question for catholics

[Donald Sauter]

Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution, can you answer me how many generations of proto-humans choked themselves to death prior to reaching puberty before the cough evolved? If you're not sure, ask the Pope for me, ok?

Donald Sauter

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:24 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter
<donald...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution, can you answer me how many generations of proto-humans choked themselves to death prior to reaching puberty before the cough evolved? If you're not sure, ask the Pope for me, ok?

Apparently you have you never seen a fish cough.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:2uk77ahgvdrqb5gca...@4ax.com...

Or hiccup?

[Kleuskes & Moos]

In contrast to what you seem to think, Roman-Catholics are not known for
following every opinion the Vatican holds. This is best exemplified in
the contrast between the Vaticans stance on birth-control (not allowable)
and the observable average size of Roman-catholic families since the
advance of the birth control pill.

Besides...

If you had actually done some basic research on the subject, you would
have found out that coughing is quite common in mammals, so any "proto-
humans" may be expected to have a cough reflex much the same as we do.

See "The cough reflex in animals: relevance to human cough research",
Canning B.J. PubMed, 2008.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:29:16 +0100, in article
<m51llo$gg4$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf stated..."

I don't quite understand the question.

Given that people are still choking to death, both infants and adults,
the obvious answer to how many generations is: all of them.

But this seems to be meant as a problem for evolution, so let's play the
game. Suppose that this definitely, finally, proved beyond a shadow that
evolution is dead. What is it that happens, and when, so that life turns
out as it does: that all of us vertebrates have similar eyes, different
from those of insects and octopuses; why all of us primates are so similar
in so many ways; and a million other such complex specified observations
of the tree of life?


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[jillery]

On 25 Nov 2014 03:44:14 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>"On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:29:16 +0100, in article
><m51llo$gg4$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf stated..."
>>
>>
>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
>>news:2uk77ahgvdrqb5gca...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:24 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter
>>> <donald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution, can you answer me how
>>>>many generations of proto-humans choked themselves to death prior to
>>>>reaching puberty before the cough evolved? If you're not sure, ask the
>>>>Pope for me, ok?
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you have you never seen a fish cough.
>>>
>>
>>Or hiccup?
>
>I don't quite understand the question.
>
>Given that people are still choking to death, both infants and adults,
>the obvious answer to how many generations is: all of them.

IIUC you're saying that the cough reflex is a work in progress, and I
agree.

>But this seems to be meant as a problem for evolution, so let's play the
>game. Suppose that this definitely, finally, proved beyond a shadow that
>evolution is dead. What is it that happens, and when, so that life turns
>out as it does: that all of us vertebrates have similar eyes, different
>from those of insects and octopuses; why all of us primates are so similar
>in so many ways; and a million other such complex specified observations
>of the tree of life?

As you likely know, the standard pushback is Common Design. But even
casual reflection shows that the Designer doesn't apply Common Design
consistently. Sometimes the Designer uses entirely different designs
for no apparent reason. The only case when Common Design is applied
consistently is when it happens to correlate exactly with Common
Descent.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:24 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Donald Sauter
<donald...@gmail.com>:

>Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution, can you answer me how many generations of proto-humans choked themselves to death prior to reaching puberty before the cough evolved?

None, since the data shows that coughing probably long
predated anything even vaguely humanoid. Fish cough, for
instance.

> If you're not sure, ask the Pope for me, ok?

Why not ask him yourself?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[TomS]

"On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:00:05 -0500, in article
<qbk97ahtc4pkjh5d5...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

>
>On 25 Nov 2014 03:44:14 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>"On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:29:16 +0100, in article
>><m51llo$gg4$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf stated..."
>>>
>>>
>>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
>>>news:2uk77ahgvdrqb5gca...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:24 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter
>>>> <donald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution, can you answer me how
>>>>>many generations of proto-humans choked themselves to death prior to
>>>>>reaching puberty before the cough evolved? If you're not sure, ask the
>>>>>Pope for me, ok?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you have you never seen a fish cough.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or hiccup?
>>
>>I don't quite understand the question.
>>
>>Given that people are still choking to death, both infants and adults,
>>the obvious answer to how many generations is: all of them.
>
>
>IIUC you're saying that the cough reflex is a work in progress, and I
>agree.

It would be nice if the OP would give us some guidance as to what he
had in mind, other than the usual "I don't know how evolution works."

>
>
>>But this seems to be meant as a problem for evolution, so let's play the
>>game. Suppose that this definitely, finally, proved beyond a shadow that
>>evolution is dead. What is it that happens, and when, so that life turns
>>out as it does: that all of us vertebrates have similar eyes, different
>>from those of insects and octopuses; why all of us primates are so similar
>>in so many ways; and a million other such complex specified observations
>>of the tree of life?
>
>
>As you likely know, the standard pushback is Common Design. But even
>casual reflection shows that the Designer doesn't apply Common Design
>consistently. Sometimes the Designer uses entirely different designs
>for no apparent reason. The only case when Common Design is applied
>consistently is when it happens to correlate exactly with Common
>Descent.
>

Yes, I had "Common Design" in mind when I framed the question this way.

Common would mean commonality, but vertebrate, insect and octopus eyes are
different.

[Mike Painter]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:24 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter
<donald...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not sure what the "now" references. At least as far back as 1950 and
probably well before that Catholics were taught that there was nothing
wrong with a belief in evolution.

But people still choke to death and I suspect the cough goes back
beyond the point where a "proto-human" existed.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

This was a good question. I wonder myself something similar when I was
12 years old, but do not involved the ToE at all, for I had not any notion
about it. Only some other children telling "the men came from the monkeys."
My question was in regard to some cautions presented by the religious
teaching that we should not depend much on the help of god, but on our
own efforts to succeed to solve our problems. We had been taught a proverb
that says, "to god praying and with the hammer hitting". It was clear that
I was taught to depend on our personal effort.
Then, my question was, "if under god I depend on my own effort, what would
happen to me if there is not any god?" I had concluded that nothing would
change if god would not exist, and I should be hammering, or working hard
either with god, or without.

Then, this idea applied to the ToE bring me back to my adolescence, when
I wondered if there is not god, then what? If the ToE was had not existed
at all, then what? What would had changed, besides some books written
pro or against would had not been printed?

We should be continuing hammering our way through our existence. God
would had not come here to solve any of our problems.

This is besides, that if Charles Darwin would had not existed, someone
else would had come out with a similar theory sooner or later.
Someone called something like Wallace was working on the same idea.
But if Wallace would had not existed, any other naturalist would had
come out with the idea. Evolution was a theory that was growing slowly
in the minds of many naturalists, till Darwin come out with his book.

Eri

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:56:01 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
<leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>This is besides, that if Charles Darwin would had not existed, someone
>else would had come out with a similar theory sooner or later.
>Someone called something like Wallace was working on the same idea.
>But if Wallace would had not existed, any other naturalist would had
>come out with the idea. Evolution was a theory that was growing slowly
>in the minds of many naturalists, till Darwin come out with his book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Pre-Darwinian_theories
points out how far back the idea went.

People tend to look back on ideas like this as though they sprang full
grown all by themselves. Very little science and almost no religion
has done so.

[Donald Sauter]

Actually, I was counting coughing fish among my ancestors.

Donald Sauter

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:40:51 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter

<donald...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 24, 2014 at 8:00:10 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:24 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter
>> <donald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution, can you answer me how many generations of proto-humans choked themselves to death prior to reaching puberty before the cough evolved? If you're not sure, ask the Pope for me, ok?
>>
>>
>> Apparently you have you never seen a fish cough.
>>
>> --
>
>Actually, I was counting coughing fish among my ancestors.

Care to reconcile your two posts?

[Peter Nyikos]

Perhaps he was just playing *agent provocateur*, hoping some Catholics
would start acting like the fundies he suspects they are.

I don't think there are any YEC or OEC Catholic regulars here.
For instance, I doubt that AlwaysAskingQuestions is anything
like a fundie when it comes to evolution. And I doubt that
Ray Martinez is a Catholic, his Hispanic background notwithstanding.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Maths -- standard disclaimer--
University of S. Carolina

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-4, Donald Sauter wrote:
> Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution, can you answer me how many generations of proto-humans choked themselves to death prior to reaching puberty before the cough evolved? If you're not sure, ask the Pope for me, ok?
>

Standard crap.
A creature that needed a cough reflex must have
evolved before the cough reflex, and hence would not be viable.
The answer is no entire generation of proto-human choked themselves
to death nor does the theory of evolution predict this.
No need to bother Francis.

