On Jan 15, 2008 3:41 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our definition > >of "person". > > I think it's a good reason why obligations ought to survive an > interruption of personhood.
That would be a convenient solution, yes. Unfortunately, the current rules don't support it. -root
