tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11677296.post115362495303598374..comments2023-10-14T10:47:04.326+01:00Comments on Unified View: Before and After the PersonPejarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11396736251336284413noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11677296.post-83946377941864936802006-11-07T02:44:00.000+00:002006-11-07T02:44:00.000+00:00When I talk about deprivation, I mean taking away ...When I talk about deprivation, I mean taking away something which is already there. It is wrong to kill someone because it robs them of their consciousness, faculties, memories etc. If abortion takes place at an early stage none of these exist to be extinguished.<br /><br />Compare this to using thalidomide. The faculties then arise and are impaired because of the thalidomide. This is harm caused to a being with faculties.<br /><br />In no way is something which merely could develop interests entitled to do so. Otherwise the sperm and egg separately would have this entitlement which would actually create a moral obligation to have as much sex as possible...Pejarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11396736251336284413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11677296.post-19773633856140552102006-11-06T21:08:00.000+00:002006-11-06T21:08:00.000+00:00OK thanks. I'm still confused, though: I can clear...OK thanks. I'm still confused, though: I can clearly see that thalidomide will cause harm to the baby that develops from the foetus, but I can't see why killing the foetus prevents this harm (if this is what you're saying).<br /><br />Personally, I know I have trouble pinning down exactly what makes killing wrong, but I know that you state that killing someone is morally wrong as it deprives them of various things, which I thought did them harm.<br /><br />Surely anything that could develop interests is as entitled to them as anything that already has them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11677296.post-45644581192571751302006-11-05T04:03:00.000+00:002006-11-05T04:03:00.000+00:00Thanks!
A pre-interest foetus is one which has no...Thanks!<br /><br />A pre-interest foetus is one which has not developed to the point of having interests. If it is killed there will never be a being with interests to have them violated.<br /><br />The big difference between this and the situation in question is that there while the foetus affected has no interests to damage at the point thalidomide is used, once they do develop they *will* be harmed due to this action.Pejarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11396736251336284413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11677296.post-43008960204608070212006-11-03T12:36:00.000+00:002006-11-03T12:36:00.000+00:00Hi Pete
I like this article very much - good work ...Hi Pete<br />I like this article very much - good work :)<br /><br />But I'm not quite sure I understand this point:<br />"This may look odd considering that I see absolutely no moral problem with killing pre-interest foetuses. However, crucially there will never be any being with interests capable of receiving any harm."<br />I think the key is that I don't know what you mean by "pre-interest": is this a foetus which would not develop to have interests without intervention?<br /><br />Apologies if you've already clarified this in a post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com