Brit Hume calls out for their disgusting argument for “after-birth abortion” aka murder

William Saletan at poses questions like:

How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that anymaternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the value of that freshly delivered nonperson? What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?

And arguments like:

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

Saletan thinks his readers might find his arguments cold, but he asks, “Where’s the flaw in its logic?”

It’s a post that is guaranteed to make you feel sick:

Screen Shot 2014-02-24 at 2.38.56 PM

Brit Hume is as amazed as us:

Screen Shot 2014-02-24 at 2.37.17 PM


facebook share

From the Web

Was RONALD REAGAN a better president than BARACK OBAMA? Click LIKE if you agree!

Screen Shot 2015-02-28 at 8.16.20 PM
  • trixiewoobeans

    What a creepy, attention-seeking sociopath. Slate is desperate for an audience.

    I would argue that Saletan, himself, did not become an “actual person” judging by his complete lack of conscience, empathy, judgment, and sane morality. I would argue he could be judged by the same yardstick he judges those innocent ones.

    This is what happens when man denies God, then confers godhood upon himself….THIS.

  • Dean

    So by this logic, referring to the use of the definition of a moral agent, which is a conscience, rational adult capable of making rational decisions, then any and all mentally challenged people could be considered “non-persons” and therefore qualify for “adult abortion”? That doesn’t feel morally sound. And if we’re referring to the established moral laws, then let’s not forget that a member of the moral community is defined as “all humans between birth and death”. Does moral philosophy override the biological fact that a baby is in fact HUMAN? Two things could happen here: either people will be horrified and disgusted by this hubris and fight back against what started it (abortion in any form or at any time during pregnancy), OR, and this is what scares me, people (crazy liberals) will embrace this whole heartedly and call anyone who doesn’t support it an antifeminist for not supporting poor single mom’s choice to kill her non-child so she could continue living comfortably.