Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!cae780!hplabs!hplabsb!bl From: bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins Subject: Re: Virgin births (was Ev. vs. Cr) Message-ID: <3850@hplabsb.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Dec-86 15:12:48 EST Article-I.D.: hplabsb.3850 Posted: Thu Dec 18 15:12:48 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Dec-86 20:23:30 EST References: <2849@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1261@cybvax0.UUCP> <9@bcsaic.UUCP> <9088MIQ@PSUVMA> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 11 Summary: There are ways and there are ways Xref: mnetor sci.bio:78 talk.origins:228 In article <9088MIQ@PSUVMA>, MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET writes: > ... > > I don't think it would explain "virgin births" in humans, though. > I agree with the poster who suggested that the "apparently" virgin women > probably weren't so. I did read about one woman who was a virgin and got pregnant (and I don't mean Mary). She was gay and had sex with her bi-sexual lover who had just had intercourse with a male. Boy was she surprised!