I feel the urge
to express my solidarity with Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the
authors of the much-discussed article “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the
Baby Live?” that appeared in the Journal
of Medical Ethics in February. Both their argument and, more sadly, they
themselves suffered a violent attack by people who obviously do not consider
freedom of expression an important value. Censorship does not fit well with the
mission of scholarship—particularly when the scholarship depends on a method of
speculation and hypothetical argument, as in the case of philosophy and
bioethics—and the level of hatred and extremism expressed about the article
seem out of proportion. Having said this, though, I want to consider why
publishing the article was nonetheless inappropriate.
I feel the urge
to express my solidarity with Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the
authors of the much-discussed article “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the
Baby Live?” that appeared in the Journal
of Medical Ethics in February. Both their argument and, more sadly, they
themselves suffered a violent attack by people who obviously do not consider
freedom of expression an important value. Censorship does not fit well with the
mission of scholarship—particularly when the scholarship depends on a method of
speculation and hypothetical argument, as in the case of philosophy and
bioethics—and the level of hatred and extremism expressed about the article
seem out of proportion. Having said this, though, I want to consider why
publishing the article was nonetheless inappropriate.