Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

Melinda's use of the word "legal" is interesting. Sometimes she means legal under US law, sometimes she means legal under whatever homebrew interpretation of Torah she's using. This gives her a certain amount of wiggle room with her lies.

She onlyconsiders US law valid when she can find some convoluted way to make it fit her obscene and heretical interpretations of the torah

 

[AnOminous]

lol, I'm 35, not even close to old

You're a bitch, you're about 5 years past your expire-by date as anything other than a throwaway slam pig, that's why Marshall pumped you full of tard batter and dumped you.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

You're a bitch, you're about 5 years past your expire-by date as anything other than a throwaway slam pig, that's why Marshall pumped you full of tard batter and dumped you.

Can't wait to meet her next "husband". Her kids must be feeling sexually neglected since Mushy absconded. Time to bring in the next predator, I guess

 

[A Cardboard Box]

I can't bypass this comment and give up an opportunity to deconstruct this Patriarchal statement because it's so inaccurate, for one.

A child is not "another man's seed". In case you didn't know, a woman's egg is part of making a child. In fact, the entire process of fertilization, implantation and birth is largely matriarchal. For one, the tail of a sperm falls off to join an egg, which is larger than the head of the sperm. The egg contains the majority of life sustaining material to support the growth of the zygote. The Zygote then implants in the woman, who grows and births the child in her own body.

So what makes a child a man's child as well? I asked this question to the @Burmese Rice Farmer guy awhile back and he wouldn't answer.

An itty bitty sperm is not enough to call yourself a "dad" or a "father". That is called a "sperm donor".

In fact, I don't believe any of the blood of the father will even transmit to the child unless he has sex with the mother and gives her semen during her pregnancy. If you look at children born to single mothers where the dad was not part of the pregnant mother's life after fertilization, the child nearly always looks just like the mother. Her DNA takes over.

In order to be a "dad" or "father", you have to be part of the pregnancy, part of the birth, part of raising the child, part of the child's memories, part of the child's daily life.

A fatherless child born to a single mother who then has a man come into their life afterward can certainly be spiritually adopted by that man, as if it's his own child. I would say the same is true of the female gender as well. While no one can ever replace a "birth mother", a woman can spiritually adopt an abandoned child to be her mother. It's called LOVE. Love makes a family, not blood.

This is one of the most scientifically illiterate things I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Please. He legally adopted them like he legally married her. It was just one of her many lies.

We really need some of flowchart or something for all of these.

This is one of the most scientifically illiterate things I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

Have you read Richard Watson's paper?

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

This is one of the most scientifically illiterate things I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

I used to work with a real scrout. Generationally welfare dependant, CPS involved all the time, addictions, etc.I noticed the garbage-poor always do this "adopting" thing with strays and so on. It's vomit-inducing.
Seems there is no limit to Melinda's magical thinking. As if piglets take on a higher dna-load from the whore when the babydaddy disappears. Ludicrous.

 

[Baby Yoda]

I can't bypass this comment and give up an opportunity to deconstruct this Patriarchal statement because it's so inaccurate, for one.

A child is not "another man's seed". In case you didn't know, a woman's egg is part of making a child. In fact, the entire process of fertilization, implantation and birth is largely matriarchal. For one, the tail of a sperm falls off to join an egg, which is larger than the head of the sperm. The egg contains the majority of life sustaining material to support the growth of the zygote. The Zygote then implants in the woman, who grows and births the child in her own body.

So what makes a child a man's child as well? I asked this question to the @Burmese Rice Farmer guy awhile back and he wouldn't answer.

An itty bitty sperm is not enough to call yourself a "dad" or a "father". That is called a "sperm donor".

In fact, I don't believe any of the blood of the father will even transmit to the child unless he has sex with the mother and gives her semen during her pregnancy. If you look at children born to single mothers where the dad was not part of the pregnant mother's life after fertilization, the child nearly always looks just like the mother. Her DNA takes over.

In order to be a "dad" or "father", you have to be part of the pregnancy, part of the birth, part of raising the child, part of the child's memories, part of the child's daily life.

A fatherless child born to a single mother who then has a man come into their life afterward can certainly be spiritually adopted by that man, as if it's his own child. I would say the same is true of the female gender as well. While no one can ever replace a "birth mother", a woman can spiritually adopt an abandoned child to be her mother. It's called LOVE. Love makes a family, not blood.

