Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Can John Brown be far behind?
Message-ID: <318@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 20:38:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.318
Posted: Sat Feb  2 20:38:11 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 06:59:57 EST
References: <330@decwrl.UUCP> <28000033@uiucdcsb.UUCP> <221@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: The Wall Of Fog
Lines: 19

> > > Fetuses don't think.  They don't verbalize.

> > Do you have any proof for this?  Have you ever heard of the fact that the fetus
> > will recoil from the needle, knife, or whatever when it approaches them, even
> > when very young?  Fetuses develop most major systems very earlier(I don't have
> > the exact date here).

> Besides, read the passage again. It dealt with the ability to "think"
> and "verbalize". A fetus cannot verbalize, I hope we are in agreement
> on that. The jury is out on whether a fetus "thinks". "Recoil[ing] from"
> some pain source is instinctive, and *not* an indication of thought processes.

Marcel. I am afraid you have missed the point entirely. The author of the
previous article is demonstrating that the intelligence required for a
simple reflex is no greater than the intelligence (s)he uses to think
and verbalize. There was no other point.
-- 
The Watcher
seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf