What is odd is his refusal (which he does not explain) to deal with hypothetical situations. Politicians frequently refuse to answer hypotiheticals - their reason is that the policy decisions will depend on many factors and the posed hypothetical does not take them all into account.

But moral philosophy is based on discussing hypothetical situations. We do not assume that the answer would vary depending on some specific information such as the size of the clinic or the social class of the two-year old. We also are not asking him to predict what he would do in a real fire (I personally would freeze and be totally useless) but are asking him what someone should do.

He should be pushed on the no answers to hypotheticals.

It is fun to put people on the hot spot with these hypotheticals, but only because most people react defensively and only come up with the perfect response too late. Here's what Wilkow *should* have said:

"I absolutely would save the two year old, because it would be a purely emotional gut reaction to a screaming child, now here's a question for you: Imagine you are in a burning hospital room with two women who have broken legs and you can only help one of them. Imagine that one of these women is obviously very pregnant. Which one do you save?"

My gut reaction would be to save the pregnant woman, even though I am as staunchly pro-choice as they come. Does it mean my ethics are just a hodgepodge of self-contradictions? No - or rather maybe, but more importantly it means that none of us - right and left - have all the answers to all of life's moral quandaries. We just do the best we can, and hope that we're never in situations where we have children hanging out of buses, or burning fertility clinics!

What amazes me is that no one noticed the more realistic hypothetical elephant in the maternity room that should have shut that gasbag Wilkow up once and for all on this.

Here's a more realistic hypothetical encountered in hospitals since the dawn of hospitals. You the expectant father are greeted by a somber doctor in the waiting room. He explains to you that there have been complications in the delivery and your wife is in extreme distress and hemorhaging. You have two choices: carry on with the delivery and save the "late term unborn child Jesus human life non-choice" or save your wife.

I imagine there might have been someone like Newt (sorry about the cancer, but I can't wait for you to die and am leaving you now) Gingrich who might have said "Save my male heir, I can get another broad, but most of us with any conscience would have sacrificed the fetus for our spouse.

How is this different from the 2 year old vs. five blastula? Ok, suppose the doctor offered the choice of saving the quintuplets the fertility treatment had blessed you with or saving your otherwise infertile spouse? My guess is you still go with the spouse.

The point is, the choice between a living and breathing human; one who has gasped her first breath, suckled at her mother's breast and smiled at her father's first greeting is what we all recognize as a living human being, a child, not a choice. We choose once that child is with us not to abandon them, and millions of liberal commie pinko fags like us consider such newborns children not choices.

Yet the rightwing nut Wilkow is so terrified acknowledge and agree with this, to the point of looking stupid first on air and then on Salon, he fails to recognize the difference. He easily could have, for he had lots of support on his side.

The governor of South Dakota, the one who couldn't wait for Roberts and Alito to let their robes dry, and the first governor of South Dakota to make North Dakota seem more inviting, signed into law an anti-abortion bill he pushed and rode like a bunch of drunk spring breakers on a ten peso Cancun whore, but which completely backed up "Commie" Mike's hypothetical: When forced to choose between a living and breathing human - i.e. the mom - and an unborn (or "hypothetical") child, the doctor can go ahead and deep six the kid. The law bans any abortion except if forced to choose between the mother and the fetus. Never mind the circumstances of the child, rape, incest, love, fertility medication, or the age of the mother or even the fact she might be delivering just hours before being executed for mass murder; if its the choice between her or the fetus, the fetus gets the suction tube the clamp and the metal bin by the side of the or table.

While there are lots of examples of rightolifers throwing mock funerals for these "unborn" children, there are probably ten times as many examples of them caught in the contradiction of not really recognizing a fetuses human existence that are far better hypotheticals, hell, downright realities for us to ask the likes of Wilkow and his ilk. Funny how the governor of South Dakota gave nary a thought to laws that would treat miscarriages lost in a hygienic pad or down the toilet as desecration of a corpse. But that gives us a good start on calling these yahoos out on their supposed respect for the "unborn."

Perhaps we can start with their opinion on child support. Shouldn't it begin when their mistress calls to say she is pregnant? We can start there and by the time we get to probate law and the Rule against Perpetuities we can have our way with the likes of Wilkow and his unbornhypotheticaly-hypocritical ilk. Maybe then we can finally reduce this argument down to the issue properly addressed by the Warren Court: abortion is not an issue of "unborn" children, but the right of a woman not to be reduced to a mere vessel for carrying another's offspring. Pregnancy without choice is slavery. That is what the Supremes acknowledged in 1974. Let's see if Roberts and Alito get the idea.

Montcj