Home - List All Discussions

Dear Abby,

Strange but true..

by: leftsfoil

Dear Abby,
Hello, I am a visitor from outer space. The purpose of my visit to your planet is to perform research on behalf of The Intergalactic Consul On Incomprehensible Species Behavior. My specific task is to perform a follow-up investigation into a disturbingly bazaar field report gathered from a deep space salvage crew.
This report detailed the discovery of your planet and it's race of sentient beings and would have been totally unremarkable and unworthy of any further notice or study if it hadn't been for one disturbing item of entry. The behavioral science officer indicated that your species, of so called "humans", embraced a practice of destroying the young of your species while still inside the parental vessel. I've since become aware that this practice is know as abortion. This unpresidented and disturbing practice is not known to exist anywhere except upon this tiny planet.
I have tried to gather data on this phenomenon but have encountered many different conflicting bits of information. It appears that the basic practice of abortion is actually scorned by the majority of humans and yet still flourishes worldwide. My confusion is further complicated by the fact that many who disfavor the practice, (pro-lifers), expend much energy disparaging fellow pro-lifers for a myriad of reasons. On the other hand, the opposition to this group who represent the (pro-choicers), the group who invented and supports this practice of infanticide, seem to be hate filled and often sexually misdirected.
Having studied this forum's content in it's entirety, I am more confused and less informed than before I started. How can I understand this phenomenon in a way that would allow me to assemble a cogent report to provide to my superiors?
Signed: Flummoxedinorbit

reply from: yoda

Study the wild beasts of this planet. Those humans who kill their own unborn have much in common with them.

reply from: fetalisa

A woman's right to bodily autonomy is sacred. Consent is necessary for a ZEF to occupy the space in her womb, just as consent is necessary for your penis to occupy her vagina.

reply from: faithman

A woman's right to bodily autonomy is sacred. Consent is necessary for a ZEF to occupy the space in her womb, just as consent is necessary for your penis to occupy her vagina.
Consent was given when she spread her legs.

reply from: fetalisa

There is no law you can cite which states consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy. Why do you think birth control exists?

reply from: faithman

There is no law you can cite which states consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy. Why do you think birth control exists?
There is not one law you can post that states getting prenant gives a woman the right to murder her child.

reply from: fetalisa

That's because children have constitutional rights.

reply from: faithman

That's because children have constitutional rights.
So do womb children. It is just that borthead scanc like you have high jack things for the present. That will change.

reply from: fetalisa

Cite the law which states 'womb children,' whatever the hell that is, have constitutional rights.

reply from: faithman

Cite the law which states 'womb children,' whatever the hell that is, have constitutional rights.
The 40th word of the pre-amble.

reply from: fetalisa

Where in the preamble are constitutional rights discussed? Where are womb children mentioned in the preamble?

reply from: faithman

Where in the preamble are constitutional rights discussed? Where are womb children mentioned in the preamble?
Count 40 words in.

reply from: fetalisa

So you believe a discussion of constitutional rights can be shortened to a single word. Interesting.

reply from: faithman

So you believe a discussion of constitutional rights can be shortened to a single word. Interesting.
the word left in the context of the sentence, and the spirit set by the pre-able, very much so.

reply from: fetalisa

So you fantasize the word 'posterity' means the entire constitution must somehow apply to ZEFs.

reply from: faithman

So you fantasize the word 'posterity' means the entire constitution must somehow apply to ZEFs.
If you look up the definition, and in the context which it used, most assuredly yes.

reply from: fetalisa

Obviously not, since abortion is legal.

reply from: faithman

Obviously not, since abortion is legal.
It is not legal. It was forced on us by an out of order court that usurped and violated the constitution.

reply from: fetalisa

Then it will be trivial for you to provide examples where ZEFs have participated in constitutional rights, such as speech or religion. thus proving to all here the Constitution addresses ZEFs.

reply from: faithman

Then it will be trivial for you to provide examples where ZEFs have participated in constitutional rights, such as speech or religion. thus proving to all here the Constitution addresses ZEFs.
Reguardless whether someone participates in a right does it take it away from them. People have the right to vote, but many don't. It doesn't take the right away form them. We don't let 5 year olds vote, but we don't say we can kill them just because they can't vote.

reply from: fetalisa

Mosquitos can't participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion either. Are they persons?

reply from: faithman

Mosquitos can't participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion either. Are they persons?
Not being human, no, they are not persons.

reply from: fetalisa

I see you have yet to provide evidence that ZEFs have ever participated in Constitutional rights such as free speech or religion. What might that tell you about who the Constitution addresses and WHAT it does NOT address?

reply from: yoda

And you have yet to provide proof of the existence of Unicorns..... coincidence?

reply from: fetalisa

AHHH! You do get it! The application of constitutional rights to ZEFs is wholly imaginary, no different than unicorns!

reply from: yoda

No, you don't get it at all.
"Constitutional rights" have nothing at all to do with morality, or with species classification.
Were those words too big for you?

reply from: faithman

When the mother goes to church, so does the child. Born children do not have full rights, so you think we should be able to murder them as well? Isn't that where your pro-death logic goes? Don't we have lefty socialist professors saying exactly that? When will you lefties put a hault on your blood lust?

reply from: fetalisa

The ZEF goes grocery shopping too, by the above definition.
Born children have a constitutional right to life.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: yoda

Unborn children have a MORAL right to life.

reply from: faithman

Unborn children have a MORAL right to life.
As well as a constitutional right by the 40th word of the pre-amble.

reply from: fetalisa

None in our society are required to live their lives by your PERSONALLY CHOSEN OPINIONS. I can drink coffee all day long, no matter what the Mormons think of coffee.

reply from: yoda

How about lethal injections for condemned prisoners? Is that a "medical procedure"?

reply from: fetalisa

The Supreme Court disagrees. Guess whose opinion has legal validity?

reply from: faithman

The Supreme Court disagrees. Guess whose opinion has legal validity?
The second amendment can settle it.

reply from: fetalisa

Just like a fetal fetishist. If you can't get your way you look to bombs and guns. What does it tell you about your position that you must take by force what you can't EARN by logic?

reply from: yoda

YOU are asking someone about "force", when YOU keep droning on and on about "the law"?
You seem obsessed with legal control, and yet accuse others of "force"?

reply from: faithman

Just like a fetal fetishist. If you can't get your way you look to bombs and guns. What does it tell you about your position that you must take by force what you can't EARN by logic?
The only time one wins with logic is when all are reasonable and logical. Bortheads are neither. It is not logical to allow death scancs to legally murder an innocent womb child.

reply from: fetalisa

It's neither reasonable nor logical to claim a three inch long entity with a tail, which looks much like a salamander is a person. You think the rest of society doesn't know this? That's one of the reasons abortion is still legal. Fetal fetishists arguments are nonsense.

reply from: yoda

How about lethal injections for condemned prisoners? Is that a "medical procedure"?

reply from: fetalisa

Who cares? It has nothing to do with abortion.

reply from: yoda

I care.
IF it is a medical procedure, then that means that SOME medical procedures are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY HUMAN BEING.
Don't you think that relates to abortion?

reply from: fetalisa

Abortion doesn't kill a person. Lethal injection does.

reply from: yoda

The victim is not the subject here. The procedure is.
You can try to change the label for that which you seek to kill, but you will still be a killer.
There's no way you can get around that.

reply from: fetalisa

The victim IS the subject here. The consequences of killling a person are drastically different from killing a non-person. Killing you is not the same as killing a mouse, or any other non-person.

reply from: nancyu

A woman's right to bodily autonomy is sacred. Consent is necessary for a ZEF to occupy the space in her womb, just as consent is necessary for your penis to occupy her vagina.
Sacred rights? Since when do pro aborts consider anything sacred. Are you going to tell us now that you are part Christian, but only when it comes to a woman's bodily autonomy?
Don't you think a woman should give up some of her bodily autonomy when it comes to nurturing her own child?

reply from: fetalisa

Do you think a woman should give up some of her bodily autonomy when it comes to sex, such that rape is legal? Sorry, but consent is necessary to place a penis in a vagina just as consent is necessary for a ZEF to inhabit a uterus. The principle is the same and without that principle rape would be legal, which tells us much of what you are actually arguing here.

reply from: fetalisa

Is CONSENT required to have sex legally with someone? YES!
Is CONSENT required for a ZEF to remain in a woman's uterus? YES
Is CONSENT required if you need my kidney and will die without it? YES
GEE! Do you think the POINT was about rape and pregnancy, or do you think the POINT was about CONSENT?
That's because it is MINDLESS, like NONPERSONS tend to be.
CONSENT to access the body of another comes with the RIGHT of bodily autonomy. You've no right whatsoever to take or use my kidney without my CONSENT, even if it means you will die without it. Now if you don't have that right as a PERSON, how is it possible for a ZEF, which is NOT a person, to use the uterus of a woman without her CONSENT, even if it means the ZEF will die without it?

reply from: fetalisa

Between the two of us, whose arguments do the law reflect?

