be possible to demarcate the two fairly easily.  Again, this doesn't amount to a defence of the Giubilini and Minerva paper -- just to a claim that rebuttals will take a bit more work than would rebuttals of neonazi claims. Maybe you don't agree with that.  I suspect not.  But even so, I think that it ought to be easier to agree with the proposition that, if the paper is mistaken, then it's still best to see it standing or falling on its own merits.  I don't think that argumenta ad Hitlerum are the best strategy here, for all kinds of reasons. (Incidentally, who are the "post-modern evolutionists" of which you speak?  I see nothing PoMo in G&M's paper, nor anything to do with evolution...) Jennifer Dunn Wasn't the argument that the authors were making focused on the affect a living child would have on the parents?  I do not  think this argument would affect their opinion since they obviously have no concern about the physical or emotional well being of the child at birth much less being worried about their thoughts and feelings at a later date.To them, a human baby has no more value than a goldfish.  If it is inconvenient or imperfect (to them as this is a personal perception) then it should be the parent's right dispose of it.  Maybe they should, as ethicists, research and write about the affect narcissism has on individuals, families and society as a whole.  Planet Earth seems to be infected