Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: beavus; Question_Assumptions
True, a part is not the same as the whole. But, what are you referring to specifically?

Question_Assumptions said (in #25), "At no point in a person's lifecycle, from the moment they cease being a part of their respective parents and start being a distinct individual . . ."

That statement is incoherent because there is no point in a person's lifespan when he is a part of his parents. Parts are not wholes. Persons are wholes. Therefore parts are not persons.

- A8

76 posted on 01/11/2005 3:57:10 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: adiaireton8
That statement is incoherent because there is no point in a person's lifespan when he is a part of his parents. Parts are not wholes. Persons are wholes. Therefore parts are not persons.

I agree that it is incoherent. One has to take liberties with ambiguity to make it coherent.

However, the life cycle is continuous from parents through children. People do not POOF into existence as so many pro-lifers passionately claim.

81 posted on 01/11/2005 4:12:26 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson