Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


HelpMyBabyLive.com- There are no words
June 28, 2007 8:55 AM   Subscribe

HelpMyBabyLive.com It comes down to this. If we can't raise the $50,000 in the next 3 months, we'll have to choose abortion. And you thought Save Karyn was bad. Via
posted by ThePinkSuperhero (176 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
Someone please prove to me that this is fake. Thank you.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:55 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


i should have thought of this.
posted by Stynxno at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2007


Abort away.
posted by OmieWise at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


Helllllllll no.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


Awesome.
posted by dame at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2007


(re: Stynxno)
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Think this will work if you already had the baby? Shouldn't it be called "HelpMyFetusLive.com"?
posted by twjordan at 8:58 AM on June 28, 2007


This will abort well.
posted by wfrgms at 8:58 AM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


Someone on Gawker makes the point:

I cannot be the only person who thinks this is brilliant. Pro-lifers are all about "have a baby" but offer nothing in regards to what someone should do once they don't murder their baby. Where are all the pro-life adoptive and foster parents? I think this is hysterical and dead-on. Pro-lifers needs to put their money where their mouth is!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:59 AM on June 28, 2007 [10 favorites]


Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this dog! Genius!
posted by Optamystic at 8:59 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


If you don't give us money, we'll abort this baby.
posted by Nelson at 9:00 AM on June 28, 2007


ExtortionFilter


If I don't raise 100,000 in the next 3 months I will be forced to commit various acts of untold horror upon the world... please, stop me.
posted by edgeways at 9:00 AM on June 28, 2007


IckIckIckIckIckIck.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:01 AM on June 28, 2007


Dangit, Optamystic, shouldn't have spent the time finding the link :-)

My favourite part of this is how they need to have money for a college fund if they aren't going to kill their precious baby. Because, you know, kids who don't have a college fund don't deserve to live.
posted by Nelson at 9:01 AM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


We're both from pretty good stock, well educated and intelligent.

Didn't the tuberculosis guy say something similar?
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:02 AM on June 28, 2007


"We also don't want to be subconsciously resentful of a child that we kept when we weren't ready for it."

This doesn't really usually work out the way they fear it will. Unless my parents were just really good fakers.
posted by hermitosis at 9:02 AM on June 28, 2007


I tried this last year on those dang pro-lifers with
www.givemehalfapackofrollosorimgoingtojerkoffsixtimestoday.com,
I didn't see rollo one, buncha stiffs I tell ya.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:03 AM on June 28, 2007 [12 favorites]


The irony is that it actually costs a bit of money to even have an abortion. So if they don't get their goal, they'll still actually be able to have the abortion.

Anyway $50k isn't enough to cover the expenses of a child from age 0-18. Maybe if they invest in a high-yield fund or something. I dunno.

There is also adoption and so on. Oh, and when you try to donate you get this
This recipient is currently unable to receive money
posted by delmoi at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2007


I'd buy those each and every one of those low self-esteem cases from a few weeks back a brand new set of factory fresh plastic tits long before I gave these people a dime. A quick and dirty cost/benefit analysis says the fetus takes one for the team.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


It's not like $50k is going to get them very far, particularly if their priorities include buying a car with some of the money. (Pretending, sigh, that they're not con artists for a disingenuous moment, of course.)
posted by aught at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2007


They should register helpmybabiedie.com to raise money for the abortion in case helpmybabielive.com doesn't raise enough money to stop the abortion.
posted by gurple at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2007


This recipient is currently unable to receive money

Hmmm, wonder if Paypal shut them down. I can't imagine any vendor wantng to touch something like that with a 10-foot pole; too much controversy.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:08 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


How much to buy the baby?

Sell them to me.

Sell me your children.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:09 AM on June 28, 2007 [31 favorites]


At least they can put up a nice looking website that doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out.
posted by spec80 at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2007


Help yourself, ya losers.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2007


This. is. brilliant. I refuse to believe that it could possibly be real, it is simply too well engineered to get a fuckton of money out of the pro-lifers to be fake. The problem on their end is I sincerely hope their legal (and anonymous) end of things is AIR fuckin TIGHT, because you know this will be on fox news in 3 months if they either a)raise enough and don't have any babies b)don't rasie enough and keep the money. That is, if someone finds out. My favorite bit:

What happens to the money if you end up aborting? - If we have an abortion, we will donate 100% of the money we receive to a national, recognized, legit charity dedicated to helping people in our situation out. Probably a pro-life group.

Oh man, how can the pro-lifers lose! even if the baby gets aborted the money goes to a pro-life group! I mean come ON, that's like chess right there.
posted by shmegegge at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


I cannot be the only person who thinks this is brilliant. Pro-lifers are all about "have a baby" but offer nothing in regards to what someone should do once they don't murder their baby. Where are all the pro-life adoptive and foster parents? I think this is hysterical and dead-on. Pro-lifers needs to put their money where their mouth is!

That's a really really really dumb argument. Anyone who implies that "the pro-lifers" don't do anything once someone has decided to keep their baby, has obviously just made up this opinion in their heads without actually looking into it.
posted by The Deej at 9:15 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


Farktastic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:15 AM on June 28, 2007


Personally I think anybody who'd be tempted to put up such a site should have had the abortion already. But then I think 9/10 of the world's kids should not be born (and yes I mean 9/10 of everybody's kids, across the board). There are too many people already.

Failing that, TPS's Gawker someone had it right.

And XQUZYPHYR, are you hungry?
posted by davy at 9:15 AM on June 28, 2007


I'm reminded of when Jimmy Swaggart said he needed to raise (pinky to lip) $3 million or god would "call him home." 1987, was it?

IIRC, he was about halfway there right up until the last minute, and then some soft-touch millionaire ponied up the rest.
posted by adamrice at 9:15 AM on June 28, 2007


My old Plan B, "Start a cult" has been supplanted by this awesome new Plan B, "Run internet scams". Brilliant. FWIW, I will give them fifty bucks to abort the kid if they are calling it Dylan.
posted by Mister_A at 9:16 AM on June 28, 2007


How much would I have to pay them to abort the child? Let's start a bidding war!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:17 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


Maybe I should start a website. How about paymetogooffline.com? Or helpmekillmyself.org? Or maybe helppayforasexchange.tv?
posted by davy at 9:17 AM on June 28, 2007


What happens to the money if you end up aborting? - If we have an abortion, we will donate 100% of the money we receive to a national, recognized, legit charity dedicated to helping people in our situation out. Probably a pro-life group.

So if they end up aborting, they'll likely donate the money to an organization dedicated to keeping others from having the same option?
posted by JaredSeth at 9:18 AM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


Here's what I'd really like to see happen:

Someone to write to these guys saying "I represent an individual of independent wealth who wishes to remain anonymous, and who feels sympathetic to your plight. He would like to offer you the full $50,000 (with the possibility of further reimbursement if you'll take it) with the understanding that both of you will meet with him and his attorneys to sign a contract saying that you will submit to a pregnancy test before the money is handed over, that should you in fact be pregnant you will bring the baby to term and that if you do not you will return 100% of the money to him. Additionally, there will be stipulations in the contract binding all parties involved from ever discussing the nature of the contract or its participants to anyone else." or something like that, but professional and well written. Here's what I imagine the response would be.

"Your offer is very generous, but we'd like to remain anonymous and so we're only taking donations through the paypal link on the left side of our page.

sincerely,

wouldn'tyouliketonknow"
posted by shmegegge at 9:19 AM on June 28, 2007


Profoundly stupid
posted by Burhanistan at 9:20 AM on June 28, 2007


This seems to me like one of the smartest scams I've seen in awhile. They tell you everything's anonymous, that they're just two people taking your money and not an organization of any sort.

And plus, I might just be cynical, but who's to say they didn't just slap up the number $12,500 under "Current Donations" to make people think, "well, if everybody else has already given so much, it must be legitimate!"

Ick.
posted by Zephyrial at 9:21 AM on June 28, 2007


This has got to be a fake.

However, if it's not, I've got a surplus of indignation and fury that friends of mine — incredibly nice, wonderful people who would make great parents — have been trying for five years to get pregnant, and fuckwits like these two accidentally get knocked up.

There ain't no justice in the world, etc.
posted by papercake at 9:22 AM on June 28, 2007


So, if there's a miscarriage, do I get my money back? And what if the kid's born with no legs? I'll want at least a partial refund.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:27 AM on June 28, 2007


Out of curiosity, I clicked the "Donate" button. "This recipient is currently unable to receive money."
posted by davebush at 9:28 AM on June 28, 2007


Screw donations. They should change the site to ShouldMyBabyLive.com and hold a poll, like Eddie Murphy did with that lobster on SNL.
posted by brundlefly at 9:29 AM on June 28, 2007


"There's a sucker born aborted every minute!"
posted by ericb at 9:29 AM on June 28, 2007


Mad magazine must've shut this down.
posted by Mister_A at 9:29 AM on June 28, 2007


Does it really need to go this far? How about:

Send me $50,000 or I'll get my wife pregnant and then threaten to abort.
posted by itchylick at 9:31 AM on June 28, 2007


I'm reminded of when Jimmy Swaggart said he needed to raise (pinky to lip) $3 million or god would "call him home."

That was Oral Roberts.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:33 AM on June 28, 2007


I want to find out who these people are. Unfortunately, private investigators and bribes to ISPs cost money. So if I can just get $20k, I'm pretty sure I can figure out who they are and expose them. Paypal address is the email in profile. Thanks!
posted by klangklangston at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


mmmm, more crazy people doing crazy stuff while people sit around and type out their outrage.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


You are _giving_ us money, with no expectation of getting anything in return, ever. We are not obligated to do, or refrain from, anything as a result of your or anyone else's donation.

HelpMyBabyLiveOrNotIfIChangeMyMindAndYouCan'tStopMe.com
posted by 23skidoo at 9:38 AM on June 28, 2007


Our baby is not going to grow up and rob you

No, it'll just grow up and invent some new and even more horrible form of internet guilt-extortion. We can't run that risk. I vote abort.
posted by contraption at 9:38 AM on June 28, 2007


What a brilliantly scummy idea. $12 500, wow.

In a related story, I have about 20 million sperm per milliliter of semen in my body right now. All I'm asking is a dollar per swimmer, or I'm tabbing over to the Alien Pron FPP and the resulting genocide will be on your heads.

Mailorders or Paypal accepted! Act now or the gametes get it!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:39 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: People typing their outrage at crazy people doing crazy stuff.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:39 AM on June 28, 2007


Wow, 50k a year would put me solidly in the middle class.

I wonder what I should fill in on my tax returns as my job title, though. "Prospective Abortionist", "Fleetingly Gravid", or maybe "Temporary Parent"?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:40 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


Gimme fifty bucks or I'll eat a kitten!
posted by Mister_A at 9:41 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the correction SCDB. I have a hard time telling them apart. [NOT TELEVANGELISTIST]
posted by adamrice at 9:41 AM on June 28, 2007


maybe helppayforasexchange.tv?

You're moving to Tuvalo?

Ohhhhhh.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:41 AM on June 28, 2007


It puts the money in the basket or the zygote gets the suction hose again.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:42 AM on June 28, 2007 [10 favorites]


Don't breed them if you can't raise them.

They claim they used birth control? What...rhythm? Coitus interruptus? If it was a case of the condom breaking, why the fuck didn't they get the morning after pill?
posted by brujita at 9:42 AM on June 28, 2007


High comedy. That's what that site is.

We also don't want to be subconsciously resentful of a child that we kept when we weren't ready for it. If we're not ready to raise it, we're not going to bring a baby into the world.

EVERYONE who has had a kid:
- Has resented the resources (time, money, etc.) the kid makes demands on.
- Even if they thought were ready to have a kid, they weren't. It's on-the-job training.
- And if they weren't "ready to raise it," they shouldn't have been fooling around to begin with.

I would have liked an extra $50k when we had our first kid too. The world just doesn't work that way. And the arguments in that site are just so totally weak that it's humorous!

Yet, they'll probably suck a few folks into it. More power to 'em, I guess.
posted by Doohickie at 9:44 AM on June 28, 2007


I'm reminded of when Jimmy Swaggart said he needed to raise (pinky to lip) $3 million or god would "call him home." 1987, was it?

It was Oral Roberts. Swaggart was an entirely different scumbag.
posted by The Deej at 9:46 AM on June 28, 2007


I would have liked an extra $50k when we had our first kid too. The world just doesn't work that way.

Sure it does, but only for the first person wily enough to devise a way to guilt people into giving up $50,000.
posted by 23skidoo at 9:47 AM on June 28, 2007


Found this posting:
"In case you didn't read yesterday's thread, there is a website out there that is claiming they will abort a baby if they do not recieve $50,000.

From Snopes:
The source code for the page reveals an e-mail address of schiros+paypal@invisihosting.com hooked to the PayPal account. Googling on 'schiros' and 'invisihosting' links the name 'Matthew Schiros' to the e-mail address 'schiros@invisihosting.com' and that blog.
Here's the link between the invisihosting email address to a "Matthew Schiros"; it's from some statistics I don't know much about: https://secure.grepular.com/torstatus/router_detail.php.

Here's a right-wing blog run by a "Matthew Schiros": http://www.radiofreeroider.com

Here's an anti-abortion post by the 'Matthew Schiros' of that blog (curiously, I found this link on another right-wing blog when I used Google to search for references to helpmybabylive.com): http://www.radiofreeroider.com/2006/03/greatest-quote-e."
posted by ericb at 9:48 AM on June 28, 2007 [18 favorites]


Tangentially related to the TV show in the Netherlands where contestants in need of a liver donor competed for the liver. In the final show the producers came clear about the whole thing being a publicity stunt to raise awareness of the scarcity of organ donors. As some others have remarked, maybe this is a similar scheme.
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 9:49 AM on June 28, 2007


UN Owen strikes again!
posted by drezdn at 9:50 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


My e-mail:

Assuming this isn't a scam (and that's a huge assumption):

1. Get rid of your computer
2. Stop paying the monthly internet fees, including what you are spending for this domain name and hosting.
3. Get your girlfriend health insurance. If you have to get married to do this, get married. Why not? You are fine with asking complete strangers for money, this should not be such a leap for you two.

That should help raise money and cover the medical situation. If not, give the baby up for adoption.
posted by misha at 9:50 AM on June 28, 2007


So I wonder what will happen when some of your less reasonable pro-lifers get wind of this. I mean this couple is threatening to commit murder. Surely someone must stop them...
posted by BeReasonable at 9:50 AM on June 28, 2007


http://www.radiofreeroider.com/2006/03/greatest-quote-e"

That last hyperlink is borked and should be The Greatest Quote Ever From a Baby Killer.
posted by ericb at 9:50 AM on June 28, 2007


brujita: Why spend money on a pill when you can exploit your baby-to-be and the guilt of strangers for profit?
posted by JDHarper at 9:50 AM on June 28, 2007


"[. . .] really dumb argument. Anyone who implies that "the pro-lifers" don't do anything once someone has decided to keep their baby, has obviously just made up this opinion in their heads without actually looking into it."

Oh, ok. Thanks for filling me in The Deej. I disagree, I say anyone who implies that non-pro-lifers have incorrect opinions has just made up their opinion in their heads without ever looking into it.

So I'm guessing paypal still shuts down "charity" accounts, accounts which accept payment but do not provide anything in return as in The Somethingawful Paypal Fiasco. I imagine this is why it says they aren't accepting donations now.

Interesting thought though, there's no good reason to believe they've collected any money at all, putting "donations collected so far" is just a super low-rent way to use a technique I've known panhandlers to use: seeding their change jar with a little of their own cash to create the illusion that others have already given them money.

I wonder which illusion is more powerful to people, the traditional panhandler scenario where the sum of purported donations is far lower and unknown or the e-panhandler scenario where the dollar amount is high (almost always over $1k by the time the site reaches common news sites) and is absolutely known.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 9:51 AM on June 28, 2007


Ah ha, ericb gets to the bottom of things!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:54 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


They claim they used birth control? What...rhythm? Coitus interruptus? If it was a case of the condom breaking, why the fuck didn't they get the morning after pill?

on a completely side note to the ridiculousness of the website, it is certainly possible to get pregnant while using birth control. Yes, things like the pill and the ring and the patch are 99% effective--but that's still 99%, and I know people who've gotten pregnant while using some of those methods. Birth control is a lot of things, but it's not foolproof and doesn't have a 100% success rate.
posted by plaingurl at 9:56 AM on June 28, 2007 [3 favorites]


Could anyone here, theoretically of course, write a program that would keep bumping this guy offline or something?
posted by misha at 9:59 AM on June 28, 2007


Where does it explain why they'd HAVE to abort and COULDN'T POSSIBLY choose to give up the kid for adoption?
posted by desjardins at 9:59 AM on June 28, 2007


"daddy, where did i come from?"

"um ... the stork brought you"

"but daddy, what about this website?"

"um ... um ... he's a modern stork ... he used the internet and brought us 50,000 bucks, too"

"why did you need the 50,000 bucks not to kill me?"

"uh ... oh, geez ... hey, here's a hundred buck toys'r'us gift card, have mommy take you down there and buy whatever you want"

"YAY!!"

*looks after disappearing, happy kid*

"it's damn good thing i made sure we KEPT a LITTLE of that money"

"daddy?"

"yes?"

"how come you asked 50,000 dollars for aaron and didn't ask nothing for me?"
posted by pyramid termite at 10:01 AM on June 28, 2007 [3 favorites]


nvm, I can't read today. From the front page:

While we'd like to think that adoption is a viable option for us, my girlfriend doesn't believe that she'd be able to give up a child after giving birth to it

a345a;ow3ujafna546a4er5du7w45sderc erhtyre5yu7t8oy8p

I let my cat type instead of saying what I was gonna say.
posted by desjardins at 10:02 AM on June 28, 2007


Ok, so if it's a pro-life fake, what's the point? To make people who want abortions seem cruel and heartless? To me, it backfires -- I'd think that someone who did this kind of thing seriously should definitely have an abortion.
posted by footnote at 10:04 AM on June 28, 2007


I do not think there is a girlfriend, I do not think there is a baby, and I don't even think there is a begging scam going on here. I think this guy is trying to create an object lesson that anybody who is pro-choice is shrill, foulmouthed, hateful, possibly racist, and uncompassionate - reference his long list of 'hate' emails. In fact, the only two links on the entire page are the [defunct] donation button and the one where you can read all of his hate mail.

I don't believe he has collected a single penny, nor does he intend to. He's just trying to paint his opposition with one very sticky brush.
posted by contessa at 10:08 AM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


shmegege said:
"Oh man, how can the pro-lifers lose! even if the baby gets aborted the money goes to a pro-life group! I mean come ON, that's like chess right there."

ericb provided:
"[...] The source code for the page reveals an e-mail address of schiros+paypal@invisihosting.com hooked to the PayPal account. [...]
[...] a right-wing blog run by a "Matthew Schiros" [...]
[...] an anti-abortion post by the 'Matthew Schiros' of that blog [...]
"

I'm fairly certain there is no coincidence here.

