In my book, that person is an asshole, first class.

"Moore produces a pornographic comic using characters from beloved children's books, none of which were created or owned by him, one of which is owned by a Charity Children's Hospital that is taking legal measures to protect their property. "

I guess I don't understand where the angst is coming from.  Is it because Moore is using beloved characters or that children might mistakenly get hold of the story(s) in question or that he's used copyrighted characters without permission?

In fact, I don't have the same impression of the story itself as others seem to.  I'm not going to buy the book, but that's because it's $75 and that's way more than I'd spend on anything that I was just curious about.  But the premise and description offered in Previews was more along the lines of a coming of age tale of these characters, not 12 year old girls being abused. 

Also, didn't Moore create this 16 years ago?  If the copyright angle is the problem for you, wouldn't the publishers be more at fault than Moore, at this time, for reproducing it?

My knowledge of these fictional characters is limited to what Disney put into cartoon form so I admit that my fondness for them isn't very deep.  To me, Moore is(was) just someone experimenting with and expanding the character beyond it's original form.  Moore's story, good or bad, wouldn't change my impression or feeling of the characters as originally written.