How very Jew*ish and Communistic of you. Unfortunately for you, I believe in Le Science and not Talmudic majick. When a man's sperm combines with a woman's egg, their DNA combines to form a new human. Said new human inherits DNA from the parents.
It doesn't matter if a man "looks" at a child and feels spiritually connected to the child. The child isn't the random man's. As a matter of fact, you sound like a pedo.
Wouldn't be surprised if you had a pedo fetish. I mean you have really weird fetishes in general, like prolapse sucking, drinking milk farts, and ass licking.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

How very Jew*ish and Communistic of you. Unfortunately for you, I believe in Le Science and not Talmudic majick. When a man's sperm combines with a woman's egg, their DNA combines to form a new human. Said new human inherits DNA from the parents.
It doesn't matter if a man "looks" at a child and feels spiritually connected to the child. The child isn't the random man's. As a matter of fact, you sound like a pedo.
Wouldn't be surprised if you had a pedo fetish. I mean you have really weird fetishes in general, like prolapse sucking, drinking milk farts, and ass licking.

Remember her post 2 pages or so back where she said " I have too many children to require concubines"? Pretty shifty, for sure. She probably "gifts" her kids to whatever man is around at any given time. Probably blames it on sexabuse she suffered at the hands of various foster parents, too., and justifies it with the torah
And don't forget she was in an incestuous relationship with her own father, which may or may not have led to his suicide.

 

[Baby Yoda]

Remember her post 2 pages or so back where she said " I have too many children to require concubines"? Pretty shifty, for sure. She probably "gifts" her kids to whatever man is around at any given time. Probably blames it on sexabuse she suffered at the hands of various foster parents, too., and justifies it with the torah
And don't forget she was in an incestuous relationship with her own father, which may or may not have led to his suicide.

Well if I woke up one day and realized I was married to Le Happy Merchant, but the female version, I'd kill myself too.

On another note, I just gave a woman an amazing rimjob. She watched me in the mirror lick her shitter. Fuck it was hot.

 

[LoverofPi]

I can't bypass this comment and give up an opportunity to deconstruct this Patriarchal statement because it's so inaccurate, for one.

A child is not "another man's seed". In case you didn't know, a woman's egg is part of making a child. In fact, the entire process of fertilization, implantation and birth is largely matriarchal. For one, the tail of a sperm falls off to join an egg, which is larger than the head of the sperm. The egg contains the majority of life sustaining material to support the growth of the zygote. The Zygote then implants in the woman, who grows and births the child in her own body.

So far, accurate enough, though the size of the tail is entirely irrelevant as the head is what contains the DNA.

So what makes a child a man's child as well? I asked this question to the @Burmese Rice Farmer guy awhile back and he wouldn't answer.

Biologically, the 50% of DNA contributed to it.

An itty bitty sperm is not enough to call yourself a "dad" or a "father". That is called a "sperm donor".

You're speaking culturally, then. A completely different subject from the biological process of reproduction.

In fact, I don't believe any of the blood of the father will even transmit to the child unless he has sex with the mother and gives her semen during her pregnancy.

100% wrong.

If you look at children born to single mothers where the dad was not part of the pregnant mother's life after fertilization, the child nearly always looks just like the mother. Her DNA takes over.

Also 100% wrong.

In order to be a "dad" or "father", you have to be part of the pregnancy, part of the birth, part of raising the child, part of the child's memories, part of the child's daily life.

Again, this is mixing the cultural idea of fatherhood with biological paternity.

A fatherless child born to a single mother who then has a man come into their life afterward can certainly be spiritually adopted by that man, as if it's his own child. I would say the same is true of the female gender as well. While no one can ever replace a "birth mother", a woman can spiritually adopt an abandoned child to be her mother. It's called LOVE. Love makes a family, not blood.

Love makes a family, sure, but DNA makes a baby.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

How very Jew*ish and Communistic of you. Unfortunately for you, I believe in Le Science and not Talmudic majick. When a man's sperm combines with a woman's egg, their DNA combines to form a new human. Said new human inherits DNA from the parents.
It doesn't matter if a man "looks" at a child and feels spiritually connected to the child. The child isn't the random man's. As a matter of fact, you sound like a pedo.
Wouldn't be surprised if you had a pedo fetish. I mean you have really weird fetishes in general, like prolapse sucking, drinking milk farts, and ass licking.

Remember her post 2 pages or so back where she said " I have too many children to require concubines"? Pretty shifty, for sure. She probably "gifts" her kids to whatever man is around at any given time. Probably blames it on sexabuse she suffered at the hands of various foster parents, too., and justifies it with the torah
And don't forget she was in an incestuous relationship with her own father, which may or may not have led to his suicide.

These actions are forbidden by The Torah. You two are really really sick. Go get therapy

Love makes a family, sure, but DNA makes a baby.