reply from: leftsfoil

Between the two of us, whose arguments do the law reflect?
So that's how you avoid defeat.. just blow on by it. OK then, I will too.
Again you prove yourself to be a novice hack. The law was not changed upon the basis of your line of reasoning at all. It was not argued that fetuses were of no value. The entire argument rested upon the free will of the woman. I really shouldn't be helping you this way and I'm really getting bored from the lack of intellectual stimulation you inspire. My best advise to you is to study more and talk less.
I know what you are doing anyway. You get a charge and an ego boost out of stirring the poop pot. Adios poop-stirrer.
Between the two of us, when the law changes again you will still be a closed minded heartless quibbler. I'm getting bored.

reply from: fetalisa

You claim victory from posting nonsense.
Provide a direct quote where I ever stated the above or I will consider the claim withdrawn due to falsehood.
She has a right of bodily autonomy, as well as the right to make PRIVATE medical decisions which effect her body which are neither your nor my business, just like any other competent individual may do.
Do you often project onto others what you yourself are doing?
In what way is it heartless to support a woman's right to make PRIVATE medical decisions which are the business of no one but her?

reply from: Yuuki

If this alien had looked at other animals on the planet, they would find infanticide is in fact quite common, but often done so that the male can propagate his own genes. Evolutionarily it makes sense; if a stronger male invades a territory, then his genes are superior to the genes in the current babies. Killing them sends the females into heat and gets rid of a generation with inferior genes. But that's all instinct; animals don't THINK about why they are doing these things. It's programmed into them to do it.
However, human ancestors and close relatives (apes) do NOT kill their offspring in this manner. Only chimpanzees have been seen killing young chimps, and only then during a raid of a rival troop.

reply from: Yuuki

A woman's right to bodily autonomy is sacred. Consent is necessary for a ZEF to occupy the space in her womb, just as consent is necessary for your penis to occupy her vagina.
Life is sacred. It seems we are at an impasse.

reply from: faithman

A woman's right to bodily autonomy is sacred. Consent is necessary for a ZEF to occupy the space in her womb, just as consent is necessary for your penis to occupy her vagina.
Life is sacred. It seems we are at an impasse.
What the [other poster] refuses to see, is that the sexual act is an invitation, and consent to share life for 9 months. Only a willingly ignorant [person] would remain willingly ignorant of that biological fact. It would be like me iviting people over for dinner, and then shooting them for trespassing.

reply from: yoda

No, not at all. The "procedure" is the subject here. I'll repeat the question for you, since you seem to forget it so quickly:
How about lethal injections for condemned prisoners? Is that a "medical procedure"?

reply from: leftsfoil

Dear Abby,
I'm still waiting for some clarifying insights as I have a report due very soon and I'm as confused as ever.

reply from: ChuzLife

Nice bump.
That was a good read!

reply from: Banned Member

tell your superiors that we realized that there were just too many of us on the planet (over six billion and nearing seven billion) for it to be sustainable. so seeing as how we like to ***** and not have a bunch of *****ing kids running around as cost units with mouths to feed, we decided that it made more sense to kill them before they had a chance to pollute the planet and use up all of its resources.

reply from: SticksAndStones

Really? So you kill your offspring as a purely selfish act? Very interesting.

reply from: Shoshanna

I'm sorry, but what evidence do you have to support your claim? If a new human life (and therefore, a new person), does not begin at the moment of conception, then when does it begin? What does abortion remove?
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear materical each brings to the union that consitutes that culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
Dr Bradley M. Patten in his textbook Human Embryology
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception...I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life..."
Dr Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception..."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School
This is only tiny portion of the information I was able to find on the subject. If you would prefer the opinion of someone I can guarantee is pro-choice, the owner of Oregon's largest abortion clinic testified under oath "Of course human life begins at conception."
Please, in a debate that has such tremendous consequences attached to it, it is imperative that we understand the ramifications of what we are doing. At least a quarter of the people I should have grown up with were aborted, and those that survived have unquestioningly accepted what they were told without ever thinking they should find out for themselves. Please, don't make the same mistake. Abortion causes women too much pain for us to take shortcuts.

reply from: nancyu

Then it will be trivial for you to provide examples where ZEFs have participated in constitutional rights, such as speech or religion. thus proving to all here the Constitution addresses ZEFs.
Reguardless whether someone participates in a right does it take it away from them. People have the right to vote, but many don't. It doesn't take the right away form them. We don't let 5 year olds vote, but we don't say we can kill them just because they can't vote.
One word makes abortion illegal, but it's not "posterity" it's "person" The Z - E - F is a person.


2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics