snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 19 June 2007, 12:00 AM
We'veBeenHad
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckleupp View Post
I'm pro-choice but I must disagree with you. This is not a brilliant political move - again, assuming this is not a hoax - this is a human life we're talking about, at least a future one. I concede that economics are involved (or should be) in the choice to have a child, but this is nothing sort of extortion in my mind.
It is extortion, but like others say, I really think it's BS. And I highly doubt it's for the purposes of some grand political experiment either - just a clever con to make a big lump of cash. It's the simplest explanation that makes perfect sense. Ryda, really people who are scamming for money aren't likely to be doing it for some high-minded type of cause or sociopolitical knowledge. Money is enough.
  #22  
Old 19 June 2007, 12:04 AM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
Where are the ones who will help you raise that kid they so desperatly want you to have?
That really doesn't matter. What you are saying is, "I want it my way or else." That's not the way it works.
  #23  
Old 19 June 2007, 12:59 AM
One-Fang's Avatar
One-Fang One-Fang is offline
 
 
Join Date: 02 November 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,610
Default

What about the three months bit?

Nice enough time to run your scam, but abortion?

Aren't they only performed in the first trimester? They are here.

I also am firmly in the camp of "there's no baby here". I believe what they're doing is not "perfectly legal" as if they're lying, it's a con. Cons are illegal.

I do find it sad that it says there is over a grand already donated. How many people have been happy enough to settle for "Give me money or I *might* do something bad to something that *might* exist"? Even if I was anti-abortion, the lack of credibility here would prevent me opening my wallet.
  #24  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:08 AM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by One-Fang View Post
I do find it sad that it says there is over a grand already donated. How many people have been happy enough to settle for "Give me money or I *might* do something bad to something that *might* exist"? Even if I was anti-abortion, the lack of credibility here would prevent me opening my wallet.
Seeing as how we have no way to verify anything the site says, the "We've already have already raised a grand" claim might be nothing more then the internet equivalent of the street musician putting the 5 down in his own guitar case.
  #25  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:26 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,882
Soapbox

I think there's a clue in the fact that the PayPal account linked from that site points to the guy who blogged this:

http://www.radiofreeroider.com/2006/...by-killer.html

- snopes
  #26  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:38 AM
We'veBeenHad
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How do you find that out? I clicked on make a donation and it only tells me it's for HMBL #1. The host has some fake name registered for the domain name - Andrew Gardner on fake street in fake town, CA.
  #27  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:44 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
Good. They deserve to pay. Even if the thing's a hoax.
Some people are pro-life because they actually do believe a fetus is a human being. They aren't all misogynistic, grenade throwing rednecks. Some people actually do care about women and their fetuses. I know a doctor, for example, who believes life starts with brain waves. That doesn't mean he deserves to be blackmailed.

As for it being a morally neutral scheme, what if it was puppies? What if someone said, "Our dog is pregnant. We can't afford to take care of more dogs, but we can't bear to give away the puppies. Give us money to keep them, or we are going to neuter her. We won't tell you who we are, and you'll never know if we just took your money and ran." You wouldn't feel that's kind of sick?
  #28  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:48 AM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danamac448 View Post
Why? For falling for a scam, or for being pro-life? Seriously, I don't get your point.
The latter. Even if it's a scam, it's a paltry amount comparied to what anti- choice advocates in general have cost us, both in economic and social terms. It would be kinda like the people who send money to an evangelist who turns out to be a fraud, except more justice in this case.

Last edited by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.; 19 June 2007 at 02:10 AM.
  #29  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:50 AM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
That really doesn't matter. What you are saying is, "I want it my way or else." That's not the way it works.

That should be the only way it works when it comes to pregnancy.
  #30  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:51 AM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by One-Fang View Post
Aren't they only performed in the first trimester? They are here.


No. Most are first, some are second, and a tiny percentage are third.
  #31  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:52 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,882
Read This!

Quote:
How do you find that out? I clicked on make a donation and it only tells me it's for HMBL #1. The host has some fake name registered for the domain name - Andrew Gardner on fake street in fake town, CA.
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.

- snopes
  #32  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:54 AM
We'veBeenHad
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you.
  #33  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:54 AM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill View Post
Some people are pro-life because they actually do believe a fetus is a human being. They aren't all misogynistic, grenade throwing rednecks. Some people actually do care about women and their fetuses. I know a doctor, for example, who believes life starts with brain waves. That doesn't mean he deserves to be blackmailed.
It does in my book. Because if that belief means that he would limit abortion, then he accords the fetus more rights than the woman.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill View Post
As for it being a morally neutral scheme, what if it was puppies? What if someone said, "Our dog is pregnant. We can't afford to take care of more dogs, but we can't bear to give away the puppies. Give us money to keep them, or we are going to neuter her. We won't tell you who we are, and you'll never know if we just took your money and ran." You wouldn't feel that's kind of sick?

A woman is not a dog.
  #34  
Old 19 June 2007, 01:56 AM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
No. Most are first, some are second, and a tiny percentage are third.
And that's also true of New Zealand.
  #35  
Old 19 June 2007, 02:02 AM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
The latter. Even if it's a scam, it's a paltry amount comparied to what pro-choice advocates in general have cost us, both in economic and social terms.
I'm pretty sure there's a typo in there.

As for the blog post that snopes linked; check out the only comment. Sounds like someone isn't very pro-family.
  #36  
Old 19 June 2007, 02:10 AM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
I'm pretty sure there's a typo in there.
Uh. Yeah. Thank. :o
  #37  
Old 19 June 2007, 02:58 AM
Jahungo's Avatar
Jahungo Jahungo is offline
 
Join Date: 23 May 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 5,289
Default

Is there any chance of this thread not devolving into a totally cliche "pro-life people are the devil!" vs "you're a female dog!" type arguments? Please? I think the OP is interesting without that, and it's been done ad infinitum all over the world/internet.

I, too, think the page in question is a scam. A fairly clever one, too. However, if it were real, I don't think it would be something anyone should be celebrating as a way to make pro-life people "put their money where their mouth is." A couple coming forward, saying they're accidentally pregnant, can't really afford to raise a child but don't want an abortion, and asking for donations would be commendable. And if they received very little in the way of help despite people knowing about it, that would show the hypocrisy of the pro-life people who did not donate, I think. However, that is not the case. This is basically like a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" type of thing. Seriously, if this were real, I can't imagine giving them any money because I could never support those kind of tactics, even if I thought abortion were the worst thing since the Donner party.

Now, if the world were a simpler place, I would think that it would be a good idea for pro-life groups to set up funds to help people who were originally planning on having abortions to carry their pregnancy to term, for adoption or to raise themselves. But sadly, the world is an ugly, ugly place, and there would be no way to weed out the people who legitimately were planning on having abortions and changed their mind, versus those who were planning on having the kid anyway and just want the cash. So, sadly, I don't think it would really work. If there were some kind of magic mind-reading device, it would be a great idea, though.
  #38  
Old 19 June 2007, 03:05 AM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahungo View Post
Now, if the world were a simpler place, I would think that it would be a good idea for pro-life groups to set up funds to help people who were originally planning on having abortions to carry their pregnancy to term, for adoption or to raise themselves. But sadly, the world is an ugly, ugly place, and there would be no way to weed out the people who legitimately were planning on having abortions and changed their mind, versus those who were planning on having the kid anyway and just want the cash. So, sadly, I don't think it would really work. If there were some kind of magic mind-reading device, it would be a great idea, though.
Or, even more simply, would be for the gov't to provide each citizen with a minimum amount of care (food, clothing, shelter, education, health care including contraception) so that no one would have to make that choice.
  #39  
Old 19 June 2007, 03:25 AM
Jahungo's Avatar
Jahungo Jahungo is offline
 
Join Date: 23 May 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 5,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
Or, even more simply, would be for the gov't to provide each citizen with a minimum amount of care (food, clothing, shelter, education, health care including contraception) so that no one would have to make that choice.
But the government does provide many of those things, but of course only a minimum. There are food stamps. There are housing projects. There are public schools. There is medicade. I don't believe clothing and contraception are covered, nor do I think the projects are entirely free, but welfare is provided to fill in the gaps for those who qualify. Aside from that, those who are able to work for a living should. Those who cannot for some reason should be taken care of. Yes, there are some holes in these systems, and I'll be the first to support increased Workfare programs, as well as further child support services (like childcare, preschool and additional financial assistance for those who qualify). And yes some do fall through the cracks, but no government that I know of has been perfect. We can do (and I like to think are doing) many things to improve these programs, and they are far from perfect, but as we all know, democracy is not exactly a speedy or efficient way to govern. As dear Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time."

ETA: And of course, more to my main point, such an endeavor would require a lot of money, and a pro-life charity group could probably not put it together. So it would not be a feasible way for pro-life people to show they are not hypocritical.
  #40  
Old 19 June 2007, 03:26 AM
We'veBeenHad
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jahungo I don't know how to begin searching for this, but you reminded me of something that either happened or was proposed, where pro-life people did want to give a couple money not to abort (maybe that's where the idea for the scam site came from?) and some pro-choice people were angered by the idea.*** I don't remember the exact reasoning, but it was maybe something about bribing people to carry a baby they didn't want; something along those lines. I don't think it would be that simple. Nor is it simple to force the citizenry through taxation to pay for anyone and everyone who wants to to have an abortion; what is it, nearly half the country that is pro-life? They don't even want abortion to be legal, much less be forced to pay for it. If a situation is that bad, honestly why can't they (and really in this case I'd support the citizens paying for it if it comes to that) use good birth control? Like I say, the gob'mt can pay for that much; it's cheaper and safer than abortion. I know there will be cases that fail, but not so many as are being aborted. Most forms of BC when properly used are highly effective aren't they? So isn't that the logical place to use force?

***This might actually have been from a euthanasia case, maybe even Schiavo, but I am unclear and a very bad searcher.

ETA: I hope it doesn't become a pro-life/pro-choice debate because the OP really is interesting on its own.

What puzzles me the most at this point is what snopes found...what sense does it make that a pro-life person, who is fairly easily searched out, to be making the scam site? Except for the motive of money, of course, which might be all it is.

ETA: Jahungo, great Churchill quote So true.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.