-William Hughes

[*Hemidactylus*]

Not sure why Ray got invoked here aside from some loose associative
assumption based on his surname. From previous conversations I would
guess Ray is politically close to me, a pro-choice Democrat, though he
too might be disappointed with Obama. He's definitely not Catholic. As a
follower of Gene Scott his theology might be some offshoot of
Pentacostalism. Wikipedia says Scott was Pentacostal then "Paulinist"
Protestant.

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

From recent reading on the history of religious "freedom" in the US I
gather that Catholics had gotten a rather bad rap in the early days pre
and post Revolution. I would hope *that* would instill a healthy respect
for freedom from the religious views of others. Catholics were maligned
as Papist and suspected of mixed loyalties, an assumed affinity for the
Vatican over DC. If we ignore the Treaty of Tripoli and assume the US
started as a 'Christian nation' it had little truck with non-protestant
types. The 1st amendment was anemic and applied only to the federal
govt, leaving the states free to discriminate against Catholics and
freethinkers.

Only Madison and Jefferson were reasonably progressive for their time
and mostly drowned out by the bible thumpers. Paine was an ostracized
former founder, not meriting consideration due to the French Revolution
and _The Age of Reason_ diatribe against Christianity, thus mostly
forgotten and written out of history as a crank.

I might be reading too much into Sehat's _The Myth of American Religious
Freedom_ but next time a Jehovah Witness comes knocking on my door I
should thank them for being on the forefront of fighting for religious
liberty in the courts in the 20th century. At some point the 14th
amendment dovetailed into the 1st and force the states to stop being
religiously belligerent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut

And based somewhat on reading Sehat's book I get the impression that
though Catholics could pull to the left on social justice issues, some,
like Schlafly, ironically enough on the pro-women ERA, tilted right and
the evangelicals who might not like Catholics too much in the past made
an uneasy alliance as a "moral majority". Francis seems to be restoring
the more leftward trajectory to his credit.

[jillery]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:40:20 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 4:39:51 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:40:51 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter
>> <donald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 24, 2014 at 8:00:10 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:24 -0800 (PST), Donald Sauter
>> >> <donald...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Now that you're all staunch believers in evolution,
>>>> > can you answer me how many generations of proto-humans choked
>>>> > themselves to death prior to reaching puberty before the cough
>>>> > evolved? If you're not sure, ask the Pope for me, ok?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Apparently you have you never seen a fish cough.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >
>> >Actually, I was counting coughing fish among my ancestors.
>>
>>
>> Care to reconcile your two posts?
>
>Perhaps he was just playing *agent provocateur*, hoping some Catholics
>would start acting like the fundies he suspects they are.

And perhaps he's just *really* confused, like some other poster on
T.O. There's no point in idle speculation until after Donald provides
additional information.

>I don't think there are any YEC or OEC Catholic regulars here.
>For instance, I doubt that AlwaysAskingQuestions is anything
>like a fundie when it comes to evolution. And I doubt that
>Ray Martinez is a Catholic, his Hispanic background notwithstanding.

[Mitchell Coffey]

[snip]

All true, regarding Ray. Most interesting point about Ray, he also
claims to be an admirer of Ayn Rand, depite her atheisism and his vote
for Obama. Interesting fellow.

Mitchell Coffey

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <kbfefa5j80la4j3ao...@4ax.com>,

Mitchell Coffey <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>All true, regarding Ray. Most interesting point about Ray, he also
>claims to be an admirer of Ayn Rand, depite her atheisism and his vote
>for Obama. Interesting fellow.

OK, that has to be the weirdest thing I ever heard. I do not see how
any admirer of Ayn Rand could support Obama. *Vote* for him, maybe,
as one those "let's crash the system" kind of things.