I would have been more excited if this had been done as a poke at those pro-lifers who seem to believe all children magically receive a wonderful life once they pop out. Kind of a "put your money where your mouth is" type of thing.

Ah, well. Social experiment or scam, it at least gets people thinking, I guess.
posted by batmonkey at 10:10 AM on June 28, 2007


Birth control is a lot of things.... I know, I know, but I'm a bit annoyed they didn't specify which method they used. My first comment still stands.
posted by brujita at 10:11 AM on June 28, 2007


I'm really, really, really hoping it is a hoax, but I'm sure it's not. Oh god when will the stupidity stop?
posted by banannafish at 10:14 AM on June 28, 2007


I would like to pay them $50,000 to abort themselves.
posted by empath at 10:14 AM on June 28, 2007


JDHarper, if one's guilty of trying to deprive us of legal abortion one should pay for that.
posted by davy at 10:18 AM on June 28, 2007


You just know the Chinese are going to come out with cheaper-to-save fetuses and we will lose our competitive advantage.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:19 AM on June 28, 2007 [3 favorites]


I'm sure this isn't a hoax. This is either some random single person or a couple that isn't pregnant looking to make some money, or it is a person/couple that has already decided either to abort or to keep the money.

This is not a situation where the people are predicating their decision to keep or abort on the money.

And by the way, that doesn't make for a clever social experiment or a political statement. It's fraud.

I hope these dumbasses don't forget to report the money as income on their taxes.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:23 AM on June 28, 2007


If I don't raise 100,000 in the next 3 months I will be forced to commit various acts of untold horror upon the world... please, stop me.

I can top that. If I don't raise $120 billion in the next 3 months, I will force our troops to remain in Iraq to languish at the mercy of our enemies.

And it will be your fault.

Please, stop me.
posted by namespan at 10:23 AM on June 28, 2007 [3 favorites]


Pro-lifers needs to put their money where their mouth is!

What if, like, women didn't get pregnant and/or stayed away from sleazy semen-depositing men until they have the resources to support children.
posted by four panels at 10:25 AM on June 28, 2007


helpmybabydie.com is still not registered. just sayin.
posted by Nelson at 10:26 AM on June 28, 2007


when I did that Screenhead site for Gawker I got four or five knock-offs of that "pay us or we'll eat this rabbit" Savetoby.com site looking for attention a week. I would tell them all the same thing: "do it with a kid, then maybe I'll give a crap."
Turns out I was wrong.
posted by dong_resin at 10:29 AM on June 28, 2007


I have a way to beat these guys at their own game. someone set up a site called helpmybabylivefirst.com and ask for $25,00, saying you need the money more than this site, and your donation will have a greater likelihood of saving a life.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:29 AM on June 28, 2007


Hey four panels, on the model of "Lesbian Until Graduation," a new category: Lesbian Until I Win The Lottery.

At least you admit men are half the problem in unplanned pregnancy.
posted by davy at 10:33 AM on June 28, 2007


So how do long do we think the comments about helpmybablive.com will stay posted on Matthew Schiros' blog? I'm going to guess they'll be deleted faster than the ones about zionist conspiracies.
posted by shmegegge at 10:35 AM on June 28, 2007


This. is. brilliant.

No. it. isn't.

HelpMyProbablyHomosexualBabyLive.com? That would be brilliant. Because that extra little twist of awkwardness? Comedy gold.
posted by dw at 10:36 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


But I will say this, I really really wasn't expecting this site to have been run by a pro-lifer. I very honestly didn't think this was going to be a genuine mercenary threat to abort a child unless a ransom is paid. Kudos to Matthew Schiros for showing me that life truly is full of surprises. This post has become my daily validation. "People like Matthew Schiros exist. People like Matthew Schiros exist."
posted by shmegegge at 10:39 AM on June 28, 2007


Gawker Update, with a link to an article about Schiros' previous website.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:41 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


posted by four panels What if, like, women didn't get pregnant and/or stayed away from sleazy semen-depositing men until they have the resources to support children.

I like the ambiguity of "they" in that sentence. Who should have the resources--women, or sleazy, semen-depositing men?
posted by fandango_matt at 10:43 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rather unsurprisingly, their PayPal account has been taken offline. This is because their "business" almost certainly contravenes the PayPal rules.

I think they'll have trouble finding any online money company willing to take their business. The only way they'll be able to get cash is to actually have people send them cash to a PO Box account (and even then I would not like to be them opening the letters/packages they get sent).
posted by humblepigeon at 10:45 AM on June 28, 2007


posted by dw HelpMyProbablyHomosexualBabyLive.com? That would be brilliant. Because that extra little twist of awkwardness? Comedy gold.

Save My Fabulous Baby.com
posted by fandango_matt at 10:47 AM on June 28, 2007


It was a scam, what do you know.

I wonder how Matt's going to deal with the FBI...
posted by Pastabagel at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2007


From the Gawker link:
"...Matthew Schiros...has gotten up to mischief on the internet before."
posted by ericb at 10:49 AM on June 28, 2007


Yeah right,
they're just a couple of gypsies who're computer savvy. If they can't go to the church they go to the internet.
posted by Viomeda at 10:52 AM on June 28, 2007


And why exactly are we spreading this douchebag meme?
posted by brassafrax at 10:52 AM on June 28, 2007


This is not real.

I'm surprised so many people at mefi are this gullible. I thought we had our cynicism and skepticism honed to a fine point.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:53 AM on June 28, 2007


Err - what TPS said!
posted by ericb at 10:54 AM on June 28, 2007


I'm with Pastabagel. These people can't be for real... can they? What kind of monsters could choose, in the end, to discard something that's already so real to them as a human being that they're truly motivated to try to raise $50,000 from strangers?

It'd make far more sense if they either just got the abortion, or if they were willing to give up the child for adoption on failure. The other options just look absurd.

Except, maybe....child is real to them only in the sense that, say, the possibility of purchasing an iPhone is real to me. As a potential part of their lives, not as an individual valuable in its own right. That's not so absurd, but it's certainly not inspiring.

On preview: so it's confirmed this is a fraud?
posted by weston at 10:55 AM on June 28, 2007


I'm not sure how fraud is confirmed. I mean, he's done fucked up shit before, but the only thing I can imagine is that the paypal address never worked, the donation figure was fake (both possible) and he put the website up just so that he could collect emails from people about what they'd think if the website WERE real. (possible, given his history, but hardly confirmed.)
posted by shmegegge at 10:58 AM on June 28, 2007


This is not real. I'm surprised so many people at mefi are this gullible.

IYes. And 'm surprised people aren't reading the full thread and realizing that we exposed it as a fake/hoax over an hour ago!

[I'm with Pastabagel. These people can't be for real... can they?]
posted by ericb at 10:58 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


yes weston
posted by Viomeda at 11:00 AM on June 28, 2007


Hey, I remember Matt! Met him when he was a debater in HS. He was extremely good at it, though it's worth pointing out that policy debate warps fragile little minds (and egos). A friend of mine dated him for a while in college (I think, might be confused with another like him, she had a top-debater-fetish) and alleges that he's kind of a jerk. OTOH amiblackornot was a fantastic social experiment.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 11:01 AM on June 28, 2007


Looks like this fraud was exposed several days ago.
posted by desjardins at 11:02 AM on June 28, 2007


Here's pretty solid proof that this has got to be a joke, as several of us have already pointed out. The last "term" of the "terms and conditions":

You agree to forfeit $25,000 per violation of these terms.
posted by jeremy b at 11:02 AM on June 28, 2007


Save My Fabulous Baby.com

fandango_matt FTW.
posted by dw at 11:03 AM on June 28, 2007


"We also don't want to be subconsciously resentful of a child that we kept when we weren't ready for it."

if you're asking the internet for money, you aren't ready for it.
posted by nihlton at 11:03 AM on June 28, 2007


See now, if I was this guy, my pregnant wife/girlfriend and I would just go down to the local Operation Rescue headquarters, camp out there with a bunch of graphic abortion photos,scream at their employees/volunteers, and attempt to block them from entering the building unless they gave us money to prevent us from having an abortion. Who needs paypal?
posted by LionIndex at 11:04 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Pics, or the abortion didn't happen!
posted by symbioid at 11:04 AM on June 28, 2007


This is the kind of shit that I'd love to see on Cops. Or... possibly South Park.
posted by mr_book at 11:06 AM on June 28, 2007


I think we should feel sorry for the guy. His grandma was the only one to comment on his blog post about abortion (and she wasn't even on topic).
posted by desjardins at 11:06 AM on June 28, 2007


...I think this guy is trying to create an object lesson that anybody who is pro-choice is shrill, foulmouthed, hateful, possibly racist, and uncompassionate - reference his long list of 'hate' emails. ...
posted by contessa at 1:08 PM on June 28


I think contessa is right.
posted by yeti at 11:18 AM on June 28, 2007


four panels:
"What if, like, women didn't get pregnant and/or stayed away from sleazy semen-depositing men until they have the resources to support children."

Ah, if only life in practice were as simple as it is in the minds of those who see only black & white.

It's not like there are such things as reversals of fortune, or unexpectedly imploding relationships, or even sudden realisation that one is not nearly as ready as one had originally thought. Or, rather, that's exactly the type of things tend to put people in the uncomfortable position of making the abortion decision.

It's not for me, personally, but I do think it's a necessary option, given the limits of our world's resources and the reality of the lives of children born to those who aren't prepared to care for them.

And adoption doesn't provide the instant panacea that most folks seem to think it - not all children are considered "adoptable" and not all adopted kids end up with fabulous new parents who will make their every dream come true whilst also raising them to be responsible citizens.

Further, not all communities can bear the increased demand on resources caused by profligate reproduction, regardless who ends up being in charge of the new being.

Anyway. It's a complex issue that will never be able to be discussed logically as long as people only look at it from the extreme ends of the spectrum. It's a grey area from both the social and planetary-impact perspectives, and those two perspectives are only going to continue growing in importance.
posted by batmonkey at 11:18 AM on June 28, 2007


Zabasearch has two entries for Matt Schiros in Austin, one of which matches the address in desjardins' link. Both include phone numbers.
posted by box at 11:25 AM on June 28, 2007


as long as people only look at it from the extreme ends of the spectrum.

What I'm saying is women get pregnant when men ejaculate inside them.

There are accidents, yes, messed up relationships, yes, but generally speaking a lot of this could be avoided with a modicum of foresight.

But, oh God, Paris is on Larry King, just hurry baby, just hurry up
posted by four panels at 11:35 AM on June 28, 2007


four panels - over half of all babies born in the U.S. are unplanned. Not pregnancies, but actual births. I think your argument is sound, but it's pretty unrealistic. Babies goin' be born. Just the way it is.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:52 AM on June 28, 2007


And when life throws you babies, you might as well make babyade.
posted by Nelson at 11:58 AM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


I liked this better when it was a Laura Dern movie. Alicia Witt rules.
posted by commander_cool at 12:00 PM on June 28, 2007


Is this worthy of Lifetime?
posted by Viomeda at 12:04 PM on June 28, 2007


I knew this sounded familiar...
posted by GuyZero at 12:09 PM on June 28, 2007


My favorite was the last item in the Terms and Conditions: "You agree to forfeit $25,000 per violation of these terms." Covering all the bases, that sly fox.
posted by Miss Bitchy Pants at 12:21 PM on June 28, 2007


Corn oil...soybean oil...baby oil. You figure it out.
posted by briank at 12:31 PM on June 28, 2007


Can I donate with express instruction that my money only be used for an abortion?
posted by sneakin at 12:42 PM on June 28, 2007


Oh, ok. Thanks for filling me in The Deej. I disagree, I say anyone who implies that non-pro-lifers have incorrect opinions has just made up their opinion in their heads without ever looking into it.

I have no clue what you are trying to say. This is not about "opinion." Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, the fact is: there is an abundance of help from "the pro-lifers" if you want to keep your baby, or adopt your baby, or put your baby in foster care. "The pro-lifers" DO put their money where their mouth is, and to suggest they don't is just ignoring the facts. Whether you agree or disagree with abortion is an entirely different matter. It just makes those who are against pro-lifers look foolish when they assume that pro-lifers don't care about babies after they are born. It's really really really dumb.

If someone aborts their baby because they don't want to give birth, or don't want to give it up for adoption, that's their right under the law. But if they say it's because no one else WANTS to adopt their baby, they are lying to themselves. The world is full of people EAGER to adopt, WAITING to adopt, and LONGING to adopt. Married couples, unmarried couples, single people, people with already-large families. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Years ago, the repulsive Jerry Falwell was on Nightline, debating abortion with (whomever... some pro-choice representative.) The pro-choice lady immediately launched into the whole "ok then what are we going to do with these unwanted babies after they are born. Are YOU going to take care of them?" Falwell immediately replied "Yes!" and then listed the many foster and adoption agencies sponsored by his organization and other pro-life organizations, effectively shutting down that argument while the pro-choice rep sat with egg on her face.

If there is a pro-choice argument to be made, don't make it about pro-lifers not doing enough for babies, or not putting their money where there mouth is. The argument comes across as "If no one can afford these babies, let's kill them." I'm sure that's not the argument pro-choice folks want to make. At least I hope not.
posted by The Deej at 12:47 PM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


my first-born son, klangklangston, came along before the Internets were public. We had no blogs, no wordpress, so I had to try to raise my $50,000 using chain letters. Didn't work. We tried making videos along the lines of the Catholic Charities commercials featuring Sally Struthers. But on my budget, all I could get was Scatman Strothers--who wasn't half bad, but unconvincing. No one believed that the money would actually go to the child.

So, we raised klang on sorghum and old pipe cleaners. We think he turned out well--and his birthday is this Saturday. His wish list includes olive loaf and a pony.
posted by beelzbubba at 12:47 PM on June 28, 2007


MetaFilter: odds are the fetus takes one for the team
posted by mwhybark at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2007


beelzbubba,
That was YOUR Scatman Strothers ad I saw years ago? See, that's the problem, I thought it was someone trying to pass as Scatman Crothers, and since that seemed dubious, I thought the whole thing was a scam.

I am so sorry I didn't donate. I guess I should have been more open. Just another example of a pro-lifer not putting his money where is mouth is. I am so ashamed.

Is klang too old for me to adopt, though?
posted by The Deej at 12:51 PM on June 28, 2007


"Hey four panels, on the model of "Lesbian Until Graduation," a new category: Lesbian Until I Win The Lottery."

Oooh, gimme $50k or I'll totally have a gay sex orgy!

"What kind of monsters could choose, in the end, to discard something that's already so real to them as a human being that they're truly motivated to try to raise $50,000 from strangers?"

Eh. If I could get that much money for it, I'd pretend my farts were alive and save 'em in a jar.
posted by klangklangston at 12:53 PM on June 28, 2007


I guarantee you my parents had nowhere near $50,000 when I was born, and I turned out just f6tsys5yse456vihbw
posted by desjardins at 12:54 PM on June 28, 2007


The world is full of people EAGER to adopt, WAITING to adopt, and LONGING to adopt.
Keep in mind, though, that the vast majority of those people only want to adopt a baby of the right gender, the right age, and the right ethnic/economic background. It's like saying that the market for real estate is booming, because lots of people want to live in downtown Manhattan.
posted by verb at 12:56 PM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


This is genius.
I am sure it is a pro-choicer prank, but I so want it to be true. That would be awesome if there really were people like this.
posted by Methylviolet at 1:03 PM on June 28, 2007


the fact is: there is an abundance of help from "the pro-lifers" if you want to keep your baby,

The Deej: Surely you have noticed the fact that social conservatism tends to run hand-in-hand with fiscal conservatism? And that fiscal conservatives tend to be anti-welfare? No matter how many free ultrasounds and baby basinettes the pro-lifers give to expectant mothers, that simply doesn't amount to an "abundance" of help. When I see the pro-life movement embracing cradle-to-grave social welfare, then I'll agree with you.
posted by footnote at 1:06 PM on June 28, 2007 [3 favorites]


So is anyone writing odds on this yet?

Because the only thing more depraved than extorting money out of people via abortion, is betting on it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:09 PM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the pro-lifers are totally willing to help poor women who can't afford to have babies . . . unless they want to keep their babies. Then they're welfare queens.

Or, what footnote said.
posted by Mavri at 1:56 PM on June 28, 2007


The Deej: There's plenty of adoption funding. I missed the part where there was birth funding, however.

Adoption is used as a strong argument by pro-life proponents, but it's weak when you look at the costs of adoption compared to the costs of birth. I'm going to be a ruthless bastard for a few minutes and ignore the human impact - let's just look at the numbers.

The average cost of domestic adoption from foster care and state agencies is about $2,500. (Private adoption costs can be up to $40,000, in part because of travel requirements, birthmother requests, and so on.) However, le'ts stick with domestic adoption from foster care as an example, because that's the one harped upon most - these are the kids considered a "tax burden." Adoptions get a tax break - up to $10,000 for a given year - and, if you adopt a special needs child, you qualify for state & federal aid (because it's still cheaper to pay you a fraction of the cost of taking care of the child as a ward of the state.) In other words, just on the tax break alone, adoption can be free or even profitable.

Yet, even with these incentives, domestic adoption numbers have held steady since at least 2000 (at somewhere around 50K per year) according to HHS figures. But, there are at least twice that many kids in the HHS system at any given time waiting to be adopted, and only 23% of the kids waiting to be adopted were less than a year old.

In short, few folks seem compelled to adopt, despite the readily available adoption funding and availability of infants.

Birth funding, on the other hand, is practically non-existent. You also get a tax break for actually having a child - up to $1,000, plus you can add him as a dependent if you have him or her in the same year - but there isn't a single tax break for the nine months of prenatal costs associated with pregnancy. You may also get an earned income credit (EIC), but the qualifications are challenging, and even adding the EIC tax benefit in, you still get a far smaller tax break than that provided for adoption. In fact, the increasing trend (predictably, among the wealthy) is to induce birth before December 28, to ensure that both the birth tax break and the dependent tax break apply on the same year the prenatal expenses are incurred.

Tax breaks benefit those who pay enough taxes to offset the costs of either adoption or birth. Guess who makes out on that tax break?

Let's move to the actual birth costs. If everything goes right, and you can get a "drive-through" birth, you're still looking at up to $8,000 to $10,000 in hospital costs alone. Or more, for that matter, as births are typically responsible for up to 10% of a hospital's revenue and uncomplicated C-sections are on the rise because they generate roughly double the revenue of an uncomplicated vaginal birth while allowing the hospital to better control the time required to actually give birth - in short, C-sections provide a more "assembly line"-like predictability to the profit margin associated with birth.

Have complications, though, and the cost skyrockets - a baby born at 27 weeks costs 30 to 40 times as much to care for during the newborn period as a healthy child delivered at term who goes home after two days.

According to a 2001 study by Johns Hopkins University, low-income parents have nearly double the chance of birth risk when compared with high-income parents. So, guess who's more likely to be stuck with an expensive birth bill?

Here's the sad part - abortion is cheaper than both options. At 10 weeks, it's less than $500. There's no tax break, but, then again, at that price, it's an obvious choice for someone who doesn't have the money to carry a kid to birth and hope that someone will adopt him or her. The risk of complication for future pregnancies increases with abortion, as well, but if you've got to make a choice between paying half a grand now to prevent paying ten grand (or more) later, it's a risk many are willing to take.

The human impact is worse - remember, only 23% of the kids in state care waiting for adoption are a year old or less. The rest of them? Yeah, they tend to hang around in the system. I'm familiar with this, as half of my family (two brothers, one sister) were in foster care until their teens. 42% of the kids waiting to be adopted have been in continuous foster care for three years or longer.

The simple fact is that adoption is never going to be the answer, because no one wants every kid that's up for grabs. Adoption means prospective parents get to pick & choose - and, let's face it, while 50% of the general population is average or less, that gets skewed towards the shallower end in the adoption pool. That's why private adoptions cost more - they're pickier.

It bugs the crap out of me when folks imply that putting up the kid for adoption is a viable response to abortion. It's simply not true, and adoption benefits the rich far more than the poor. It's like having someone else pay the depreciation costs for your new car - you get to drive it, but there's some poor schmuck covering that 20% or so of the value and getting nothing for it.
posted by FormlessOne at 2:00 PM on June 28, 2007 [22 favorites]


I am using this post to make a list of people who comment without reading the thread.
posted by Partial Law at 2:09 PM on June 28, 2007 [3 favorites]


Yes, there is plenty of pre-natal care and birth funding. In fact, anyone who wants to give up their newborn for adoption won't have to pay for the birth at all.

If someone wants to decide to abort because it's cheaper, the law allows that. But to suggest it is the only option is a lie.

Here's what's cheaper still: birth control.
posted by The Deej at 2:10 PM on June 28, 2007


Whatever happened to "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? Also known as "taking responsibility for one's actions".
posted by Cranberry at 2:10 PM on June 28, 2007


No no no Cranberry, you should be able to have someone else pay for cradle-to-grave care for you. Go back to your unenlightened cave you Neanderthal. I'll be there to join you in a bit.
posted by The Deej at 2:14 PM on June 28, 2007


Only someone who considered non-procreative sex a crime would make that analogy.
posted by Methylviolet at 2:15 PM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


I took it as just a saying.

Don't order the pizza if you can't pay the bill.

Don't write a check you can't cash.

You know... metaphor.
posted by The Deej at 2:17 PM on June 28, 2007


No no no Cranberry, you should be able to have someone else pay for cradle-to-grave care for you.

Aha, so The Deej actually doesn't believe in supporting women and children. It's really sad, because better social services is one thing that actually would truly help reduce the abortion and unwanted pregnancy rate. It's kind of confounding that you'd claim to value life so much, but not enough to actually "put your money where your mouth is." The abortion rate for poor women is four times as high as the abortion rate for richer women.
posted by footnote at 2:21 PM on June 28, 2007


Obviously a scam or hoax designed to say something about a group of people - either pro-life or pro-choice, it doesn't seem to be a very STRONG statement at all.
posted by agregoli at 2:24 PM on June 28, 2007


The Deej said:
"If someone aborts their baby because they don't want to give birth, or don't want to give it up for adoption, that's their right under the law. But if they say it's because no one else WANTS to adopt their baby, they are lying to themselves. The world is full of people EAGER to adopt, WAITING to adopt, and LONGING to adopt. Married couples, unmarried couples, single people, people with already-large families. This is a fact, not an opinion."

I have two adopted siblings. I got to visit them a lot during the processing period when they transitioned from being former-step-cousins to becoming my brother and sister. We spent much time in the institutions that most unplanned/unwanted/tragically conceived kids end up in. We sat through court case after court case waiting for our own.

Plus: I can't have kids of my own and have been researching adoption for around twenty years.

All of that together has shown me that your kind hope is, sadly, wrong. I don't want you to be wrong, but it is true: There are many babies who become never-homed young children who become mistrustful and lonely teenagers who become unsettled adults. It happens all day every day in the good ol' USofA. Babies going unadopted really happens.

Partly due to the weird pickiness that crops up for many adoptive parents, partly to the bizarrely stinky adoption laws of our nation, and when you add in an overwhelmed system torn between good intentions and lack of appropriate funding and oversight...well, you've got kids languishing in the system or bad home situations instead of being put with a loving family.

Anyway. Abortion is a sad necessity, I think. I wish we could approach it as as species instead of as individual ideologues.
posted by batmonkey at 2:27 PM on June 28, 2007


And, upon further reading:

The pill doesn't always work.

Condoms don't always work.

Even abstinence doesn't always work, if, say, some person in possession of a penis decides they'd like to assert their right to put it in anything they can hold down long enough. For example.

Even if a child is wanted and intentional and created out of informed consent, there's still the spectre of genetic issues or dangerous complications to maternal health to contend with.

Seriously, folks, it's honestly not as black and white as you'd like it to be. If it were, oh, gods, if it were, we'd live in a much more beautiful and peaceful world.

But we don't. So we have to accept hard truths and try to enact them as reasonably and compassionately as humanly possible.

I think it's incredibly telling that we can't even do *that*.
posted by batmonkey at 2:32 PM on June 28, 2007 [5 favorites]


If this ain't a dead horse
posted by Viomeda at 2:37 PM on June 28, 2007


Okay, so we know it's a hoax, but until anyone proves otherwise, I'd like to imagine that it's DebtKid - proving his work ethic and his absolute need to succeed, by "investing" in getting his girlfriend pregnant.

Alas, it's just some douche who thinks he's awesome for making this up and getting all of us to talk about it.

Also: I'm not at all shocked that Falwell wanted to indoctrinate as many kids as possible under the guise of his "charities," but it didn't really speak to the point of the argument.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:53 PM on June 28, 2007


"Even abstinence doesn't always work, if, say, some person in possession of a penis decides they'd like to assert their right to put it in anything they can hold down long enough."

See? I told my girlfriend that was a right! It's in the constitution, I'm pretty sure.
posted by klangklangston at 2:56 PM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Send me $50K or I bump off all three of my teenagers.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:09 PM on June 28, 2007


Yes, there is plenty of pre-natal care and birth funding.

