PR> identical twins, it is no longer unique.  If the instant of
 PR> conception is your definition, then identical twins must be
 PR> two halves of one individual.

 MM> Nicely differentiated !

I think the point I tried to demonstrate is: this is not a
scientific question.  If you begin to examine it closely,
it breaks into paradoxes.  Scientific questions don't.

(Reminds me of an old joke, the punchline being: "Och, laddie,
ha'e ye ne'er heard of the pair o' doxies of time travel?")

Paul Rogers, paulgrogers{at}yahoo.com                       -o)
http://www.angelfire.com/or/paulrogers                   /\\
Rogers' Second Law: Everything you do communicates.     _\_V

... "Honey, where's part 5 of my 'Dada Trilogy'?"
___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.35

---