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