BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260415T213628Z
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20250827T123000
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20250827T140000
SUMMARY:Some puzzles about prenatal injury
UID:20260418T065728Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c
TZID:Australia/Melbourne
LOCATION:La Trobe University\, Bundoora\, Melbourne\, Australia\, 3086
DESCRIPTION:<p><strong>Abstract:</strong> Many people believe that abortion is morally permissible\, but that it is wrong to injure a fetus\, for instance by binge drinking. I will spell out and critique a familiar way of justifying this distinction\, which relies on the claim that only binge drinking will harm a future person. But the claim that prenatal injury is wrong only if the fetus will in fact develop into a future person gives rise to a puzzle. Suppose a pregnant woman has engaged in binge drinking. Is she now morally *obligated* to have an abortion? After all\, if the woman has an abortion\, her binge drinking was permissible\, whereas if she doesn&rsquo\;t\, her binge drinking was wrong. However\, the claim that the woman is obligated to have an abortion is counterintuitive\, especially if\, despite the binge drinking\, her future child will have a life worth living. In this paper\, I will propose a solution to this puzzle.</p>\n<p><strong>Note</strong>: there is a zoom option for this talk. If you would like to attend online please email y.cath@latrobe.edu.au to request the link.</p>
ORGANIZER;CN=James Leibold:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR