Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva: To hell with Godwin's Law, they are Nazis

After yesterday’s post about the Giublini-Minerva Paper, I was reasonably invited to read it, because everybody knows newspapers are as unreliable as an automobile without brakes. So I read it, and now I can say that what is in it it’s even worse. They tried to sugarcoat hell and failed miserably. The dynamic duo Giublini-Minerva also wasn’t misquoted nor were their assertions taken out of context.

I was expecting a very difficult reading, i.e. something insidious, very difficult to comprehend but well based enough to make a rebuttal a very difficult job. On the contrary, it was a well-written paper (if you can stand boring-to-death political correctness writing style), with crystal-clear redaction (they can’t claim misinterpretations) and a very lame exposition of ideas that reeks not of facism but of Nazism, to hell with Godwin’s Law, because this time the argument suits completely. The only joke here is that they made themselves perfectly clear.

In Giubilini’s and Minerva’s brave new world, it is not enough to be a human, you have to be a person, or have the potential. Personhood cannot be granted by default (birthright is not an issue, otherwise I wouldn’t be writing), only on a case-per-case basis. Fortunately, science can decide – and will decide – if a newborn is a viable person. Through all the reading you can infer that, according to their logic babies are not an asset but a liability. The size of this liability increases with disease, until it becomes a burden to the mother or society. To be granted personhood, a baby must prove his/her affordability, i.e. his/her economic and social viability with science acting as the referee.

Paradoxically, according to the medical ethicists we have more “moral rights” for the non-existent “people of the future” than for sick fetuses and newborns. It is better to terminate the pregnancy than to give a baby in adoption because “of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.” Unsurprisingly, everything is working the way of abortionists (before and after birth) in the world of Giubilini and Minerva.

Giubilini and Minerva may call themselves medical ethicists and show the diplomas to prove it, but there’s little or no difference in what they expose and what eugenicists of the XIX and XX so eagerly exposed and practiced. Entire categories of human beings (Down syndrome kids, blacks, Jews) were considered then a burden that neither individuals nor society could carry, so that the logical, scientifically reason-bounded decision was to get rid of them. Syphilis “experiments” in Tuskegee, forced sterilizations in Sweden and yes indeed, concentration camps are the logical children of the policies of eugenics and un-personize human beings.

You can kill with ease when it’s not a human what you are killing. Ergo, you start dehumanizing fetuses and newborns (What’s next?). Ironically, animals have nowadays more successful and vocal advocates.


Tell me if there’s a difference between Giubilini and Minerva and nazi eugenicists.

Related articles

• Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva: To hell with Godwin's Law, they are Nazis (sipmac.blogspot.com)
• A Further Defence of Giubilini and Minerva (bigthink.com)
• If Ms. Rapp would have being praying, it would have looked like her prayers were answered (sipmac.blogspot.com)
• After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? (johnwsmart.wordpress.com)
• Killing Infants: The Right to Argue (bigthink.com)
• Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn't make you Glenn Beck | Andrew Brown (guardian.co.uk)
• Ethicists Say Killing Babies Should Be Legal, Draw Controversy (inquisitr.com)