Wilkow: When in doubt, shout!
Published by Mike Stark March 2nd, 2006 in Podcast, Andrew WilkowHe didn’t want to talk about this…
In a nutshell… One of the bloggers at firedoglake asked a key question that should be asked of all pro-lifers that calim to believe that life begins at conception. To wit:
You find yourself in a blazing fertility clinic - the fire is ferocious. In one corner there is a two year old girl. In another, there is a petri dish with five fertilized blastula in it. You can rescue one or the other, but not both. Which do you rescue, the girl or the petri dish?
The follow up question is, of course, “Well, why don’t we see pro-lifers demonstrating outside fertility clinics?”
Anyway, Andrew is an intellectual lightweight and was unwilling to go where his limited intelligence would embarrass him. He couldn’t have the honest conversation…
Enjoy.
70 Responses to “Wilkow: When in doubt, shout!”
- 1 Pingback on Jun 28th, 2006 at 8:27 am
- 2 Pingback on Jan 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Excellent work Mike. The best part is after he cut you off and then ranted about how there is no right answer. He just further implanted the seed of doubt that you’d sown.
Well done.
I called him a few months ago, when he was making fun of Schumer and Feinstein in a Yiddish accent - he told me he was Jewish, so I guess that means he cannot be a self-hater.
He is a real dope, and he spouts off about how the left is incapable of critical thinking.
Hey, very nice work. It took patience to ride out this fellow’s BS.
I’d just like to point out that life does not begin at conception. John was stalled a bit by this question: Is death created at conception?
The biologically correct answer is that human life is continuous. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive. And the logic of these wingers would mean that they should be working hard to preserve all those wasted sperm out there.
For those inclined, I’ve got more on this topic in my recent diary at Dkos .
Oh geez, this guy was a loser. Do all anti-rights people have this thing where if they get asked a difficult question they go off and try to create a metaphor by completely changing the subject and then leaving it up to you to make the connection which they perceive as triumphant?
My God, it’s pathetic. It seems the true difference between a progressive and regressive in this country is that the former is willing to make the hard decisions while the regressives just don’t want to think or deal with it and are willing to do anything to put their fingers in their ears and ignore it.
Thanks for the audio, this was SUPERB.
You suh-LAMMED him, man.
“You don’t know what I would do!” - Yeah? Well why don’t you answer the question then?
Beat down. Great work, Janks.
That was awesome. That guy is crazy!
Wow that was awesome. That guy must be on the lowest rung of teh wingnut dial because he can’t even remain coherent. He attacks ytou for a full minute becuase you “don’t know what he would do”, Yet he he knows that you dont want Tookie Willaims to die and that you want to burn cops at the stake. I mean if you can’t remain coherent for more than a sentence, its not exactly a fair fight.
Great job — I would add that as soon as he started waffling on your question, I would have gone in for the kill. In a polite way, that is, so he wouldn’t cut you off. I would have said something like:
“You seem to be avoiding my question, which tells me that there is some doubt in your mind. Can I assume that to be the case?”
If he said no, there is no doubt, then nail him: “Well, would you save the petri dish full of blastoma? Is that correct”
If he said yes, there is doubt, nail him again: “Then you are saying there is doubt, which would imply that not all situations are equal. Isn’t this the debate regarding abortion? Abortion extremists say there is no debate. You just supported my point beautifully that there is room for interpretation — contrary to what anti-abortionists claim.”
Great comeback regarding “knee surgery.” That was classic.
it is funny how he went onto the rant about “there was no right answer to this question, it was a trick, any answer i’d given would be wrong”. NO. the right answer is to pick the girl. if one happens to hold beliefs that make that a difficult decision, then it is those beliefs that are wrong, not the question. in fact, wrong is far to soft. FUCKED UP CRAZY is a better description of such beliefs.
I think you got under his skin.
Nice touch with the “you’re asking the wrong guy” knee operation response.
You kept your cool, he lost his. Rationale points aside, you won. Rationale points included, you got to state yours on the air.
Wilkow is having what I refer to as a “Moment of Misconception”, so common of pro-lie, reproductive-freedom haters everywhere. Here are some debunking of his many misconceptions about conception.
1. Life doesn’t begin at conception. The sperm and egg were already “alive” prior to fertilization. The ovum has actually been alive for decades, because it was formed when the woman was a young girl.
2. The gametes (spermatazoa and ova) along with the zygote (fertilized ovum) which they form are about as “alive” as a hair follicle and most of us don’t hold funerals every time a hair falls out.
3. It is equivocation and false analogy to equate the “life” of a non-sentient, single-celled zygote, to the “life” of a meaningfully conscious, human person. A zygote doesn’t have a brain and therefore cannot suffer brain-death or even pain. Thus, it cannot die in the same way that a human being, with trillions of brain cells and a functional nervous system can experience death.
4. Nobody doubted that cells in Terri Schiavo’s body were “alive” in the non-sentient, biological sense. The reason that pro-lie whackos lost this debate in the view of the overwhelming majority of people, is because people recognize that everything that made Terri who she was as a conscious, living human, died when her brain was deprived of oxygen decades ago.
5. At conception a “blue print” is created to build a human person, but a blueprint is not the same thing as the finished product. Tearing up a blue print of the World Trade Center is quite different than knocking down the real thing.
6. The reason that saving the actual child is the right answer, Wilkow’s ignorance notwithstanding, is because the blastulas are non-sentient blueprints that cannot feel pain and cannot even become human beings unless they are implanted and survive a lengthy pregnancy. The little girl has cleared all of these hurdles and, while she still needs care, is qualitatively different than a tiny lump of cells far smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.
7. Wilkow is also wrong that he is being asked to make a “one mississippi” decision. Even if he had a very long time to think about it, his ideology would not provide a clear answer, while liberalism produces a solution that is both response and consistent with common sense behavior. Naturally, therefore, I am not surprised that it would stump self-professed “conservatives”. Perhaps they are “conserving” energy by not powering up their brains, but I don’t think that’s helping them.
Here’s a final suggestion. I would recommend that, when presenting this scenario in the future, you change the petri dish to a full freezer full of petri dishes, so that it really would be impossible to take both. Perhaps even indicate that you don’t have to make an instant decision, but that you probably won’t have time to take both, so you have to prioritize.
“Don’t tell me what I would do and what I wouldn’t do based on your pre-conceived notions of stereotypical..”
So crazy ironic a wingnut radio host whose m.o. is to build up a liberal strawman to burn down would even say that. I mean he accuses you of wanting to free Tookie Williams based on your hypothetical question! What a blowhard hypocrite.
Good work, Mike. These people need to be called out and you’re doing a great job of it.
I think a much more effective tactic would be to allow him to think that he has bypassed your “trick question” and let him be the benevolant hero.. then you hit him hard after he has taken that poistion :.. ok, you now have a petri dish in your hand.. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH IT? You can’t ever change your mind, cause under your belief system you should then be charged 5 times over with murder. Who are you going to give it to? Knock on some scientists door? Bring it to your local priest?
The point is that once he has picked a point on this wide gray spectrum, he is pretty much screwed…
This question is actually addressed in the Hebrew Bible.
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
-Exodus 21:22-25
This quite plainly shows that causing an involuntary miscarriage is not in itself “mischief”, nor is it the taking of a life. It can be remedied by a monetary payment, but the taking of a life must be answered with the taking of another life.
This is the only mention anywhere in the Old or New Testaments that could be at all related to our current debate. But quite obviously, the “life” of the woman’s “fruit” (the fetus) is not equivalent to a human life, for which one must always demand a life in return.
So, why are these folks who claim to be following the Bible so obsessed with the “life” of the “fruit?” Could it possibly have anything to do with controlling women’s reproductive freedom? Hmmm… keep up the fun work!
I linked this. It’s terribly funny. I hope you don’t mind.
“you don’t know John….you don’t know what I would do”…….I think that’s why he asked you the question Andy boy………..LOL
This guy is actually one of the dumbest talk show hosts on ABC radio. It is painful to listen to him. But I did hear you call in this question.
I would like to hear more calls to Monica Crowley. She simply makes up so many things that I feel like a crazy person when I listen to her. When the NSA flap hit the air, she announced that all “terrorist chatter” had dried up immediately following the story in the paper. How did she know that? Where did she get that? She always refers to her “sources” in the intelligence community.
I wanted to call and ask her why she was giving away the info to our enemies that we are apparently completely dependent on this one program to get info on terrorists.
WOW!
That is so weird. Is this guy even serious!? He was asked if life begins at conception, but felt that was “loaded.” Then he asked if “death was created at conception,” which assumes that a)SOMETHING must be created and that b) it can only be life or death. If that’s not a loaded (and utterly dishonest) question…
A perfectly reasonable answer that is consistent (for the most part) with the pro-life view would concede that a living child is more valuable than a zygote, but that abortion is often not a choice between killing a living human or a zygote - and indeed most pro-lifers are ok with death-of-the-mother abortions.
It’s not perfect, but it at least would have been an attempt at intellectually engaging the question, and perhaps explaining why it may or may not fail as a proper analogy.
An honest and smart person with well thought-out views embraces a question/challenge like this, it’s revealing how incoherently and emphatically he runs from it.
Props. You did good. I don’t think anyone could have done better.
It’s important to demand that pro-lifers and pro-life politicians be held to a standard of consistency. This little moral puzzle (1 child vs. 5 blastulas) is a good start.
However, if they sincerely hold their beliefs then the following are reasonable:
1) Women who have abortions, as well as their doctors, should be charged with murder.
2) All children born out of wedlock should be DNA tested, so their fathers can be stuck with child support.
Once (some) people realize that their convictions don’t really mesh with their core beliefs, it takes a while, but usually their convictions change. They also realize, grudgingly, that the world isn’t as black-and-white as they would like it to be.
But then, unlike death, life doesn’t really have a clear starting line… except for birth itself.
This call is brilliant for a number of reasons.
First you kept your cool under fire.
Second, and most interesting is that the Pot (radio host) was calling you, the Kettle Black.
He was appoplectic that the rhetorical vehicles he uses for his bread and butter, like doesent let a minute go by before picking one up, tools of his trade, were used against him to great effect.
If I had the time I would like to make a transcript of this call, and if anyon has allready done so, I’d love a link.
Damn fine work.
I think that the stench of exploding wingnut heads is pleasing to b’aal.
I just want to say how great I thought this was. Very cool of you to do this. Keep up the good work.
You don’t understand. You see, all that old testament stuff has been superseded by the new covenenant.
And as Jesus said, on the subject of abortion was that…
was … ”
Ofuckitnevermind
Perhaps give him 5 minutes time, and include that just getting out of the building will take 3.
The Pharasees were always trying to catch Jesus in a ‘Catch 22′ situation. He didn’t cry foul–he gave an answer every time.
This ‘host’, whilst trying to force his opinion on everyone else, doesn’t even try to stand up for his own convictions. No answer? No convictions.
I also linked this in my blog entry. Keep up the good work, Mike.
What I find most interesting about calls like this, and issues like Schiavo, is that it’s the “godless leftists” who are stuck having to, essentially, explain the concept of a soul (choose your vocabulary) - the fundamental moral difference between an animated human and a batch of living cells - to the supposed “religious right.”
Hilarious. Well done.
The burning building question is completely irrelevant because in the real world preventing an abortion does not equate to the death of another child. Of course anyone would save the little girl, but how does that justify abortion in the real world. If asked you if you had the choice of saving a 10 year old or a 5 year old from a burning building, does it mean that we should allow the killing of one or the other in the real world?
It is just another trick that you on the left use to cloud the issue. If you look at it straightforwardly, you just need to answer 2 questions. Is a fertilized egg alive and if it is, what kind of life is it. The scientific definition of life tells you that it is alive and genetics tells you it is human. All your arguments are contructed to just distract from the simple fact that a fertilized egg is a HUMAN LIFE. End of story. You call yourself pro-choice, but what choice does the fetus have?
And don’t come back at me with the “life of the mother being in danger” argument as justification for abortion on demand. No one expects that a woman should have to die as a result of a pregnancy. You know as well as I do that these circumstances are EXTREMELY rare.
Let’s see if you have the guts to post this reply. Honestly, I’d be surprised if you did.
Matt, you dismiss the question as irrelevant simply because you don’t want to answer it. It is more than relevant… it is the crux of the abortion issue.
The question of whether or not a fertilized egg is human life is stipulated to by most people… You will not find a scientist or ethicist alive that will deny that the blastula is human life.
The question then becomes whether or not we value all human life equally.
The burning building question was designed to show that we do not value all human life equally.
Somebody pointed out that a bett question would be this: If you are in a burning fertility clinic and you can rescue a two year old girl from certain death, or you can put out a fire that would otherwise certainly consume the equipment that keeps all of the fertilized eggs frozen, what would you do? The difference between the two questions is that even if you rescued the petri dish, the blastula would probably die… In this question, you would surely “rescue” thousands of human lives if you went for the electrical box.
But nobody would. At least nobody I’ve ever met. Every single person I know would rescue the two year old girl. And the reason is that every person I know values a breathing human more than they value a clump of cells.
So answer the question, since I surprised you by showing that I had the cajones to reply… What would you do?
Mike Stark has the courage to stand up and state what he believes in. I’m noticing most of the ‘right wingers’ don’t want to stand up for what they believe, no matter the circumstances–they want to change the arguements to favour ‘their side’.
Never got a clear answer from Wilkow, nor do I expect one, and I doubt very much that we’ll get one from Matt.
If you have the courage of your convictions, you state them openly and honestly.
As I stated, the Pharasees threw all sorts of ‘hypotheticals’ at Jesus–I didn’t hear him cry ‘foul’ or ‘that question is irrelevant!’ It’s a perfectly relevant and legitimate question, and in your answer you will state what you truly believe.
However, Matt, you try to frame the issue to make your side ‘look’ right–
“If you look at it straightforwardly, you just need to answer 2 questions. Is a fertilized egg alive and if it is, what kind of life is it.”
It’s not straight forward at all–the egg and sperm were both ‘alive’ before they connected. You’re the one that’s setting up ‘the trick question’. The fertilized egg is another step in the ongoing process of life. Sometimes even a fertilized egg is flushed naturally out of a womans body during menstruation, so where does that get us?
Let us also not forget the instigator of this–Sen. Bill Napoli–discussing under what circumstance an abortion would be valid–
“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”
Again, framing the issue to protect the ‘religous’, so yes Matt, some people are saying just that–if you’re not religous and a virgin, you cannot abort the baby, no matter if your life is threatened.
Or do you think that Bill misspoke? He is, after all, the one writing the legislation. You would hope his reasoning would be equal for everyone.
Mike Stark, go back and read my post. I stated very clearly in it that anyone would rescue the girl from the burning building. So I DID answer the question. My point is that answering that question proves nothing about the abortion issue because preventing an abortion is NOT mutually exclusive to saving the life of a child/adult in all but a very small fraction of real world scenarios.
SparkyK, I am quite willing to stand up for what I believe in. That’s the reason for my post. It is your side in this argument, however, that originally presented an obscure hypothetical situation to frame the issue and make you “look” right. It is your side that needs to cloud the issue by describing extreme situations and applying the emotional response as the norm. As for the rape argument, it clearly represents a heinous crime perpetrated on a defenseless and innocent victim. But how does destroying another even more defenseless and innocent victim make it all better? Again, you are taking a tiny fraction unwanted pregnancies and using it as justification in all circumstances for abortion. Even in those rare situations described by Sen Napoli, it is the attack itself that represents a threat to the woman’s life and that which will cause the lifelong emotional scars, NOT the pregnancy. If you were the fetus, what would you want? I would want a strong victim’s support structure in place to help my mother get through it. If it takes federal/state/private funding, then so be it. No expense should be spared to help such victims - whatever it takes. But make no mistake, if it was me in the womb, I would VERY MUCH WANT TO LIVE.
Matt, answering that question may not seem to adress the issue of abortions, but it certainly adresses the reasoning behind a certain side of it. We do not value all humans equally, as living and breathing humans are valued much more than a possibility of a developed human form. The whole case behind abortions is whether or not we value a prematurly developed human equally as we do a fully developed and born human. If we truly value the cells that may one day take the form of people as living, then people should feel no guilt by saving the 5 lives they value in that petri dish. However, people value the one 2 year old’s life more, as that child is a birthed and grown human. So the real question becomes, “Why should we save the potential lives of the unbirthed if we don’t value them as humans?” Because, simply put, anyone who cannot say they would save the child are the only ones who should be able to put forth an arguement stating that they value unborn babies as living. With that said, it is reasonable to say that anyone who would save the child cannot say that they value the 5 cellular babies more human than the child. So, why should we save the many potential lives of the unbirthed if we don’t value them more human than one single 2 year old child?
Oh wow…this is what it’s all about! I can picture Wilkow going home and punching himself repeatedly in the face after he had a little time to realize how badly he got played.
Thank you…please sell this: Progressives and Democrats are not for abortion. No one is for abortion. We are for a necessary evil and realize things aren’t the damn garden of eden. Thanks…I spend more time on this site than I probably should.
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:03:54 -0600 [09/24/2006 04:03:54 PM MDT]
From: sebastianhaff@alecbaldwinsucks.com
To: Mike Stark
Subject: Re: Re: Re: puhlease…
Headers: Show All Headers
Uuh Mike?
This is an e-mail exchange with a spelling error. This not a website for the world to
see.
The question was “why
should I listen to anything you have to say when you can’t even do
homework on your own website?”
Keep avoiding the question.
Thanks.
Quoting Mike Stark :
[Hide Quoted Text]
when you learn how to spell “hurl,” try writing in again. Until then,
I just don’t see why I should take anything you say seriously.
oops - I didn’t just point out a trivial and insignificant error, did I?
Before ya know it, I’ll be taking Sean Hannity seriously.
On 9/24/06, sebastianhaff@alecbaldwinsucks.com
wrote:
“pimply, chunky and pasty-white”
So you hulr very lacking insults when you have Zero to answer the question.
Thanks for your informative and well thought response.
Well done. You are a considerable illustration of why you and your
ilk are in the minority.
Have a nice day.
Quoting Mike Stark :
you are a caricature of yourself… and a really funny one at that!
it’s been a while since I’ve posted… if I didn’t think that a
pimply, chunky and pasty-white fella like yourself would enjoy the
attention (attention no girls would ever give you - but I bet your
uncle does) so much, I’d consider posting this exchange…
alas, I don’t think I will
On 9/24/06, sebastianhaff@alecbaldwinsucks.com
wrote:
Quoting Mike Stark :
that’s the best you’ve got - get a job, man…
in law school, thay call this kind of bs “close reading” and it never
stands up in court…
but that’s what all of you folks do on the right - scrutinize every
last bit of media you can find, find something ridiculously silly like
this, pronounce the end of the world and decide that the entire media
is biased against you because you found a single error in a single
blog-post out of over 200…
must suck to think the whole world is out to get you - especially when
your side controls all three branches of gov’t but still can’t govern
their way out of a paper friggin bag…
Hmm… So I ask a simple question and all you can do is go off on
some rant about “you folks” and “my side”? I’m not talking about
court, law school or anything of the sort. The question was “why
should I listen to anything you have to say when you can’t even do
homework on your own website?” Don’t let the simple question get in
the way. At least be accurate in your descripions. So in conclusion,
puhlease… yourself?
It really amazes me how much the “Left” and “Right” hate each other. The Republicans feel so moral and the Democrats think they are smarter and more enlightened. This site is more proof of that.
This topic of abortion should not even be such a big issue. If we as a society would just look at history and use the lessons learned we would not have the problems we have today. If you cannot afford to have children then don’t have them…Common sense 101. Yes there are “those” situations like rape, incest and when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. In the case of the first two the options are 3. Keep the child; give it up for adoption or an abortion. You only have 8 weeks or so to make your decision about an abortion and then you are left with only 2 choices. This is how, in my option, it should be and this makes sense. This also brings me to my next point.
Parents should teach good morals to their children and the children will then use some common sense (something this country is in short supply) when making stupid decisions like having unprotected sex. No sex or protected sex means no pregnancy. The baby boomers are to blame for the sudden erosion of our moral fabric and no argument can cover this fact up.
I agree that it is important to educate our children about issues like sex and drugs. I do not agree that it should be taught in school. This is the job of the parents and don’t buy the bull crap about how parents are not teaching this so we have to do it in school. So what if our parents did not take the time to educate us in these matters. We know what is right and wrong so quit being lazy and teach your children. Quit giving up your rights as a parent and allowing the government to dictate how your children should be raised. It’s obvious the government has no clue or business in the personal family affairs of our lives. Our leaders have more to worry about than the sexual education of our children.
A lot of our problems in society can be directly related to the breakdown in the family structure here in America. You need a father to be a good provider and a partner. He shows his sons and daughters what it is to be a man, how to respect others and how to stand up for oneself. He also shows how to treat women with dignity and how to be a leader. The mother, nurturing, loving and sensitive, she is also strong and independent when needed. Together both parents provide for the children and teach good values and morals and no you don’t have to be a bible thumper to teach what is right and wrong. This is the way it is supposed to be whether you believe in God or Evolution.
I’m tired of people saying that things are broken in America. Things were just fine the way they were but the boomers decided that they did not want to live by the rules. They wanted free love and the freedom of choice to be idiots. They have passed that mentality on to the next generation and to the generation after that. Each time we get more lazy and stupid. They have been breaking things since the 60’s.
Yes I know, I’m moving away from the issue in the blog. Sorry.
Become an independent thinker and stop buying in to the B.S. that is being pushed down your throat by your parents from both sides of the political fence, left and right. Study your history and think about how our founding fathers would feel about today’s society. I know they would be disgusted. Think about what you can do to get us back to where we used to be as a nation without of course, racism, inequality and big government. Name calling and pointing fingers at other is not the answer. If you must point a finger then point it at yourself. Yes the problems of today were caused by the people of yesterday but only you can change what happens tomorrow.
Thank you for reading
Kyle.
OK OK OK… Let’s look at both sides of the coin here. Think about it! The guy is asking about saving a life when reversed Abortion is the termination. Seriously people use your brain. Look at it like this, in the question he asks “if” there was a fire and all of these fluke scenarios happened at the same time who would you save. However, Abortion, in a pro lifer’s mind is actually the guy setting the fire. Does that make sense?
Stop thinking with the current and challenge yourself to think for yourself. It doesn’t matter what one media person says. Always look at the whole picture.
Thanks for allowing me to post
-Thinkoutloud, CA
You guys think you are all so stinking smart. I wish I wasn’t so simple minded…
First of all, Andrew’s analysis of the Catch-22 at the end of the call is dead on accurate. That’s exactly the choice the caller was offering Andrew.
While you are all patting yourselves on the backs for getting under his skin, go back and read some of the above responses. If getting overexcited is a sign of weakness, there’s a lot of weakness up there.
So if these are not living, at what point do you save the cells anyway? When do they become life? If you are so smart, perhaps you know exactly when this happens. Of course, it must be once the baby is born, based on your support of partial birth abortions.
Never mind the fact that they have thinking brains, beating hearts, and bodies at early stages of their development. Have you ever seen the picture of an aborted baby? Can you please explain to a simple minded dummy like me that someting that looks and functions exactly like a human baby is just a tissue?
Maybe normal people are just not smart enough to understand how a doctor can puncture skulls, rip off limbs, and throw away the remains but not be murdering an unborn baby.
It’s perfectly clear to me why we don’t have funerals for hair, as Quibbler writes above. A human hair does not multiply itself into a living human being like a zygote does. Am I not thinking deeply enough?
Quibbler’s blueprint analogy apparently baffles me just as much. Last I saw, blueprints don’t multiply themselves into buildings. I wish I was as smart as him so that I could understand his logic.
You can come up with all of the complicated hypotheticals and analogies you want. The bottom line is that unless you can define the moment that something that is not a life becomes a life, you run the risk of murdering baby.
What if Jesus did answer the question in a third way, as is suggested above, and said that the fertilized eggs should never have been created in the first place? Wouldn’t that be a completely consistent answer affirming the sanctity of life from natural conception to natural death?
Mike,
You came across like a smarmy know it all. Believe me I am know fan of Wilkow but you sound just as much of a douche. You pose a ridiculous unanswerable question and strut around like you know all the answers. However, I must say he did pose a question to you which you refused to answer as well. So bravo to one douche bag getting me to listen to two douceh bags argue on the phone.
Well, you know what they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut some of the time. Wilkow hammers you nutjob liberals 9 out of 10 times. You people are like a football player celebrating a first down when his team is down by 3 td’s with 30 seconds to play…
lol i think u all need to get a life. and dare you to call his show and debate him on any issuse because i love when he (Andrew) slams you left wing nuts back down to earth. Dont get me wrong i like to here your debates on his show if your not scared… P.S. let me ask you this why cant you Bush haters stand united when we are at war?instead you would rather put are president down and make are country look like fools.remember this, fredem isnt free and it never has been.I dont want the radical muslem coming here trying to push there wacked out beleafs on me or me kids.why is it that you left wing fools want to keep trying to kiss the muslem worlds ass when thay hate all americans and do you think they would aprove of abortion and gays.lets see they would be the first to be killed by the these freaks that whom you say where not sentive to.they would rather cut your heads off then look at you.
YOU ASSHOLES ARE FUCKING MORONS ANDREW WILKOW WILL PUT EVERY ONE OF YOU DOWN IN A DEBATE .. WHEN YOU HIT SOMEONE WITH A CATCH 22 QUESTION THAT THERE IS NO ANSWER TO HOW CAN YOU REALLY EXPECT SOMEONE TO ANSWER IT WITHOUT HAVING TO LISTEN TO YOU DOUCHEBAGS RIP APART HIS ANSWER BECAUSE THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER GET A LIFE YOU BABY KILLING COMMIES
silly dems, tricks are for kids. All you have is bs. You use smoke and mirrors to try and make a point. It really is amusing though, keep it up i need a good laugh.
Saving the girl would be the right choice.no one knows if any of the others would even live.its a stupid question from someone who cant debate a point on facts and has to use some made up situation.
Cry me a river Mike, keep on whining about how you deserve to have a radio program. There is a reason why the failing liberal radio station Air America went bankrupt. Because being a liberal is being a failure. You have the freedom to be you, I have the freedom to be free of you. Bury your head back in the sand.
theres nothing wrong with having an abortion if a woman was raped or if she was going to die from the birth of the child. but you fucken prochoice people think its a methiod of birth control and thats wrong.and iam still waiting for you dorks to call andrews show so he can put you in your place. later losers…….
To all the assorted rightwingnuts that have infested this message thread:
You’re all idiots.
FOAD.
your so funny foad, what a loser
Yes toby, you are a loser.
Now as I said before, foad.
hhaha liberals are so funny
Yes Toby, liberal progressives are funny. Conservatives, on the other hand, have no sense of humor.
Now go back to listening to Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/Coulter/et all and leave actual independent thought to those who are capable of it.
You just keep proving you’re a dumbass everytime you open your cake hole.
You just misspelled “et al,” dumbass.
Funny how you confront liberals with logic, they can’t post a reasonable argument. FOAD is the best you can do?
Typical. You all try to sound so educated and enlightened when you’re amongst yourselves If you’re challenged, your true colors show.
I didn’t even have to listen to the audio but after reading a few responses I laughed at the typical liberal response.
Asking a “which came first: the chicken or the egg” question is simply a circular arguement which is totally ridiculous. I find it quite funny that the only arguement you think you can win is an abortion based one. The sacred cow of the left is really getting old. I’m sick and tired of the whole thing myself. If liberals had a modicum of sense then maybe the leftwing talk show hosts could actually hold an audience long enough to generate a profit to stay on the air. Andrew should have laughed at the dipshit who asked such a question and told him to come back when he actually had something serious to ask him. Just like a liberal to think they win something but in all actuality they just demonstarte how ignorant they really are.
I am a first timer on your site and I listened to the podcast with as much of an open mind as I possibly could. Personally, I believe that your question was a bit silly and did little to prove much of anything at all. In fact, I thought the gentleman you called to obtain a response from did well in handling the call. I, personally, would not have been as abrasive as he, but he probrably takes more calls than I during the course of the day.
Now on the other hand, he questioned you about whether or not death is created at conception and you rightly answered “no, death is not created.” Then he asked, “what is created if it’s not death - what is the opposite of death?” I feel that these were REASONABLE questions, but you poorly danced around the last one. I’m troubled thinking about why you could not answer that question? There is no harm in acknowledging that human life begins to take form at conception. So, why the dance? Why hide behind the name “John, of Clifton Park”? Why the fruitless question???????
A leftist danced around a question, you don’t say
The question posed to Andrew Wilkow proved nothing. Let me modify your question a bit..
“You are in a burning building.. in one room, there are 4 young children. In the other room, there is your mother. You can save the 4 children, or your mother… which one?”
No matter what the answer is, it proves nothing of importance. If you save the 4 children, it’s because you thought saving 4 instead of 1 was better. If you save your mother, it’s because you would like not for your mother to die. That’s it. There is no right or wrong answer.
In either situation, no matter who you save from the burning building, SOMEONE is saved. No one is saved by aborting an unborn child.
Andrew handled the call exactly as he should have. You were comparing apples and oranges, and it did not warrant a response from him to the posed question.
how can so many of you say that that question was not a catch 22 are you stupid! you must be ! if that is all you have to throw at someone to try to change their thoughts on your issues then you all need to stop and regroup so many of you are praising the caller on that one when the real praise should go to mr andrew wilkow for not feeding into his bullshit I would have hung up on him long before mr wilkow did but that is why I dont have a show be thankful mr Wilkow gave you lefty wingnuts that much air time!
Liberals try to stop a necessary war to protect our freedom complaining that war is wrong no matter what and the cost is far to high,yet they push to keep abortion (murder) legal by which means they (liberals) have killed 40 million plus,this alone proves that liberalism is a disease!!!
hey hippies… do you know what a “Fact” is? andrew wilkow is so much smarter than any of you moonbats, and i would love to hear you debate him with logic and facts, rather than throwing some irrelevant make believe situation in the air. try learning some of them. i can’t believe you leftwing whackjobs actually conjured up something called “Reproductive Rights”. so i guess, according to these rights, a mother should be allowed to kill her 5 year old son or daughter because she simply can’t afford to support them? i mean, as long as they are of her lineage, then she has reproductive rights over them? get real.
Moonbats, I like that name; however, hippies is much more befitting. Now bear with me you dirty liberal moonbats, I’m speaking from experience. I was once a zygote, a small, round, gushy zygote. And now, I’m a real boy. Amazing! (Please, don’t run off and sell the movie rights) I’m already working on a title, check it out: Boy Defies Odds When Permitted to Incubate. (It’s a feel good story) Anyway, the answer to your little brainteaser is simple; however, it is constructed as a dirty, filthy liberal trap that would have had the caller on the offensive no matter what Drew answered. Now to my brain teaser… God is almighty and can do all things so could he create a rock so large that he couldn’t lift it if he tried? Choke on your own medicine you dirty liberal fucks.
GO JAKEXSNAKE!!!
THERE IS ONLY ONE INSTANCE THAT A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION. THAT’S WHEN HER LIFE IS IN DANGER. PERIOD. ACTUALLY, FOR THESE INSANE LIBS WHO BELIEVE THAT AN ABORTION IS A CHOICE, THEN I’D REALLY LOVE THE CHOICE TO ABORT NANCY P. AND DIANNE F. AND HILLARY AND, WELL YOU GET IT. IT’S MURDER. EVER HEAR OF PROTECTION, OR ADOPTION, AND FOR THE EXTREME RIGHTIES, ABSTINANCE? BUT, I GUESS THAT’S TOO EASY FOR THE LIBERAL REGRESSIVES.
THE FACT IS THAT LIBS DO NOT BELIEVE IN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. IF YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF OR YOUR ACTIONS THE YOU CAN BLAME SOMEONE ELSE AND BECOME A VICTIM.
The fundamental question of abortion is not whether or not life begins at conception. Personally, I believe that it does. I am also pro-choice. The question is whether or not the legal right exists for the government to regulate or prohibit the procedure. The question everyone should ask themselves is at what point is the government authorized to invoke legal authority to protect a life? At what point do the rights of the mother outway the rights of the unborn child, and vice versa?
The narrator attemps to present a classical moral dilemma. Most reasonable people would argue that a sentient child has greater intrinsic moral value than a zygote or embryo. The narrator presents Mr. Wilkow with Sophie’s choice, presuming Mr. Wilkow’s assumption of moral equivalency between a child and a zygote. This is certainly not an inspiring intellectual argument.
It doesn’t make you a right-wing nut to argue against the social consequences of infanticide and to pursue reasonable limitations on the procedure, particularly for public funding of a practice that is morally reprehensible to a large portion of the population.
I have a comment because I might be missing something. I am anti abortioin, period and in no way shape or form will I ever change my mind on that issue. I am however not one of the real crazies that show pictures of aborted fetusis in front of clinics to small children, I think that is very inappropriate, especially in the presence of my two kids. I do think though that this question was unfair and was loaded in order to get the response that he did. No matter what a person says he will be wrong, yes the RIGHT answer would be to save the 2 year old child, but since the question loaded the petri dishes as being “unsavable” then you are painting him as not being true to his beliefs. HUMAN INSTINCT will dictate saving the two year old, because you can hear the crying, see the emotion, hear the screaming, etc… This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the person who saved said child is now changing their beliefs.
I am not convinced I will change anyones minde on this issue, it seems anyone here has an agenda already and that is ok. As Voltaire once said “I may not agree with what you have to say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it” I simply ask we take emotion out of the discussion and deal with things intelligently and rationally.
Andrew Wilkow is a GOD! He’s always right, get over it.
Yeah… Wilkow was right during that exchange.
Wilkow=Empty Head
Just another example of a typical Right Wing Kook who refuses to answer a simple question. It wasn’t a hard question to answer yet he stumbled all over himself to escape answering it.
BTW, amusing how he claims to be against Public Assistance……..but I guess that doesn’t apply to him. He went to a community college for his Associates degree. I guess a publicly assisted College is exempt from him because it’s “Yuppie Welfare”.
He’s just another Right Wing Hypocrite……..with a girlish shriek.
Pro choice = supporting a woman’s right to choose to have her baby’s head caved in and its brain sucked out.
Kind of a tough position to defend.
I happened to stumble across Wilkow on SIRIUS while driving the other day, and the drivel that was coming out of his mouth….the guy is hysterical. I now listen to SIRIUS PATRIOT on a regular basis, the callers compared to that of SIRIUS left are second to none….all they are is fuel for the fire(Wilkow), none of them are intricate, they’re all pre-programmed robots.
Anyway, reading through these attacks from the above replies makes one sick. And then on we go to abortion.
All of you fucking hypochristians make me sick. You sit here and bash any pro-choice liberal with a mind that challenges your view from - no doubt - this fiction book you base your life around. It gets better though, you sit here and support a war where we are killing pregnant mothers and children and that’s Ok because - well, let me guess - we’re fighting terrorism to save our country? This is not a war, it’s an occupation. And as far as I’m concerned, the imperialistic views of you conservative martyrs are going to be the downfall of this country.
If I weren’t thinking about someone or something every day of my life other than myself, I’d be stuck with you fucks. Good riddance to your party of religious zealots next year, it’s time to shape the corruption up.