William Saletan at Slate.com 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:
Brit Hume is as amazed as us: