Hypothetical question trips up pro-life radio host

John of the Dead · Post by **John of the Dead** » 2006-03-07 02:25pm

Andrew Wilkow is a right-wing radio host in Albany, NY. Recently, a caller on his show posed the following scenario: You are in a fertility clinic. The clinic is on fire, and you have to get out immediately. On one side of the room is a two-year-old child. On the other side is a petri dish with five fertilized blastulae. You only have time to save one or the other. Which one do you save?

The point of the scenario, of course, is to highlight to the "life begins at conception" crowd the logical inconsistency of the positon. If life truly begins at conception, one would be morally required to sacrifice the one child to save the five. However, the host refused to answer and it quickly devolved into shouting and histronics, but that was funny in its own right.

The audio is available at Crooks and Liars. Give it a listen. I would like to hear from some of the board's pro-life members, how they would respond to the scenario, but I think most of the board members are a little less militant, even in their pro-life stance.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-07 02:41pm

Oops.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-07 02:54pm

Very clever argument. Bravo to the caller.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-03-07 03:23pm

I love it how the host says "and no matter what the answer is, it's wrong".

The fool doesn't even realise it isn't a case of right of wrong, it's a rhetorical tool used to demonstrate either that his pro-life stance is irrational, or that he's fucking messed up to get the petri-dish over the two year old.

He even thinks that he can compare the question to a 'which son do you save' scenario, where it's one person vs anther equal person, not five fucking eggs vs a baby.

Also, I really loved the "I wouldn't have the guts to stand there while the doctor did a knee operation so you're asking the wrong guy, blood and guts disturb me" comeback; quick thinking

And finally "I don't get angry"

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-07 03:29pm

That is indeed a clever argument. I'll have to make a note of it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-03-07 03:41pm

That is simply brilliant. If ever there was a single way of highlighting the assbackwards idea of considering newly fertilised eggs more worthy than born humans, that is the argument.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-03-07 03:46pm

I must field test this new weapon. Post haste.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-03-07 03:50pm

Go to SB.com then and see what reactions you get.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-03-07 03:54pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Go to SB.com then and see what reactions you get.

...what's SB.com? It just takes me to the GlaxoSmithKline website...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-07 03:56pm

Molyneux wrote:...what's SB.com? It just takes me to the GlaxoSmithKline website...

http://www.spacebattles.com

It's like SD.net but has a vastly greater tolerance for moronic bullshit.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-07 03:56pm

Should they attempt to use his pathetic counter argument that there was "no right answer" and that it was not a fair question: of course it is a fair question. Such "least of evils" catch-22 situations are what your moral philosophy is supposed to be able to resolve, after all.

As for the host: note how he tried to respond with his own bullshit questions in return instead of answering, while throwing out red herrings like Tookie Williams and whatnot, and accusing his caller of stereotyping. Pot, kettle, etc.

felineki · Post by **felineki** » 2006-03-07 03:56pm

Molyneux wrote:...what's SB.com? It just takes me to the GlaxoSmithKline website...

Probably referring to spacebattles.com.

John of the Dead · Post by **John of the Dead** » 2006-03-07 04:05pm

I wish the caller had a better response to the host's bit about "did the egg and sperm create death?" The egg and sperm were both already alive! They combined for a different, hybrid life. If they created life, then they weren't alive to begin with, which would be getting perilously close to abiogenesis, another sore spot for most social conservatives.

Though, actually, one could argue that they did create "death." After all, every human being is doomed to death, a fate conferred upon us by our genetic make-up. Or is that too metaphysical? What kind of response would that get? Hmm. That may be playing into the "Culture of Death" meme, so perhaps nix that line of reasoning.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-07 04:10pm

Lord Zentei wrote:Should they attempt to use his pathetic counter argument that there was "no right answer" and that it was not a fair question: of course it is a fair question. Such "least of evils" catch-22 situations are what your moral philosophy is supposed to be able to resolve, after all.

As for the host: note how he tried to respond with his own bullshit questions in return instead of answering, while throwing out red herrings like Tookie Williams and whatnot, and accusing his caller of stereotyping. Pot, kettle, etc.

The radiohost is of the debator school of thought that any question that necessarily makes you look like an asshole if you answer it, rather than the real definition of a unfair question as one that has no non-contradictory solutions.

Ironically, these people tend to support Catch-22 moral calculus geopolitically and give it names like "realpolitik" or "games theory".

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-07 04:27pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:Should they attempt to use his pathetic counter argument that there was "no right answer" and that it was not a fair question: of course it is a fair question. Such "least of evils" catch-22 situations are what your moral philosophy is supposed to be able to resolve, after all.

As for the host: note how he tried to respond with his own bullshit questions in return instead of answering, while throwing out red herrings like Tookie Williams and whatnot, and accusing his caller of stereotyping. Pot, kettle, etc.
The radiohost is of the debator school of thought that any question that necessarily makes you look like an asshole if you answer it, rather than the real definition of a unfair question as one that has no non-contradictory solutions.

Ironically, these people tend to support Catch-22 moral calculus geopolitically and give it names like "realpolitik" or "games theory".

But that's different!![/asstard]

Quite. Alas, poor game theory, how it is whored out. And note that he attempted to throw a similar question in return with that ladder and burning building bullshit (even though he was attempting to simply show that the type of question was not valid).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-07 04:41pm

Lord Zentei wrote:But that's different!![/asstard]

Quite. Alas, poor game theory, how it is whored out. And note that he attempted to throw a similar question in return with that ladder and burning building bullshit (even though he was attempting to simply show that the type of question was not valid).

Yes, poor games theory. It never hurt anyone it didn't feel was necessary to hurt for the greater good of the whole.

Frankly, the talk show host was flummoxed and was shooting wildly to save face before his live radio-land audience. Trying to show you are good at playing games too is a cheap way to try an not come out a loser in front of people who agree with you already.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-07 05:39pm

The "you're an asshole for asking that question!" retort is a time-honoured way of evading an ethical scenario you have no good answer for. And it fools no one but the fools.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-03-07 05:43pm

It's not as though they can call "false dichotomy" or something, given it's exactly the argument they use for their grandstanding.

Tranan · Post by **Tranan** » 2006-03-07 06:15pm

I can hear that fox news indeed has a raido chanel. or is ther more bullshit in the world.

I realy hope that i newer hear anything like this on swedish radio.

Only Bill orealy is this stupid, was my firs thougt.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2006-03-07 06:44pm

Life begins at conception but the petri dish is obviously an aberration against god, thanks for participating.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-03-07 07:09pm

I love how he tries to argue that conception is either the creation of life or the creation of death.

And then he tries to say his opponent would burn a cop at the stake for a split second "must shoot" situaion.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2006-03-07 10:12pm

Somebody with a Rapture Ready account should post that. We can have a pool guessing how many minutes until the thread is deleted.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-03-07 11:13pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Somebody with a Rapture Ready account should post that. We can have a pool guessing how many minutes until the thread is deleted.

Put in $4 for 6.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-03-07 11:56pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Somebody with a Rapture Ready account should post that. We can have a pool guessing how many minutes until the thread is deleted.

Where is that site? Let's try it!

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-03-08 12:15am

Superman wrote:Where is that site? Let's try it!

Try google once in a while
+http://www.rr-bb.com/