I did mention last week that I’d post links to sites that mentioned Giubilini and Minerva’s paper as they crossed my radar; but it turned out very quickly that there’d be no way to keep up. And, to be frank, a lot of the blogosphere’s response has been fairly scattergun outrage rather than dispassionate engagement with the paper, and directed at Giubilini and Minerva themselves rather than at the argument they put forward. There’s been much more heat than light.
This is perhaps unsurprising, as considered responses are almost certainly going to take a while to materialise. However, they have begun to appear. Here’s the first that I’ve spotted; I’ll post links to more in this thread as and when. And if any readers have responses on academia.edu or SSRN that they’d like mentioning, or if anyone spots anything of interest, do let me know.
Charles C. Camosy (Assistant Professor of Theology,Fordham University, New York City): “Concern for our Vulnerable Prenatal and Neonatal Children: A Brief Reply to Giubilini and Minerva” via Practical Ethics.
Andrew McGee (Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology): “There’s no Good Argument for Infanticide” also via Practical Ethics.
Michele Loi (Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele): “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Not Live?” via academia.edu.
Ezio Di Nucci (Universität Duisburg-Essen): “Killing Foetuses and Killing Newborns” available here.
Some more links – this time a little more supportive of the paper’s publication:
Peter Singer comments in this interview in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Kenan Malik considers the paper and its reception here.