In principle, I have no objection to eugenics. It seems to me that if we really could obtain, without hurting people, a stronger humanity—more intelligent, gentler, better able to withstand diseases and temptations—there would be nothing wrong with it and no moralist could object. In the case of height, we have already, “unwittingly,” achieved results, thanks to better hygiene and diet.
But the so-called Naples experiment1 is not part of eugenics, the purpose of which is the improvement of progeny. Maybe the experiment would be of scientific interest if it could be demonstrated that it is reproducible, something that we are very far from. Let’s not forget that the likelihood of a female’s being born, as was desired in this case, was 50 percent; thus, the experiment proved little.
Wasn’t it enough to limit ourselves to animals? Apart from any moral consideration, intervening in our species to modify the natural balance between the sexes is stupid and harmful. It’s easy to imagine what would happen if the sordid exploit of Naples were to be corroborated, made available to the wider population, and gain acceptance: according to tastes or fashion we would have an excess of males or females, adding an artificial demographic problem to the many spontaneous problems that already burden us. In my opinion, the law should prohibit sex predetermination right now.
La Stampa, December 2, 1986
1. The reference is to a baby whose sex was predetermined before birth, an experiment successfully carried out in Naples by Professor Raffaele Magli.