Don't forget to send your favorites!

Annika1980 wrote:

But you are correct about the cheerleaders. I have learned that
besides posting Bible verses on banners one of the other long held
traditions at that school is cheerleaders getting pregnant. By good
Christian boys, no doubt.

I always find it ironic that "Right to Life" anti-abortion Christians
also don't want frank sex education in schools and especially not
discussion of effective birth control beyond abstinence.

Abstinence is 100% effective to be sure, except when it isn't practiced.

Mother nature has not equipped teenagers with a strong ability to
overcome natural urges. The tiny amount of brain power left when
they're horny is just enough to put on a condom.

Here kids can get condoms openly - some pharmacies give them out for
free to teens. School health teachers/nurses give them out on demand.

(I do remember a couple girls suddenly switching schools back in the day
....)

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Annika1980 wrote:

But you are correct about the cheerleaders. I have learned that
besides posting Bible verses on banners one of the other long held
traditions at that school is cheerleaders getting pregnant. By good
Christian boys, no doubt.

I always find it ironic that "Right to Life" anti-abortion Christians also
don't want frank sex education in schools and especially not discussion of
effective birth control beyond abstinence.

Abstinence is 100% effective to be sure, ...

Oh I dunno.
Ask Mary...
(or Joseph)

Jeff R. wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Annika1980 wrote:

But you are correct about the cheerleaders. I have learned that
besides posting Bible verses on banners one of the other long held
traditions at that school is cheerleaders getting pregnant. By good
Christian boys, no doubt.
I always find it ironic that "Right to Life" anti-abortion Christians also
don't want frank sex education in schools and especially not discussion of
effective birth control beyond abstinence.

Abstinence is 100% effective to be sure, ...

Oh I dunno.
Ask Mary...
(or Joseph)

The greatest cuckold?

Anyone who believes that story really needs a does of objectivity. But
even the most deeply bathed in the blood Baptist would not suspect God
of impregnating their precious little virgin.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:
Abstinence is 100% effective to be sure, ...

Oh I dunno.
Ask Mary...
(or Joseph)

The greatest cuckold?

Anyone who believes that story really needs a does of objectivity. But
even the most deeply bathed in the blood Baptist would not suspect God of
impregnating their precious little virgin.


Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - :-| ) one of the
easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.

Heck - I talk to the reptiles in my backyard, and they regularly reply in
very eloquent hisses.

What was this thread about?

--
Jeff R.

Jeff R. wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:
Abstinence is 100% effective to be sure, ...
Oh I dunno.
Ask Mary...
(or Joseph)
The greatest cuckold?

Anyone who believes that story really needs a does of objectivity. But
even the most deeply bathed in the blood Baptist would not suspect God of
impregnating their precious little virgin.


Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - :-| ) one of the
easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.

Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
times. Has it?

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:

Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - :-| ) one of
the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.

Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
times. Has it?

I think so.
I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
*ever* had sex.

On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." said:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:

Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - :-| ) one of
the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.

Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
times. Has it?

I think so.
I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
*ever* had sex.

Some of them didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." said:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:

Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - :-| )
one of
the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.

Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
times. Has it?

I think so.
I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
*ever* had sex.

Some of them didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization


Doesn't obviate sex.

On 2009-11-01 07:13:14 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." said:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:

Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - :-| ) one of
the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary beliefs.

Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
times. Has it?

I think so.
I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
*ever* had sex.

Some of them didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization


Doesn't obviate sex.

It does if you use the cruder definition of sex as actual coitus, as
opposed to fertilization and cell division. Especially since the female
in this case wouldn't even have to meet the sperm donor, let alone be
intimate.

I doubt many men would call invitro, without penetration, sex.
Let's see you sit back and be gratified by that?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009110108235680278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-11-01 07:13:14 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." said:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:

Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry - :-| ) one
of
the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the necessary
beliefs.

Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred numerous
times. Has it?

I think so.
I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in tow have
*ever* had sex.

Some of them didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization


Doesn't obviate sex.

It does if you use the cruder definition of sex as actual coitus, as
opposed to fertilization and cell division. Especially since the female in
this case wouldn't even have to meet the sperm donor, let alone be
intimate.

I doubt many men would call invitro, without penetration, sex.
Let's see you sit back and be gratified by that?

--
No "after" cigarette either.