[beavus]

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.

[adiaireton8]

People do not POOF into existence as so many pro-lifers passionately claim

First, let's say that you are 30 years old. You did not exist 31 years ago. You did exist 29 years ago. So, between 31 years ago and 29 years ago, something that did not exist (i.e. you) came into existence.

Second, something either exists, or it does not exists. It is impossible for something to exist partially.

Therefore, from these two premises it follows that at some point [i.e. instant] in time, you came into existence. It might be hard for you to determine that point, but epistemology does not determine ontology.

-A8

[MHGinTN]

"... the life cycle is continuous from parents through children." In the sense of life is passed from two parents to another who is an individual. But you also realize there is that nagging issue of the 'third party', the individual who does begin an individual lifetime at a conception event, albeit a non-poof.

Have you straightened all these 'silly right to lifers' out yet beavus ... that is your self-proclaimed mission?