--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
dot com | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
Autoreply disabled | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984

[Ernest Major]

On 04/03/2015 23:44, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <kbfefa5j80la4j3ao...@4ax.com>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All true, regarding Ray. Most interesting point about Ray, he also
>> claims to be an admirer of Ayn Rand, depite her atheisism and his vote
>> for Obama. Interesting fellow.
>
> OK, that has to be the weirdest thing I ever heard. I do not see how
> any admirer of Ayn Rand could support Obama. *Vote* for him, maybe,
> as one those "let's crash the system" kind of things.
>

Various comments over the years have lead me to suspect that it is Ayn
Rand's epistemology rather than her ethics that appeals to Ray. (But
that seems a slight foundation on which to base his hero-worship.) It is
quite possible that Ray's understanding of her epistemology differs
significantly from Ayn Rand's understanding.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 10:04:49 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 01:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > I don't think there are any YEC or OEC Catholic regulars here.
> > For instance, I doubt that AlwaysAskingQuestions is anything
> > like a fundie when it comes to evolution. And I doubt that
> > Ray Martinez is a Catholic, his Hispanic background notwithstanding.
>
> Not sure why Ray got invoked here aside from some loose associative
> assumption based on his surname.

You got it. Do you have even so flimsy an association for any other
creationist here?

>From previous conversations I would
> guess Ray is politically close to me, a pro-choice Democrat,

There are plenty of pro-choicers around here, some apparently
radical enough to have no problem with abortion for
any reason or no reason, at any time up to birth, by any method
the woman chooses that isn't disastrous for herself.

I have yet to come across anyone here who is as right-to-life as
Phyllis Sclafly--I certainly am not:

<snip for focus>

> And based somewhat on reading Sehat's book I get the impression that
> though Catholics could pull to the left on social justice issues, some,
> like Schlafly, ironically enough on the pro-women ERA, tilted right

There is nothing ironic about it. One reason ERA failed to pass was
that the feminists pushing it adamantly refused to allow a modification
that would say the amendment does not give a fundamental right to abortion
[including that radical stance I mention above]. In fact, it might have
been the only real reason -- people who suggested that it might
make same-sex marriage a right were simply laughed at back then.

[My, how far we have come! Now I have someone denouncing me
on the talk.origins thread "Exploding Roots" for
"making vile, baseless slurs against same-sex marriage" without
any hint as to what those alleged slurs might have been. Most of my
"slurs" boil down to the statement that there is no fundamental
human right to a label such as "marriage" if all the legal rights
of marriage are conferred upon people in other "civil union"
contracts.]

> the evangelicals who might not like Catholics too much in the past made
> an uneasy alliance as a "moral majority". Francis seems to be restoring
> the more leftward trajectory to his credit.

I don't think you've seen how staunchly he upholds the absolute ban
on abortion. That's "dog bites man" news rather than "man bites dog"
news as far as the mainstream media are concerned. What you are reading
there is analogous to the praise the NYT, etc. heaped on McCain in the
primaries. At some point you might see the analogue of it turning
radically against McCain in the general election. But don't count on
it--right now Francis is a marvelous stick to beat traditionalists like
Schlafly over the head with.

Peter Nyikos

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <21b68482-41cd-48da...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 10:04:49 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> the evangelicals who might not like Catholics too much in the past made
>> an uneasy alliance as a "moral majority". Francis seems to be restoring
>> the more leftward trajectory to his credit.
>
>I don't think you've seen how staunchly he upholds the absolute ban
>on abortion.

The Catholic church was just as staunchly absolute about abortion back
when it was "liberal". The difference was, back then they were quick to
point out that you were "pro-life" that meant you should be opposed to
capital punishment and nuclear war *for exactly the same reasons you
oppose abortion*. They called this the "seamless garment". Also, they
were big on helping poor people in countries where Reagan was sending
guns and money to guys who killed the poor people.

[Peter Nyikos]

This will probably be the last post I do to this thread until the 16th.
Today begins our Spring Break, lasting all next week. Such times,
my family takes priority over everything, and I don't know
how much time, if any, I can spare for posting to Usenet.

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 7:56:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <21b68482-41cd-48da...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 10:04:49 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >
> >> the evangelicals who might not like Catholics too much in the past made
> >> an uneasy alliance as a "moral majority". Francis seems to be restoring
> >> the more leftward trajectory to his credit.
> >
> >I don't think you've seen how staunchly he upholds the absolute ban
> >on abortion.
>
> The Catholic church was just as staunchly absolute about abortion back
> when it was "liberal". The difference was, back then they were quick to
> point out that you were "pro-life" that meant you should be opposed to
> capital punishment and nuclear war *for exactly the same reasons you
> oppose abortion*. They called this the "seamless garment".

By "they" you mean the people to whom "Vatican II"
[often qualified by "Spirit of"] meant a conglomerate
of liberal ideas, many of them having little to do with the actual
Vatican II ecumenical council.

The official position of the recent popes, and possibly of the
whole hierarchy, is that capital punishment is to be opposed in
parts of the world where secure means of incarceration exist. And
this position is of relatively recent vintage, while abortion has
been unequivocally condemned all through the history of the
Catholic Chuch. The only distinction was that, until the 19th
century, it was not considered to be murder until ensoulment; but
now that the facts of human development are well known, the
assumption is that ensoulment could well happen the moment the
oocyte is penetrated.

Abortion has, for a very long time, been something that automatically
incurred excommunication *laetae sentiae*. No such thing is associated
with the other two evils.

> Also, they
> were big on helping poor people in countries where Reagan was sending
> guns and money to guys who killed the poor people.

Helping the poor with medicine, food, clothing, and clean water
goes on unabated, in contrast to Planned Parenthood and the Obama
administration. Seems that giving contraception but not the other
things to poor people is to be supported by federal aid, but giving
all those things but not contraception is not.

Peter Nyikos

[deadrat]

This is utter horseshit. The Catholic Church has a long history of
changing its views on when animation (and thus "ensoulment") takes place
during the gestational cycle. We date the latest era of Catholic
fetusolatry to Leo XIII in the 1880s.

> The only distinction was that, until the 19th
> century, it was not considered to be murder until ensoulment; but
> now that the facts of human development are well known, the
> assumption is that ensoulment could well happen the moment the
> oocyte is penetrated.

"Could well happen." Like the basis of a lot of other benighted beliefs.

> Abortion has, for a very long time, been something that automatically
> incurred excommunication *laetae sentiae*.

Since Leo XIII, who changed the policy of the previous 300 years.

Please stop pretending that the Catholic Church's view of sin has been
the result of unchanging and divine revelation. The Church changes as
much as any other human institution.

> No such thing is associated with the other two evils.

>> Also, they
>> were big on helping poor people in countries where Reagan was sending
>> guns and money to guys who killed the poor people.
>
> Helping the poor with medicine, food, clothing, and clean water
> goes on unabated, in contrast to Planned Parenthood and the Obama
> administration. Seems that giving contraception but not the other
> things to poor people is to be supported by federal aid, but giving
> all those things but not contraception is not.

What are you nattering on about? What federal programs give
contraception to poor people? And what do you think SNAP stands for?
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/6/15 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This will probably be the last post I do to this thread until the 16th.

Have a happy Pi Day on the 14th!


--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Ernest Major]

I was skeptical of Peter's claims (I had read that the medieval church
accepted abortion in the first trimester), so I had a look on the web.
What I find are claims that the church has opposed abortion since the
early 1st millenium, but that the original reason was opposition to
contraception as an enabler of "illicit" sex (that surprised me - I had
assumed that the legalist opposition to contraception was a more recent
development).

>
>> The only distinction was that, until the 19th
>> century, it was not considered to be murder until ensoulment; but
>> now that the facts of human development are well known, the
>> assumption is that ensoulment could well happen the moment the
>> oocyte is penetrated.
>
> "Could well happen." Like the basis of a lot of other benighted beliefs.
>
>> Abortion has, for a very long time, been something that automatically
>> incurred excommunication *laetae sentiae*.
>
> Since Leo XIII, who changed the policy of the previous 300 years.
>
> Please stop pretending that the Catholic Church's view of sin has been
> the result of unchanging and divine revelation. The Church changes as
> much as any other human institution.
>
>> No such thing is associated with the other two evils.
>
>>> Also, they
>>> were big on helping poor people in countries where Reagan was sending
>>> guns and money to guys who killed the poor people.
>>
>> Helping the poor with medicine, food, clothing, and clean water
>> goes on unabated, in contrast to Planned Parenthood and the Obama
>> administration. Seems that giving contraception but not the other
>> things to poor people is to be supported by federal aid, but giving
>> all those things but not contraception is not.
>
> What are you nattering on about? What federal programs give
> contraception to poor people? And what do you think SNAP stands for?
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>

--
alias Ernest Major