That's surely what I said. And DNA only can take people so far. Blood isn't enough to sustain a Covenant.
Hence the reason people all over the world cut off family members, even their own parents, or their own children.

LOVE makes a family.

Also 100% wrong.

I disagree, simply because the growth of a fetus is 9 months long. Science says red blood cells renew every 4 months. While chromosomes may carry a certain degree of genetic material, the head of a sperm is not enough to permanently embed. It only activates a long process.

The sperm and egg change from a zygote to an embryo. The embryo is then its own new entity. That then changes into a fetus. The fetus is affected by the maternal blood cycles, and also by food. So if the woman is not having sex during her pregnancy, the man's DNA is not continually entering her body (through semen) to help form the embryo and fetus. Her DNA takes over, traveling through the placental wall. There's no way for a man to continue in forming an embryo or fetus without having sex with the pregnant woman (through semen).

In addition, DNA (epithelial cells) is passed through breast**milk. So, the baby will actually receive more genetic coding after birth from the mother as well. The only way for a man to pass along his DNA at the same rate is through his semen (having sex with the breastfeeding mother/affecting the woman's blood).

This is one of the most scientifically illiterate things I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

It's nothing more than your Patriarchal pompous brain not liking the fact that the process of fertilization and growth of a fetus is controlled by the woman. There's not one thing in there that I said that isn't agreed upon by scientists as well.

OUCH, that must really hurt your christian sexist ego a lot, huh?

HAHA

 

[Baby Yoda]

These actions are forbidden by The Torah. You two are really really sick. Go get therapy






That's surely what I said. And DNA only can take people so far. Blood isn't enough to sustain a Covenant.
Hence the reason people all over the world cut off family members, even their own parents, or their own children.

LOVE makes a family.





I disagree, simply because the growth of a fetus is 9 months long. Science says red blood cells renew every 4 months. While chromosomes may carry a certain degree of genetic material, the head of a sperm is not enough to permanently embed. It only activates a long process.

The sperm and egg change from a zygote to an embryo. The embryo is then its own new entity. That then changes into a fetus. The fetus is affected by the maternal blood cycles, and also by food. So if the woman is not having sex during her pregnancy, the man's DNA is not continually entering her body (through semen) to help form the embryo and fetus. Her DNA takes over, traveling through the placental wall. There's no way for a man to continue in forming an embryo or fetus without having sex with the pregnant woman (through semen).

In addition, DNA (epithelial cells) is passed through breast**milk. So, the baby will actually receive more genetic coding after birth from the mother as well. The only way for a man to pass along his DNA at the same rate is through his semen (having sex with the breastfeeding mother/affecting the woman's blood).

Analingus is forbidden by the Torah?

Guess its a good thing everything I am and stand for is the diametric opposite of a dumb 2,000 year old Middle Eastern pamphlet.

 

[Spergichu]

Melinda, you're so retarded that when you couldn't figure out how to disable notifications on your computer, you decided the best course of action was to waste your limited resources on buying a second laptop. Why should I believe anything you have to say if you're too stupid to do something a five year old could figure out with a Google search?

 

[LoverofPi]

That's surely what I said. And DNA only can take people so far. Blood isn't enough to sustain a Covenant.
Hence the reason people all over the world cut off family members, even their own parents, or their own children.

LOVE makes a family.

Which is all well and good, but you seem to think it overrides actual biology and genetics.

I disagree, simply because the growth of a fetus is 9 months long. Science says red blood cells renew every 4 months. While chromosomes may carry a certain degree of genetic material, the head of a sperm is not enough to permanently embed. It only activates a long process.

It doesn't need to "permanently embed" because it's already contributed half of the DNA the zygote will have from the moment it makes impact. Each cell of a zygote that eventually becomes a baby is generated from that original cell that is a 50/50 mix of Maternal and Paternal DNA.

The sperm and egg change from a zygote to an embryo. The embryo is then its own new entity. That then changes into a fetus. The fetus is affected by the maternal blood cycles, and also by food. So if the woman is not having sex during her pregnancy, the man's DNA is not continually entering her body (through semen) to help form the embryo and fetus. Her DNA takes over, traveling through the placental wall. There's no way for a man to continue in forming an embryo or fetus without having sex with the pregnant woman (through semen).

One, it doesn't need to "continue forming" the embryo because there's no further genetic transfer after the initial conception.

Two, under your.... unusual idea of how post conception genetic "contributions" works, if a woman has sex with a different man after conception, does the second man's DNA "contribute" to the fetus?

In addition, DNA (epithelial cells) is passed through breast**milk.

No, there is no genetic transfer through breast milk. Ingesting epiphelial cells will not cause a change in DNA.

So, the baby will actually receive more genetic coding after birth from the mother as well. The only way for a man to pass along his DNA at the same rate is through his semen (having sex with the breastfeeding mother/affecting the woman's blood).

Your understanding of how the human body/ genetics/ procreation works are as fascinating as they are batshit, Mel.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

So what makes a child a man's child as well? I asked this question to the @Burmese Rice Farmer guy awhile back and he wouldn't answer.

These actions are forbidden by The Torah. You two are really really sick. Go get therapy






That's surely what I said. And DNA only can take people so far. Blood isn't enough to sustain a Covenant.
Hence the reason people all over the world cut off family members, even their own parents, or their own children.

LOVE makes a family.





I disagree, simply because the growth of a fetus is 9 months long. Science says red blood cells renew every 4 months. While chromosomes may carry a certain degree of genetic material, the head of a sperm is not enough to permanently embed. It only activates a long process.

The sperm and egg change from a zygote to an embryo. The embryo is then its own new entity. That then changes into a fetus. The fetus is affected by the maternal blood cycles, and also by food. So if the woman is not having sex during her pregnancy, the man's DNA is not continually entering her body (through semen) to help form the embryo and fetus. Her DNA takes over, traveling through the placental wall. There's no way for a man to continue in forming an embryo or fetus without having sex with the pregnant woman (through semen).

In addition, DNA (epithelial cells) is passed through breast**milk. So, the baby will actually receive more genetic coding after birth from the mother as well. The only way for a man to pass along his DNA at the same rate is through his semen (having sex with the breastfeeding mother/affecting the woman's blood).

You can't disagree with science, Melinda.
That's not how reality works.
Also the censors were lifted months ago you don't need to keep censoring yourself

 

[A Cardboard Box]

It's nothing more than your Patriarchal pompous brain not liking the fact that the process of fertilization and growth of a fetus is controlled by the woman. There's not one thing in there that I said that isn't agreed upon by scientists as well.

OUCH, that must really hurt your christian sexist ego a lot, huh?

HAHA

Find me one peer reviewed medical article that says if the father is absent the child will spontaneously alter its DNA to become more like the mother.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Which is all well and good, but you seem to think it overrides actual biology and genetics.

The spiritual can actually over-ride the physical.

If a woman is ovulating, and her biology is programmed to be turned on by male scents, whether cologne or body odors, and she goes to the mall and her husband is at work, and other males there are wearing nice cologne, does she act upon her biology and get turned on by some random guy and mate with him, or does her SPIRITUAL soul, bound to her husband override her biology?

The latter. Spiritual overrides physical.

It doesn't need to "permanently embed" because it's already contributed half of the DNA the zygote will have from the moment it makes impact. Each cell of a zygote that eventually becomes a baby is generated from that original cell that is a 50/50 mix of Maternal and Paternal DNA.

Incorrect. Because blood carries DNA and blood cells regenerate every 4 months. DNA is not stagnant. It changes in a person over time.

Two, under your.... unusual idea of how post conception genetic "contributions" works, if a woman has sex with a different man after conception, does the second man's DNA "contribute" to the fetus?

Yes, I believe it does. And this is why I believe a woman should wait several months to even consider selecting a new partner if she is pregnant, I think it's possible a different man's semen entering the woman's blood stream can attack the embryo or fetus and cause miscarriage.

No, there is no genetic transfer through breast milk. Ingesting epiphelial cells will not cause a change in DNA.

Incorrect.

Here's a study for you: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/em.10067

"Evidence for the presence of mutagenic arylamines in human breast milk and DNA adducts in exfoliated breast ductal epithelial cells"

Find me one peer reviewed medical article that says if the father is absent the child will spontaneously alter its DNA to become more like the mother.

"That is, during pronuclear maturation and before any DNA replication, the paternal genome is rapidly and selectively demethylated — a process termed ‘active demethylation"


Study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201003116

title: "Genomic imprinting: Mother maintains methylation marks"

 

[A Cardboard Box]

The spiritual can actually over-ride the physical.

If a woman is ovulating, and her biology is programmed to be turned on by male scents, whether cologne or body odors, and she goes to the mall and her husband is at work, and other males there are wearing nice cologne, does she act upon her biology and get turned on by some random guy and mate with him, or does her SPIRITUAL soul, bound to her husband override her biology?

The latter. Spiritual overrides physical.








Incorrect. Because blood carries DNA and blood cells regenerate every 4 months. DNA is not stagnant. It changes in a person over time.






