XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.christian.religion, alt.christ   
   et.christianlife   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,   
   alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.buddhism, alt.religiontaoism, alt.current-affairs.muslim   
   From: wieber.associate@shitbags.united   
      
   On 7/26/2018 4:26 PM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:36:25 -0700, Don Shepler   
   >  in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 7/26/2018 1:37 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:58:22 -0700, Don Shepler   
   >>>  in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 7/25/2018 8:22 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:15:32 -0700, Don Shepler   
   >>>>>  in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>>>> <89a6D.139275$7H4.125177@fx12.iad> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 7/25/2018 4:58 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No.  There are many things a person can legally do, such as inherit,   
   >>>>>>> own property,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In McArthur v. Scott [113 U.S. 340, 382 (1885)], the Supreme held that   
   >>>>>> conceived but unborn children could inherit property.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Provided they are born alive.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nope.  That's not what it held.   
   >>>   
   >>> Oh?  Please give a reference to the section of the decision that held   
   >>> that a fetus can inherit property.   
   >>   
   >> Go look up the case yourself.  I've given you enough to do so.   
   >   
   > I did.   
      
   You didn't.  It does.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You sure are stupid.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your statements do not govern facts.   
   >>   
   >> My statements *are* factual.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)