Harming the Non-conscious
Peter Singer has argued that nothing done to a fetus before it acquires consciousness can harm it. At the same time, he concedes that a child can be harmed by something done to it when it was a non-conscious fetus. But this implies that the non-conscious fetus can be harmed. The mistake lies in thin...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
1999
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 1999, Volume: 13, Issue: 3/4, Pages: 294-305 |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Peter Singer has argued that nothing done to a fetus before it acquires consciousness can harm it. At the same time, he concedes that a child can be harmed by something done to it when it was a non-conscious fetus. But this implies that the non-conscious fetus can be harmed. The mistake lies in thinking that, since existence can be intrinsically bad for a being only if it is conscious, it can be harmed only if it is conscious. In fact, its being harmed only implies that it could have been conscious (and led a good life). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00158 |
