Children created in "test tubes" and "in vitro" in laboratories are deprived of the spiritual union of man and woman that exists when normal children are created. Like the fabled monster in Mary Shelley's original novel, these children are created without spiritual union and have no soul.
67 comments
Yeah, you dumbass douche bag, every man and woman cannot "normally" create a "normal" child.
And souls don't exist. Now, please, GO DIAF.
As a child born of artificial insemination, I proudly say: FUCK YOU! My mother hadda hear this crap when she was pregnant with me.
Prove souls exist first before you go around telling people they don't have one, asshole.
Edit: Jesus was born of a virgin. You just said you savior has no soul. Wouldn't that be the express train to hell?
"The World According to Bob" - somehow I see a pretentious fundy asshole trying to dictate things to us. Don't you?
EDIT: Yup, I read the OP:
The fact that he cares whether someone is a "bastard" or not means he obviously lives in the past.
Bob, you ignorant shit, have you even read Frankenstein? It's about a creature created from reanimated corpse parts, and shares absolutely no parallel, metaphorical or not, with IVF. Come to think of it, do you actually know what IVF is, or have you got your daft head stuck in some 60s pulp fiction comic where embryos are created in tubes and radiated into life?
Since he holds the view that women should be pumping out babies from puberty to menopause, regardless of all other factors, doesn't this "Frankenstein" thing directly contradict that? You'd think an idiot misogynist like him would be happy that women who want children and have trouble conceiving would go through humongous amounts of money, time and trouble in order to have babies, since that is what he thinks we should all be doing anyway.
I don't know what he means with this "no souls" bullcrap, but fundies rarely make sense anyway.
So, they are soulless because there is no spiritual union?
What about those babies conceived through rape? There is no spiritual union in that case.
What about those babies conceived after a drug/alcohol induced night of partying? No spiritual union there.
Mary did not sleep with god, so there was no spiritual union there. So, was Jesus without a soul as well?
I think you need to go back to the excuse making drawing board.
[...these children are created without spiritual union and have no soul.]
Let's overlook the idiocy of this statement and ask the next question: So what? What difference does it make if somebody is conceived in vitro or not? What would you do with this information if you had it?
Tell you what...let's test something. I'll create a lineup of 10-12 people. One or two of them will have been conceived in vitro, and the rest will be "normal". I'll know in advance which people are which.
You go down the line and tell me who you think was born in vitro. If you're right, you're right. If you're not, you're an idiot.
Deal?
Children created in "test tubes" and "in vitro" in laboratories are deprived of the spiritual union of man and woman that exists when normal children are created.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that swimming around inside a chick for then to get squeezed out through her vagina is sooo important to our upbringing and mental health.
Idiot.
Like the fabled monster in Mary Shelley's original novel, these children are created without spiritual union and have no soul.
Without souls? You mean, like them Negroes and commie atheists?
Die in a fire.
Most Fundies believe the soul is the thinking, feeling, conscious part of a human being. If Bob is right, then people conceived in vitro should be incapable of thinking or feeling and basically lack any kind of consciousness at all. Since many "test-tube" babies are now fully functional adults, you apparently don't need a "soul" to be sentient.
At this point, Bob would probably state that "mind" and "soul" are two different things. Just another example opf moving the proverbial goalposts.....
"Most Fundies believe the soul is the thinking, feeling, conscious part of a human being."
Since fundies are deficient in those things, maybe that means test tube babies become fundies?
Children created in "test tubes" and "in vitro" in laboratories are deprived of the spiritual union of man and woman that exists when normal children are created. Like the fabled monster in Mary Shelley's original novel, these children are created without spiritual union and have no soul.
So...if the kid's parents didn't hump-n-grunt then the child is a soulless monster? Wow, you really are a first class bull-milker, aren't you?
I've read through Bob’s stupid ravings about women, and thought those were the worst he could do. I was wrong: His comment about “test tube babies” is even dumber.
What position did Bob's parents use that caused him to be born without a brain?
And what exactly is a soul? If a soul is all my memories and personality, well you aren't born with that, you gain that through your life. I would argue that no one is born with a soul, but instead they gain one as they life their live.
So every time I have sex with my (potential future) SO, we create a soul? But since no conception takes place we're just creating bodyless souls to float around?
So THAT'S where ghosts come from.
According to you, Bob, half of those children will be born without a soul anyway, considering you think all females are essentially soul-devoid.
Why don't you go and laminate your balls to protect them from being touched by feminists and give yourself something to do besides type out fucking stupid tripe on teh interwebz?
Oh noes! Since I probably will have a hard time having children naturally due to my PCOS, I will have to resort to IVF and my child from IVF will HAVE NO SOUL like some freakish clone!
Wait. I don't care. That makes a world of difference!
According to South Park , Japanese people and "gingers" (people with red hair and freckles) have no souls, either. I guess we should add people conceived in vitro to that list, too.
The whole point of Frankenstein's monster is that he HAD a soul! A very good, gentle, and loving one in fact.
It was the rest of the world that judged hum on his looks.
Even his creator hated him because he looked ugly.
[English Professor hat ON]
Bob, you are an illiterate assclown.
You do not understand Mary Shelley and should not comment on her novel--or any novel, for that matter. The problem with the monster's creation is that he's immediately abandoned by Victor. You could argue easily that Shelley presents a very humanistic perspective in the book, because the "monster" is instinctively empathetic, kind, and keen to learn and to love. (What someone like you might call evidence of a "soul.") He only turns vengeful when his "father" rejects him for superficial selfish reasons.
Feminist readings of the novel explore how Shelley criticizes Victor's creation of a child with no mother, but I don't think that's what you mean in your inane comments. Shelley may have been suggesting that men are too egocentric to create offspring and "feminine" nurturing and empathy are crucial to the healthy development of children. Again, not your foolish argument.
This quote is so 1983. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
And, for the record, not a single human being was ever "created" in a test tube.
And a "soul" is just pre-scientific mumbo jumbo.
Fail...
The folks from 'Jon & Kate Plus 8' over on TLC would like a word with you.
I'd like to see this bozo tell Kate Gosselin *to her face* that her children have no souls, just because she needed a little help to get them.
O'course, to Bob's twisted way of notthink, five of the eight *are* girls ...
I find the comparison with Frankenstein nicely ironic...well irony isn't exactly the right word but I don't know what is. Creator makes an imperfect creature and then abandons him for those in-built imperfections, condeming him to a life of misery and suffering; the creature educates himself and learns of his injustice and sets about destroying his creator. Sounds familiar, I wonder if it could be an analogy for both Genesis and the enlightenment? Hmmmmm....
Don't worry Bob; I Ozma, the Queen of Oz, will get my friend the Wizard to create souls for these unforunate children... after all he made brains for the scarecrow, a new heart for nick chopper, and gave courage to the cowardly Lion. So making some souls should be no trouble for him...
Oh wait I forgot he was a humbug, and that he's no more real then your delusions.
Honestly? You haven't read Frankenstein have you? Because well . . . for one thing, what Katsuro said. It wasn't so much making the monster that was evil as abandoning and neglecting it. I never saw any indication that the monster had any more or less of a soul than any other character in the novel.
Please, Bob, read the book your going to make a comparison to before you reference it. Because if you don't, there's a good chance the people who actually have read it are going to wonder what the heck your talking about. And that really doesn't make you look good.
I have one word for you.
BURN.
“Children created in "test tubes" and "in vitro"”
“in laboratories are deprived of the spiritual union of man and woman that exists when normal children are created”
"Like the fabled monster in Mary Shelley's original novel, these children are created without spiritual union and have no soul.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