Yes, I believe it does. And this is why I believe a woman should wait several months to even consider selecting a new partner if she is pregnant, I think it's possible a different man's semen entering the woman's blood stream can attack the embryo or fetus and cause miscarriage.






Incorrect.

Here's a study for you: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/em.10067

"Evidence for the presence of mutagenic arylamines in human breast milk and DNA adducts in exfoliated breast ductal epithelial cells"





"That is, during pronuclear maturation and before any DNA replication, the paternal genome is rapidly and selectively demethylated — a process termed ‘active demethylation"


Study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201003116

title: "Genomic imprinting: Mother maintains methylation marks"

What the fuck. Are you serious? We were not on the subject of methylation at all. You said that somehow a child knows how active their father is, and if they are not active, they CHANGE THEIR FUCKING DNA to become more like the mother.

Show me evidence of that.

Also, DNA is in every cell of the fucking body, not just RBCs. DNA doesn't change in any method that matters beyond mutations, which your body is programmed to kill.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

The spiritual can actually over-ride the physical.

If a woman is ovulating, and her biology is programmed to be turned on by male scents, whether cologne or body odors, and she goes to the mall and her husband is at work, and other males there are wearing nice cologne, does she act upon her biology and get turned on by some random guy and mate with him, or does her SPIRITUAL soul, bound to her husband override her biology?

The latter. Spiritual overrides physical.








Incorrect. Because blood carries DNA and blood cells regenerate every 4 months. DNA is not stagnant. It changes in a person over time.






Yes, I believe it does. And this is why I believe a woman should wait several months to even consider selecting a new partner if she is pregnant, I think it's possible a different man's semen entering the woman's blood stream can attack the embryo or fetus and cause miscarriage.






Incorrect.

Here's a study for you: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/em.10067

"Evidence for the presence of mutagenic arylamines in human breast milk and DNA adducts in exfoliated breast ductal epithelial cells"





"That is, during pronuclear maturation and before any DNA replication, the paternal genome is rapidly and selectively demethylated — a process termed ‘active demethylation"


Study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201003116

title: "Genomic imprinting: Mother maintains methylation marks"

Spirituality has nothing to do with science or biology, and your sources are pretty fuckin outdated, almost 20 years so, which is definitely time that would've gone towards studying this further.
Nice try cherrypicking though, didn't expect you to try citing shit

 

[LoverofPi]

The spiritual can actually over-ride the physical.

If a woman is ovulating, and her biology is programmed to be turned on by male scents, whether cologne or body odors, and she goes to the mall and her husband is at work, and other males there are wearing nice cologne, does she act upon her biology and get turned on by some random guy and mate with him, or does her SPIRITUAL soul, bound to her husband override her biology?

The latter. Spiritual overrides physical.

You've described a conscious choice by a mind- a byproduct of the brain, a physical thing- overriding a different biological urge. This has nothing to do with the biological realities of conception, reproduction and genetics. It is also not an example of "the spiritual" overriding "the physical"

Incorrect. Because blood carries DNA and blood cells regenerate every 4 months. DNA is not stagnant. It changes in a person over time.

That is not how DNA works at all. You aren't regularly rewriting your genetic code. Yes, blood cells contain DNA, every cell in your body contains DNA, but that's the same DNA it's had since it was a single celled zygote. Blood cells, like every cell in the body, are churned out through the same genetic blueprint it's had from the beginning.

Yes, I believe it does. And this is why I believe a woman should wait several months to even consider selecting a new partner if she is pregnant, I think it's possible a different man's semen entering the woman's blood stream can attack the embryo or fetus and cause miscarriage.

That you think Semen enters the blood stream is just... hilariously batshit. That really is the best way to describe it. You completely and fundamentally fail to understand how the human body works on basically all levels.

Incorrect.

Here's a study for you: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/em.10067

"Evidence for the presence of mutagenic arylamines in human breast milk and DNA adducts in exfoliated breast ductal epithelial cells"

Like here, where you have misunderstood the discussion of the presence of carcinogenic chemicals in breast milk and epithelial cells and somehow construed it as a standard process by which cells in milk are supposed to rewrite a child's DNA.

"That is, during pronuclear maturation and before any DNA replication, the paternal genome is rapidly and selectively demethylated — a process termed ‘active demethylation"


Study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201003116

title: "Genomic imprinting: Mother maintains methylation marks"

The DNA of both parents goes through demethylation, Mel. You own source even says that.

Do you actually read what you quote at us or do you look for something you think backs your point up and call it a day? Because neither of these sources back you up at all.