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!