HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:28:50 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <92101.084156JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>  Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.023015.14742@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> says:
>
> >In  <92100.151254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>  Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
> >writes:
>
> >> Is your sixth finger or toe likely to grow into a "sentient being"?
>
> >Is an aborted fetus likely to grow into a sentient being?
> >Don't confuse the potential with the actual.
>
> An unaborted fetus is likely to grow into a "sentient being".
> A toe is NEVER going to grow into a complete human.
> A big toe does not have that potential.  A fetus does.
> Ergo...

Ergo it has potential, but this doesn't necessarily mean you should give
it the value of anything more than its *current* worth.  If you want
to evaluate it based on its potential, that's your perogative, but
if someone else wants to evaluate it based on its current capabilities,
that's equally valid.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:05:03 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr08.033447.5308@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <1992Apr8.011210.18193@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>> You know what? You can't...
>..and even if you could, it couldn't answer.  It has no mind.
Ooooh, here's a man who knows what he's talking about. Larry, I could
spew about how a baby responds to touch after 4 weeks, blah blah bla,
but I won't. I know you know the stats. An unborn child HAS a mind.
Arguably to you of course in the first, maybe second trimester, but
in the third? I'll assume someone got a hold of your terminal for this
post, because such lack of logic is purely beneath you. The unborn baby
DOES have a mind. IT is a physiological fact. Now the argument comes
up as to whether or not it is as developed as you might like...


>Since we know that the fetus is not capable of sentience before 7 months,
>this means that you'd have no objections to first or second trimester
>abortions?
   7 months? Where the (*5%^ did you get that? Hmmm. In any case, I would
have objections, but my main goal is LESS abortions. You get rid of
(ridiculous) 3rd trimester abortions, and THEN we'll talk.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:17:20 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr13.235541.25734@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>again.....how many happily married couples have abortions?????
>
>Funny..... abortion seems to be used by a certain type of person

I take it that next you're going to call for a ban of abortions because you
don't like the people you thing get them?  What kind of elitist, class
warfare garbage is this?  Whose business is it of yours who choses to
exercise their civil liberties?

>MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
>Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
>mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
>                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV


-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:22:39 EST

In article <1992Apr14.190740.12274@cs.dal.ca>, (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr14.111643.7793@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>>In article <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu
> 
>>> S.F.
>>Coincidences always amaze me, especially between my two favorite fellow
>>Catholic posters S.F. and S.F. - J.J.
> [Pathetic attempt at flame deleted]
>    You see, the initials JJ aren't so great either... HOw abou;t this:
> Jerk-off Jack-ass
> ^        ^
Thanks for verifying my point, Steve.  Promoting masturbation does seem 
to be hypocritical coming from a true Catholic like yourself.   

But back to the E-mail you chose to ignore again; is it the possession
of testicles or lack of ovaries which is important to celebrating the
Mass? As I said before, if the Mass were celebrated in the nude, the possession
of testicles would be more obvious than the lack of ovaries. Realistically,
with modern day technologies, a man or a woman can be made to resemble
Jesus if this is what is truely important. Not allowing women to play
the role of Jesus is simply sexism, not symbolism.

Well, can we agree that physics makes the world go around? -J.J.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 22:00:41 GMT

In article <92099.171526JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>If we look at the fetus alone, the only thing protecting a human being
>from being killed is its stage of development.  I'm not sure that's the best
>criterion.

Joy:

Can we do this?  Can we "look at the fetus alone"?

How?

Seems to me, there is usually a woman in the way.


Adrienne Regard
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:37:35 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1rvj=#h.zank@netcom.com> zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:

>Okay, about a new name other than Nazi, about just dumb pigs?
>Here are some other facts thatmake the pro-lifers live up to
>the old name and the new name. First these pigs bring terror

	I'm not even going to bother with you anymore dude. 
I'm wasting my time here, you're hopeless.
	
					       Mikeey
				     (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION)

>-- 
>Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
>Internet zank@netcom.com -or MZANK@mcimail.com
>----------------------------------------------
> Send all flames to MZANK@mcimail.com
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: cut it out, chaney.
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:10:54 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Apr17.013132.21620@csusac.csus.edu>
	Dennis Hall (cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu) writes:

cut it out chaney.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:52:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.043728.4879@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.174429.2292@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>-> >-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
>>-> >-> >-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the
>>-> >-> >-> possibility exists that the potential father, and/or
>>-> >-> >-> the state, might get an abortion veto-power, then
>>-> >-> >-> certainly the LESS RADICAL possibility of giving this
>>-> >-> >-> power to a neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as
>>-> >-> >-> a compromise position.
>>-> >-> >
>>-> >-> >this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak
>>-> >-> >like you kevin. now you seem to want so badly to lessen
>>-> >-> >women's control of their bodies that you want to give
>>-> >-> >that control to a "neutral adjudicator."
>>-> >-> 
>>-> >-> Keegan, do you understand the difference between
>>-> >-> 	"X is a possibility"
>>-> >-> 		and
>>-> >-> 	"I support X"
>>-> >
>>-> >why do you call for a "neutral adjudicator" to make decisions
>>-> >for what a woman can and can not do with her body and it's
>>-> >contents, kevin? don't you think that decision should be left
>>-> >to the woman?
>>-> 
>>-> I did not and do not "call for" [sic] this to happen. But, as
>>-> long as it is a POSSIBILITY (and I think it is), we as
>>-> pro-choicers should have answers ready as to why it's such a
>>-> bad idea.
>>
>>before i comment further, i want to say that you calling yourself
>>a pro-choicer ("we as pro-choicers") is the single most damaging
>>statement i've seen written on the pro-choice philosophy. you,
>>kevin darcy, are, imo, the least pro-choice person i've seen post
                    ^^^
                    ^^^
                    ^^^---"imo"
                    ^^^         IN MY OPINION

>>to this newsgroup.
>
>Please support this. *NOW*. Or forever bear the badge of "liar".

Before he could "forever bear the badge of liar", Kevin, you'd have to figure
out to get it off of you.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: speaking of Single turning points
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 03:54:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.022848.7627@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>Has anyone yet been able to resolve the moral
>complications that a biblicalLiteralist must
>face with Romans 13:1 and the American Revolution?????

Yes. Don't regard Romans as part of the Bible. ;-)

>ciao
>drieux

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice, Pro-Life, Hmmm... (Take Two!)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 01:05:27 GMT

<92090.203309KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> said:
>In article <1992Mar30.034326.3222@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>(Eric Rescorla) says:
>
>>>    Eric, you might not be able to "think" as you put it but does that
>>>make living beings with "insufficiently developed" brain unimportant?
>>Yes.
>>What do you think makes a living being important? As far as
>>I'm concerned, it's intelligence.
>
>Ever had an intelligent conversation with a newborn?

It's a bit one-sided. ;-)  However, I believe that a person's worth
increases with intelligence (i.e. a newborn is less important than an
adult - all else being equal).  There are plenty of execptions to this
statement, so I won't attempt to list them all.

I don't think Einstein was any more important as a person than, say,
Suzanne's mother.  But if we don't value intellectual capability than we
might as well adopt rocks and moss.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Franklin: DULL AS HELL
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:09:42 GMT
Organization: Ferrari International

> Franklin

>   I'm afraid Kathi dear, it is time for you to end this thread. 

[ etc. ... ]

You know, Franklin, if you had quoted at least a line or two there might
have been at least one person in this newsgroup who knows what the hell
you're talking about.

-- 
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts.  It is only nine months."
-- Kevin Welch in talk.abortion
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
SEND MAIL TO: mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu, NOT uga.edu, YOU PINHEADS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Summary: Tire Iron asserts.  Yawn.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 03:39:31 GMT

In article <Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>On the TV news this evening (on the puff-piece coverage about the
>Washington rally) they showed some speaker who said something about a
>woman's right to keep men out of her uterus.  Hee hee.  It seems to me
>that, if a woman is truly concerned about an unwanted pregnancy, the
>proper occasion to exercise this right is before conception occurs.
>Now if all these irresponsible loudmouths would take it upon
>themselves to behave like mature human beings, exercise some proper
>self-discipline, and truly keep men out of their uteruses, there
>wouldn't even be any controversy regarding abortion.
>
>[Now some other airhead pro-abortionists here are going to ignore the
>undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions which are
>performed in the U.S. are quite simply for the sake of convenience and
>disingenuously raise objections concering rape.]

Gee, T*d, would you happen to have some *reliable* sources for your
assertion -- or is this just one of those things that's perfectly obvious to
everyone who possesses exactly the same morals as you do, so you don't have
to risk actually thinking about it?



-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                              Skate or die, m0ez.   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:55:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.033209.14183@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>notice the :)
Net sabotage isn't too funny, I guess.

>and BTW, I can simply change the address which I would use.
The methods I was thinking of are pretty trivially extensible.
Even if you come up with a new IP(which is kind of a pain) it
can be jammed the minute you use it for anything. I'm not talking
about jamming your userid, I'm talking about the entire site.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:59:36 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA


Given the subject heading, why do I feel specifically
excluded from this discussion?   Of course that provides
all the more incentive to butt my two cents in >:-)


From article by emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
> In article franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> 
>>>So, I ask you again, (not that you'll answer because you probably don't 
>>>understand the question and therefore won't "bother")....What equivalent
>>>responsibility do you propose for the male who got the woman pregnant?
> 
>>[...] So, the closest thing a man can give a woman
>>is support, love, and time. If this isn't enough for you, then I feel
>>sorry for you, and wonder what kind of guys you attract.
> 
> Stevie, this is very telling. There is something you missed, something
> that should come before the support, love, and time. 
> 
> What you missed is respect.
>                    ~~~~~~~
What you missed, Eric, is that respect is SPELLED "support, love, and
time".   Your little word game is pitiful, and any woman would be very
lucky whose boyfriend had Steve Franklin's attitude and was anxious to
give her support, love, and time.   (Eric, respect is NOT spelled paying
a doctor to suction her womb out for you.)


> But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a 
> woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like 
> yourself are fighting against it.

Men like Steve Franklin are willing to take responsibility for what
participating in the act of sex results in, and so don't participate
when such results are not desired, or at the least do not run away
like cowards when the results of participating become evident.
 
> Eric

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:05:44 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes ...
>Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
>entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
>movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.

When you say "pro-death" do you mean ...
A) The group that refers to itself as "Pro-Life" because of their callous
   disregard for people and unconcern for the millions of preventable
   deaths, or
B) The group that refers to itself as "Pro-Choice" because they think
   that a mother is the most qualified person to decide whether a 
   pregnancy should be continued?

And speaking of emotional rhetoric, isn't the term "pro-death" just
that?  Aren't you being a tad hypocritical?

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:50:36 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

> You see, this sucks, because
>when trends as large and universal as population growth recede, it is
>pretty damn hard for them to stop. 

Perhaps, Franklin, if you are dealing with, say, lemmings.

However, I have faith that the human race would be intelligent enough
to notice the problem with declining population and take whatever steps
are necessary to help correct it.

This is moot, in any case, since I don't agree with your original
premise that negative population growth is a Bad Thing.

>steve

                        -rocker
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:01:37 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
>On the TV news this evening (on the puff-piece coverage about the
>Washington rally) they showed some speaker who said something about a
>woman's right to keep men out of her uterus.  Hee hee.  It seems to me
>that, if a woman is truly concerned about an unwanted pregnancy, the
>proper occasion to exercise this right is before conception occurs.
>Now if all these irresponsible loudmouths would take it upon
>themselves to behave like mature human beings, exercise some proper
>self-discipline, and truly keep men out of their uteruses, there
>wouldn't even be any controversy regarding abortion.

    Small technical point here: I believe the only men who get into
womens uteruses are OB/GYN's during examinations or D&C's. Personally
(in a fit of modesty) I must admit that I would have difficulty getting
any further than the vagina, and that only upon invitation... :>

                                                        kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:42:57 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes ...
>Geeee...I wouldn't take much thinking to realize that the "pro-death" is a
>simple response to those who insist on using "anti-abortion" and the   
>white-wash nature of the term "pro-choice".  When I see universal respect
>for Pro-Life I will return the favor. 

Do you mean to say that you are not against abortion?  I am certainly
not in favor of death.

Pro-Choice is not equivalent to pro-death because the vast majority
of people who are in favor of choice are NOT in favor of abortion.
While I am firmly on the pro-choice side, I have never encouraged
an abortion, nor am I likely to in the future.  Pro-choice leaves
the primary reponsibility of abortion/pregnancy/child rearing to
the parents.

As for the Pro-Life designation - it is questioned because
many who refer to themselves as pro-life are apparently mostly
interested in abolishing the legality of abortion.  This hardly
is sufficient to merit a Pro-Life label since there are many ways
to improve the quantity and quality of life, and eliminating
abortion is not the only means to the end.  In fact it may be
that making abortion illegal will cause _more_ suffering and
death rather than less.

In short  your "pro-death" term is insulting, inflammatory, and
inaccurate.  Further, your attempt to justify it by pointing to the
anti-abortion term is childish.  Respect for the Pro-Life view
must be earned, and lately most pro-life posts have been insulting
diatribes.

>Oh well!  Since Nora points out that Nazi analogies are incorrect they 
>are incorrect???  I sense a bit of Nora-worship here.  The Nazi analogies
>are valid, much as you hate them (and they must be cause KEVIN said so).

In what way do you mean they are valid?  In that Nazi's killed many people?
Or that the Nazi's were dictators that tried to control all aspects of 
people's lives?

Ray
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:06:03 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <92104.163701JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.185646.15354@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve
>Franklin) says:

>>my statistics. 100% for abstinence friend. I don't have to look THAT up
>>in the World Almanac either. I didnt' impose the practice on her...
>> I just told her what works.
>100%????

>But...but...what about Mary?


Sorry... My significant figures came into play (it's the physics 
blood in me...) . I guess I should have said that abstinence
in the last 2000 years has been 99.99999999999 % effective...heh 
 thanks for the correction. My physics prof would support my
rounding though 8)
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion