Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site nmtvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!unm-la!unmvax!nmtvax!aardvark
From: aardvark@nmtvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: ancients predict usenet
Message-ID: <774@nmtvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 13:57:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: nmtvax.774
Posted: Sun Sep 22 13:57:48 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 10:48:46 EDT
References: <>
Reply-To: aardvark@nmtvax.UUCP (Bill Gallagher)
Distribution: net
Organization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro
Lines: 25
Summary: 

In article <> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes:
>Paul Dubuc writes:
>>A fetus may not be a thinking human being (according to your definition)
>>at a particular point in her life.  But neither is the person who is
>>unaware *at that particular point in her life*.
>
>I don't follow you here.. For a person to become a non-thinking being
>(at least by the way I was considering this) would require s/he to die.
>I know thats not what you meant, you can't kill a dead person, much less 
>without his knowing it.. What do you mean by thinking being? 

Buy yourself a roll of photographic film. Then take it to
your nearest Fotomat and have them do the one hour job on it.
Then complain bitterly when your pictures come out blank.
If nothing has been put into the fetus, nothing comes out.
The fetus becomes a thinking being (rather than an instinctual)
when it is able to apply its experience and reason. Otherwise
it's as eloquent as Fido. Experience *does* start in the womb,
but if the fetus never gets to see the real world (ie aborted)
it won't make any difference since it never knew it. 

With apologies to all RTLs.
Bill
========================================================================
"Putts karam sheoba kitsch daboum" 


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com