Cite, please.
posted by rtha at 3:14 PM on June 28, 2007


Ok, probably a scam, yeah. But, for the sake of a lovely argument, someone tell me what would make such a situation worse than a couple in the same situation, considering abortion, who didn't do anything -- make a website, get a job, panhandle, etc. -- to make it more feasible to have a kid. C'mon, I can't be the only one who's had a bone-chilling moment, of, "hey, maybe that's why she's acting so strangely since we broke up..." Most of us have probably done the math before, and I doubt that the result was always positive. What's the actual issue here? Are we just bored with considering the couple that does nothing? Is it just that they have an actual price? "Couple desperately tries to get new jobs to keep an unexpected baby" wouldn't exactly be news. So is it just that making a website to ask for money doesn't seem like a duely-dilligent method of trying to have a baby? Still pretending that this was real, what if it worked? Why is this such a bad idea, really? Moreover, why aren't there popular, visable, and sustainable funds for this kind of thing if enough people think it is so important? Those two questions are the interesting bit to me. (Personally, I think people are just wiggin' on a fetus having an exact price. Remember - the price will come down when the market's oversaturated. And it's not like there's a shortage right now.)
posted by nímwunnan at 3:15 PM on June 28, 2007


f*** you and your baby!
posted by autodidact at 3:27 PM on June 28, 2007


Until just now I did not understand, and indeed had disdain for, the times when some homosexuals would snidely or humorously or ironically refer to heterosexuals as “breeders.”
Got it now tho.

“Pfft. Breeders.”

Yeah, that works.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:14 PM on June 28, 2007


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh God is this awful.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh God is this awful.

(repeat)
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:44 PM on June 28, 2007


Cranberry: Whatever happened to "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? Also known as "taking responsibility for one's actions".

Don't you think it's a little sick to be punishing people for having sex, by forcing them to have a child that they have to raise for the next 18 years?

Even if you use adoption as the 'solution' to that, I think it's still pretty repulsive to force a woman to give birth, just because she forgot to take her pill or used a condom that she'd kept in the glove compartment longer than she should have.

I mean -- if nine months of pregnancy, followed by pushing several pounds of flesh out through one's vagina, is the punishment for a few minutes of irresponsibility ... what do you want to do with someone who holds up a 7-Eleven? We're really going to have to start getting creative here.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:54 PM on June 28, 2007 [4 favorites]


I mean -- if nine months of pregnancy, followed by pushing several pounds of flesh out through one's vagina, is the punishment for a few minutes of irresponsibility ... what do you want to do with someone who holds up a 7-Eleven? We're really going to have to start getting creative here.

We'll make the convicts raise our children.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:11 PM on June 28, 2007 [6 favorites]


Don't you think it's a little sick to be punishing people for having sex

Yes. It is punishing women who have sex.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:58 PM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


The Deej: It was my intent to criticize the technique of your errant dismissal of whomever you were suggesting was making "a really really really dumb argument".

I intended to do this (ineffectively it seems) by demonstrating that the same methodology that you used could be used to dismiss your own claim, insofar as saying (to paraphrase) "your idea is really dumb, you're making stuff up and it's all contrary to The Facts*" actually refutes anything.

*Facts not included.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 6:05 PM on June 28, 2007


HelpMyBabyLive.No
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:27 PM on June 28, 2007


"Even abstinence doesn't always work, if, say, some person in possession of a penis decides they'd like to assert their right to put it in anything they can hold down long enough."

See? I told my girlfriend that was a right! It's in the constitution, I'm pretty sure.
posted by klangklangston at 2:56 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]


I knew I should have put the quote marks around "right". I knew it and didn't do it anyway. I didn't because I felt perhaps I was being too cynical about how tasteless people can be.

As usual, I wasn't being cynical enough.
posted by batmonkey at 6:37 PM on June 28, 2007


The Deej, I am afraid you are a little naïve about how things work in reality. Please read the long post made by batmonkey. Adoption can not provide a full solution.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:18 PM on June 28, 2007


I, for one, hope they get the 50 G's: Nigerian newborns are the cutest!!
posted by rob511 at 8:36 PM on June 28, 2007


"The world is full of people EAGER to adopt, WAITING to adopt..."

Why? Because they're protein-starved, because they're sexually frustrated, or because they won't pay the Minimum Wage? You do realize that throughout human experience most of the world's orphans and foundlings have NOT been floated down to tender-souled princesses in baskets of rushes, don't you? And if you convert everybody to the religion of Gentle Jesus Meek & Mild then who'll be pumping out the unwanted sprogs to rescue in the first place?

You're talking ASPCA when the reatity is more like Oliver Twist (or worse). Have you met very many real live people?
posted by davy at 9:47 PM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


I haven't met many real live people. Mostly they are of the shuffling, lifeless horde variety.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:52 PM on June 28, 2007


MetaFilter: Mostly they are of the shuffling, lifeless horde variety.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:12 PM on June 28, 2007


The Deej, I am afraid you are a little naïve about how things work in reality. Please read the long post made by batmonkey. Adoption can not provide a full solution.
posted by five fresh fish


Welllll I suggest you read what I wrote before you accuse me of naivete. When did I say adoption was the "full solution" or indeed ANY solution?
posted by The Deej at 11:19 PM on June 28, 2007


I'd rather donate towards an abortion and following sterilisation of the couple.

Also - their website seems to be down.
posted by saturnine at 2:26 AM on June 29, 2007


Steven C. Den Beste writes 'That was Oral Roberts.'

Oral Roberts is the best name evar. If I ever have twins, I'm going to name them Oral and Anal McDermott.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:54 AM on June 29, 2007


When did I say adoption was the "full solution" or indeed ANY solution?

For this couple, we need a Final Solution.
posted by mr_book at 5:44 AM on June 29, 2007


PeterMcDermott said: If I ever have twins, I'm going to name them Oral and Anal McDermott.

I think we should all take up a collection right now to persuade Peter to never have children.
posted by amyms at 8:20 AM on June 29, 2007


You do realize that throughout human experience most of the world's orphans and foundlings have NOT been floated down to tender-souled princesses in baskets of rushes, don't you?

well, it was all going fine until some bastard invented motorboats
posted by pyramid termite at 8:43 AM on June 29, 2007


"If I ever have twins, I'm going to name them Oral and Anal McDermott."

If a singleton, name him Ass2mouth.
posted by davy at 5:17 PM on June 29, 2007


« Older Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip ends tonight, and Aa...  |  In late March the body of Lind... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments