Late Wilkow Update
Published by Mike Stark March 9th, 2006 in Andrew WilkowAt Salon, the War Room, a blog by Tim Grieve, has two posts covering the recent Wilkow dust-up.
I’m not going to say too much - I’ll let the pieces stand alone… but I will tell you that Wilkow’s attempt to portray this a personal thing between me and him is absolutely ridiculous…
Anyway… here are the links:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/03/07/petri/index.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/03/08/wilkow/index.html
The day pass is worth it - you get a preview of the Sopranos… and there is an article about a low level officer fighting the reprimand he received for his supervision at Abu Grahb…
16 Responses to “Late Wilkow Update”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
You can donate through PayPal in two ways:
Make a one-time donation for the amount entered below and you're billed once, that's it.
Make a recurring monthly donation that bills you monthly for the amount entered below.
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Amazing!!
He still won’t answer the question.
Wilkow is an idiot. He’s trying to pawn the blame off to you when he can’t answer a simple question.
The question is simple Wilkow: do you believe each blastula represents a life, or don’t you???
If you do, as you have previously claimed, then you save the petri dish. It is the only logical answer, from your perspective.
Of course he would save the child, though. Everybody would. However, he can’t admit this, which is why this question is causing him such problems. He’s put himself into a little box with his own fundamentalist right-wing viewpoints.
He says he would seem immoral if he didn’t save the little girl. This is true. But he would seem illogical if he didn’t save the five blastulae.
This merely illustrates the illogic of the right-wing position on these issues. It shows that Wilkow is a hypocrite and engages in politics just like any representative does.
Wilkow, I fully understand why you can’t answer the question. But this isn’t Mike’s fault; Mike, myself, and people who try to form LOGICAL viewpoints have no problem answering such questions. Your illogic and right-wing hysteria is what has painted you into a corner here.
You only have yourself to blame.
I don’t like Wilkow, but I was listening the other day when you admitted to taking money for your site–which, I think is personally fine because you are recording a person in New York State and don’t need their permission.
I do take issue however, with your petri dish question. It’s not very cogent to the point. What exactly do you think you are trying to prove? That’s conundrum no one can answer. I’m not an abortion supporter, particularly but I would have said the child, not the dishes, but would still have to admit there was no right answer. Your challenge was infantile, quite frankly. Why not just expose Wilkow for being poorly informed on issues and belligerent. Why not ask him why he has never signed up for the military but wants others his age to do so. I think there is a whole well of information on him that is out there, but the petri dish thing is just stupid. And you look pretty stupid for it, too.
Radio “entertainers” give us catch-22 situations all the time. We call up and they’ve got their hypothetical situations all laid out ready to ask.
The man cannot answer the question because he sees it puts a flaw in his absolutist position. Even when reworded to ask would you save one 2 year old girl or 5 two year old girls, any person would say they’d go for the larger numbers. We hope our first responders will do such horrifying mathematics with life. On a sinking ship, we think women and children first, then the men. I place a pregnant woman ahead of a woman that’s not. A child above an adult. A baby ahead of a child. Maybe not rational, but I’m willing to give my calm choices.
Firedoglake’s question was not a catch-22 question. It only seems catch-22 to those that took the extremist stance at life beginning at conception. At the other extreme would be those that think human life begins at birth. I think (no, I’m not sure) that life really can be considered nearing the 4 to 5 month mark. By that point, your getting a developed human. So, petri-dishes at a fertility clinic do not cut it, not even close.
Great question, one that needs to be used again and again.
Indeed, it is a great hypothetical question and totally in the Philosophical and/or Religious Belief Realm but not where Constitutional Privacy Rights are concerned.
I agree that it should be brought up over and over as a ramming rod in the scrimmage prior to the real political battle, because, in my opinion, this struggle is being fought in the wrong arena which is, at what point does the State has the right to make decisions RE the lives and bodies of individuals and where do we draw a line?
Another area of this debate that needs to be re-directed, is in The Terms and Definitions of this issue - Item: They are not Pro-Life, they are Pro-Births, we all know that and also know that the Regresives take positions that would qualify them as Anti-Life and in far too many instances, Pro-Death. I don’t think we’re using this point effectively.
And then, there is the big elephant in the room that so far it seems to be failing to catch the people’s attention, this is the key as to why the Christofacists continue this battle hoping to never totally win it, for obvious reasons.
An article written by Margot Magowan, former Producer of the Bernie Ward Show, dated October 30, 2000 for Voter.com in which she makes a most compelling case that “Abortion It’s Not Just About Choice” http://www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.networkingtheinternet.com/margotchoice.htm. I highly recommend reading it, it is a very informative read.
The points she makes clearly show that the so called pro-lifers are in reality pro-births only, here are a couple of quotes taken from the article:
‘Years ago, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that pro-lifers believe that “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” meaning that pro-life politicians are adamant about protecting the fetus but don’t care much about protecting the child once it is born. ‘
‘Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger once said, “If a woman does not have the right to control her own body, she has no rights.” ‘
These points also should be brought up over and over…
Paul,
I can! I can unequivocally answer that question. I would save the child.
I found it very easy to answer that question.
>>conundrum no one can answer.>>
Paul, what are you talking about??? You save the 2 yr old child of course.
Let’s take it one step further……what if it was a couple of million skin cells in that petrie dish for a transplant vs. a school bus filled with 60 kids….or even a second step….how about a piece of skin I just scraped off by accident while shaving this morning with 10 million cells…..should I save the hunk of skin or the City of Cleveland?
But, then again, I’m just a moral relativist.
.
.
Personally, I’d save the 2-year old child. But that’s just me.
RossK- skin cells don’t quite work since they can never become ‘life’. Once they are skin cells, they are always skin cells.
An alternative, though, would be the umbilical cord, filled with stem cells. Stem cells can become life.
So, Wilkow, would you save the child, of firve umbilical cords??
Good article over on Salon. Yea the daypass is worth it.
I agree with those who say the choice is an easy one. It is only a Catch 22 when he knows he has backed himself in a corner and only HE cannot answer that question.
It’s easy - save the living BREATHING child. duh!
Willis–
I’m shocked - shocked I say!
Are you implying that you have never heard of nuclear transplantation?
Or transdifferentiation?
What I’m saying is the following: There’s totipotency in that thar skin!
And while I’m on about this - how about the need to save all those teratomas in the pathology lab?
.
I believe all teratomas have the right to live.
lol
….except those cells that produced the enamel that formed the teeth in the teratomas because, just like the squamous of cells of the skin, they killed themselves and thus deserve to be sent to the 37th level of hell with all the rest of the self-immolaters.
______
here’s an icky link to the evildoers.
I don’t understand how he thinks that he has the right to get paid to talk to you, but you don’t have the right to get paid to talk with him
His “interview” was absolutely obvious that he is not completely pro-life as he claims. As I believe I posted in the former update about this, the abortion issue is about whether or not we value the unborn as human or not.
On another note, he claims that if he asnwered one way, he would be portrayed as a right wing nut. I would like to know, what exactly doesn’t portray him as a right wing nut? Answering a question like that with an answer that helps your side of the arguement by saving the 5 “lives” would not be a wrong answer for him at all. If he is so afraid of being seen as a right winger, maybe he should rethink how he brings his chips to the table.