that are all alive yet there is no restraint whatsoever if we want to destroy them.

If life is life and whatever lives commands respect of the same magnitude for its life force. By the aforementioned standard of killing ‘harmful life’ are we ever justified to kill lives of those who are potentially malevolent and can cause mass annihilation?

Or is life preservation the one and only truth for all lives or living beings.And if this is so then why do we kill cancers, they are alive aren’t they ?or are some forms of life superior to others?

This conversation scares me to say the very least because it can easily end up in conclusions such as those of anti-semitism,eugenics,colonialism and even slavery ,parts of history that i’d rather never even dare to try and re-purpose .For sure i know these stances are wrong but still i wonder ?

Is life stratified and if so by what?


6 thoughts on “

  1. Cancers are mutated cells and not necessarily living entities. I don’t think that we shouldn’t protect ourselves from things that can harm us. We should also protect ourselves from harmful others, but the way we do it sometimes causes the perpetrators of criminal acts to have more time in the limelight than their victims. This is a shame. Serial killers get books, documentaries, interviews and films made about them and their victims get only a small amount of screen time in comparison. It is a tricky problem if “the lives of those” meant human beings. x

    Liked by 1 person

    1. it is a shame how we remember the killers and not the victims but that’s an issue of press ,no news is good news kind of thinking.But i definitely got what you said about the’how’ we protect ourselves from others.Maybe killing them per se just isn’t the right way to go about it.
      And in hindsight maybe the analogy of cancer wasn’t a great one.
      As always thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts SB.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for writing this essay. I agree with you that killing killers is not the best way. We should try to raise a society in which they cannot thrive. That’s the achievable goal we don’t want to make the necessary sacrifices for. x

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I think this is a very “mathematical” reasoning about life therefore it is open to contradictions.
    Nature cannot work if nothing kills anything 🙂 This is how life works. There are predators and preys 🙂

    Because even while now as we type in our computers our immune system is busy killing bacteria and potential cancer cells. And by the way a normal human cell is programmed to commit suicide if ever it becomes malignant. Cancer is actually the failure of this checkpoint system.

    I think between a “no kill” principal (which would eventually lead to the annihilation of life itself if every living being adopted it) and “do not commit murder” there’s a huge difference 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. i really like this response, you brought about the fallacy in the syllogism but i do wonder how do you differentiate between the ‘no kill’ principle and ‘do not commit murder’?
      thank you so much for reading and commenting

      Liked by 1 person

be sure to purge (thoughts,ideas,complaints) if at all you feel the nudge

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s