From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:21:34 GMT

In article <12961@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.174634.12433@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>> JPS says belly distend and thighs sag which
>>>is exactly what would happen in the case of abortion.
>>You keep saying that. Do you have a medical reference?
>
>You need a medical reference for that? Look, it's quite simple: Mother pregnant,
>belly EXtends and thighs build up to support the load. Mother aborts and belly
>DIStends and thighs sag, why? Because skin does not readily shrink, that is
>why you get stretch marks. On abortion, the womb shrinks and the thigh muscles
>atropy, but the skin does not shrink, it DIStends and sags. And for that you
>need a medical reference? 
No, but you may need a dictionary:
"distend: To swell out or expand from or as if from internal pressure."
[American Heritage, ISBN: 0395-32944-2]

So, please explain how an abortion causes the belly to "swell out
or expand." Medical references would be nice for this one.
Well, Mr. Harvey?

Let's review your version again:
The woman becomes pregnant, at which point the skin stretches, right?
Then the abortion happens, at which point, because the skin doesn't
shrink, the stomach swells out or expands?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

BTW, just a warning: The tactic of generating another dictionary
entry with a different entry for "distend" won't work. You'll have
to go back to the original text to make your case, because all
you'll be able to show with another dictionary entry is that
the text is ambiguous, which only serves to undermine your conclusion.

>>>I see that as an abortion, as have many other Bible scholars much more 
>>>knowledgable than me.
>>Argument from authority?
>Now I give you references and you complain of argument from authority.
Ratshit. You gave me opinions about the text. That's argument from authority.
You give me references to dictionary entries about the relevant Hebrew
words and then we'll be talking evidence.

>>Bullshit. I looked at your argument, considered what
>>I knew about the texts, and came away unconvinced that abortion was
>>what was being discussed. I did not "ignore the evidence." Rather
>>I examined it and decided it was insufficient to draw the kind
>>of strong conclusion you are attempting to draw.
>
>And you think I don't know that? That's cool! You have that right!
Then why did you accuse me of "ignoring the evidence," Mr. Harvey?

>>Perhaps it's time you learned the difference between closed-mindedness
>>and simple skepticism, Mr. Harvey.

>Please, be skeptical. But perhaps, instead of calling me closed-minded,
I didn't call you closed minded. You called ME closed-minded.
Well, actually, you accused me of "ignoring the evidence" which is close
enough for my taste.

> why
>not enlighten us with why you are skeptical. Please explain your skepticism,
>I'm all ears. Of course, you are not required to have a reason to be a
>skeptic, but if you do, please explain. What, in your opinion, is going on
>in Numbers5?
Actually, I haven't decided yet. But you seem to have, which is fine.
But then you asserted that you were right, which is not fine.
When you do that, you incur an obligation to back up your opinion.
I've been waiting for you to do that ever since this thread began.

> Rise to the level of greatness that you are. The jury awaits
>your deposition.
You have the burden of proof. Meet it or admit you can't.

-Ekr






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion