The next time I get into a “discussion” with retreaded Trekkie convention junkies, still living at home, Defenders of the Unborn Human Fetus TYPES, I will ask them to consider the following. Did Ellen Ripley in the Movie Alien 3 have the right to refuse penetration and hosting services to the “Alien” creature?
Alien 3
I don’t want to show any anti-E.T.ism here, flaming PC liberal I sometimes claim to be. So for the sake of further argument or discussion I will give the creature a name - Bentley, a good two gender sounding thing in case the thing goes and or functions both ways.
Refusing to be F---ed is one thing for a host, uppity little thing that Ripley is. If impregnated one has to go to term with the creature’s baby – right?
They had some scientific party at the Vatican recently. Over cocktail wienies and martinis, “scientists” discussed the possibility of intelligent life in the universe away from earth. Of course intelligent life here would indicate the possibility of proof needed by these guys as scientists. It is easier to theorize life elsewhere sometimes by these guys. I am sure they were only guys, it is the Vatican.
Enough with cocktail parties.
Life is life and it must be protected at all costs and even I would presume at the expense of your own species. “Survival of the Fittest” has been the convenient anti-human tone of Darwin’s new science and way of looking at things for some to spout in justification of crimes against humanity.
Life is life. In short from a papist point of view, the suicide of Ripley in Alien 3 to both kill her self and her unborn fetus – which is the worse sin? – suicide or abortion?
Ripley is a woman and is not justified in her trying to think or act for herself in the matter of in this case, some kinky alien sexual situations with Bentley. Once f---ed, stay f---ed. Good theology. Right?
Anyway. Which came first. The chicken or Mr. Spock’s ears?
