Planned Parenthood bloopers: The heart begins beating at 24 wks, and X+Y=female… but never mind science
A eye-opening debate was held October 20 at Ft. Lewis College in Durango about Colorado’s Amendment 62.
Providing scientific evidence that life begins at fertilization were pro-life groups LifeGuard, Durango Pregnancy Center, Bayfield Christian, and Master Plan Ministry.
Arguing to the contrary was Advocates for Choice, a student group sponsored by Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountain to “educate campus audiences.”
Well, I wouldn’t have believed the words that came out of the young turks from A4C unless I saw the video for myself.
But the same people who constantly – and erroneously – complain pro-lifers make the life debate into a religious one took the opposite tack this time, saying scientific debate was irrelevant and actually “illegitimate.”
I guess it’s no wonder. The few times they ventured into the scientific arena they showed themselves to be abysmally ignorant. A few highlights:
“Their researchers say the heart beats in 21 days. There’s people on our side and research that says the heart doesn’t beat until 24 weeks!”
“I mean I have a cold, so I have a virus in my body, and that’s also something little and living inside of me. But if I’m going to try to kill it I’m not gonna be like, ‘Oh no it was a virus thing I just killed a life.’ It’s not the same thing.”
“And again on the biological note, I just want to add really quickly that all of us women out there we shed fertilized eggspretty much every month.”
There was also this interesting dialogue:
A4C: Gender studies majors? Uh, is there a natural woman?
Crowd: Noooo!
A4C: There is no such thing as “natural woman.”
Our side: I would put out there that probably most of you women do not have a Y chromosome. Ok? There is a natural woman.
A4C: Um, anyone who is born with an X and a Y chromosome is biologically female.
Here is the short version with several of the highlights…
And here is a longer version that begins with our side’s scientific evidence that life begins at fertilization and photos of fetal development alongside photos of abortions at those stages of development…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
um, where did they go to school? I either learned about XY an XX in freshman biology class (or it may have been in junior year in my child development class elective) in a Catholic school…from a science text book.
Still trying to remember how the punnett square worked for genetics…..
The chromosomes passed down by mom and dad determine the sex of the child at CONCEPTION. Mom has XX and dad has XY. Mom can pass X down and dad can pass down X OR Y.
Well, so much for a college education….
Little known fact, viruses are not living things. The smallest unit of life is the cell. Viruses are small non-living particles that hijack cells and cause them to self-destruct. Viruses can be destroyed, but not killed as they are not alive.
As for the XY thing, a mind is a terrible thing to waste…especially on that crew.
And yet I bet these Darwinists will take science to bed with them if they think it will support their Godless ideas.
What a bunch of nincompoops.
Wow, like science is so like, ya know, whatever!
That was too funny. I needed a good laugh; funniest thing I’ve seen in awhile. PP you have outdone yourself.
Um, anyone who is born with an X and a Y chromosome is biologically female.
Everyone who is born with an X and a Y chromosome starts off female just like everyone does (yes, boys, it is so)..until about the twelfth week of development or so. So, in that sense, this is sort of true? A little bit? If you squint? Maybe?
Perhaps we should administer basic embryology and prenatal biology tests to abortion apologists before we permit them to debate with anyone. :)
I seriously almost peed in my pants when I watched this. It was so stinking hilarious. You can’t write this stuff.
“And again on the biological note, I just want to add really quickly that all of us women out there we shed fertilized egg pretty much every month.”
I’ve never heard that from anyone except pro-aborts. The blind are leading the blind. (No offense to blind people.)
Allie,
It reminded me of the court scene in Animal House when the fraternity was on trial and the defense was speaking of the Germans when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Thanks Jill, Regina and I needed a good laugh. Just more evidence that pro-aborts need adult supervision.
Dr. Gerard – were you wanting to jump through the screen and ring some necks!? I’m not even a scientist and I was losing it. God help us when we’re old and these are the people in charge.
Favorite quote: “I would encourage you guys to take a science class.” :-)
What dills they are!
Still, can’t be any worse than those who believe jesus walked with dinosaurs.
MamaMT,
I felt guilty for laughing so hard. When I see this stuff it stiffens my resolve to never retire. I want to be found dead at the blackboard with a piece of chalk in my hand! I can see why they don’t want students to take science classes. This conversation on abortion would be over in five minutes if the population were scientifically literate.
This is awesome. Education is key to generational sea change on abortion.
To most people the conversation about abortion is not about the science.
Hoowee! I gots ta get me a edjumucayshun at that there skool.
Yes. I started to shred fertilized eggs every month when I was eleven years old and in sixth grade.
In the words of Antoine Dodson, “You are so dumb. You are really dumb. For real.”
Science was used to justify slavery???? Where did they get that from??
Too many fun things to pick a favorite. That was hilarious. I think I especially liked the shedding of the fertilized eggs.
Science was used to justify slavery???? Where did they get that from??
“The Negros” were supposedly physically inferior and mentally inferior, so it was okay to enslave them.
What was the outcome/response to the debate? Did the non-partisan folks in attendance appreciate the fallacious arguments? I mean, that stuff was just plain made up.
Marauder, I understand that was the mindset, but did folks use science to prove it?
On a more serious note, there is a lesson in this for pro-lifers. Several actually.
First, a great debate tactic on the left (and you see it on talk shows and political debates all the time) is to throw out as much disinformation as one can in a few seconds. This has the effect of making us stop and clear up the disinformation, at the cost of getting to our message, or else we try to get to our message and allow the disinformation to stand—which undercuts our message.
It stands to reason that we need to come to such forums armed with rapid-fire facts to rebut such disinformation as seen here. We need to catalog all of these asinine statements as they emerge so we’re prepared for them in the future. It also would help to show up at a debate with solid, reputable textbooks of embryology and general biology in hand. Find out which ones are being used in the Ivy Leagues and bring those along, bookmarked and ready for the crowd’s perusal. The mere sight of them sitting on the table should intimidate the jerks and cause them to steer clear of such tactics in the future.
Next, don’t be afraid to challenge the audience to look and see for themselves. Call the pro-aborts liars and tell the crowd that they are being manipulated with pro-abort lies. Then hold out the truth an suggest that if the foundation is a lie, the structure of the argument is necessarily a lie.
When they proclaim that science has nothing to do with abortion, I always counter with,
“Then why do you appeal to flawed understanding of embryological development to justify it? e.g. It’s just a blob of tissue, or it can’t feel pain, or it has no awareness.”
These people, more than anyone, desperately try to distort the science in order to push the agenda.
And the reason they don’t want this to be about science is because they are terrified of the sonogram technology in CPC’s ad their 90% success rate.We’ve got them scared, really scared. Their little world of lies about science is crumbling and they are powerless in the face of such awesome technology.
God, I love it!
Oh yeah, totally, Peg. It is now considered a psuedo-science, called phrenology. It used the shape of the skull and bumps on the head to find out all kinds of things, including intelligence and moral standing. It was created by European scientists in the early 19th century, and (amazingly!) was used to prove that the caucasian race was superior. I think they started with the conclusion on that one, don’t you? Biological anthropology took over at the end of the 19th century, positing that Darwin’s theory of evolution was continuing to act out through modern man. Therefore, certain races or even ethnic groups (including Africans, the Irish, and Jewish peoples) could be seen as lower on the evolutionary chain and more closely related to other primates (ie apes), while others were evolutionarily superior. Though post-slavery in the US, this was used to justify racial intolerance and eugenics in this country, as well as the Holocaust under Nazi Germany. Bad science starting from the conclusion and moving backwards.
Science was used to justify slavery???? Where did they get that from??
“The Negros” were supposedly physically inferior and mentally inferior, so it was okay to enslave them.
AND: an argument for continuing slavery: what will they do if we free them? They will be ppor, be dependent on us, cause crime, and so on, and live lousy lives —EXACTLY the argument for aborting the babies of low-income people — they will be needy adn dependent, and likely will not have a great life.
And yet I bet these Darwinists will take science to bed with them if they think it will support their Godless ideas.
But of course.
Yes. I started to shred fertilized eggs every month when I was eleven years old and in sixth grade.
The whole fertilized egg thing cracked me up. Seriously?!? How do those eggs get fertilized? Oh my word, I just taught my 2 homeschooled kids (4th and 6th grade) about mammalian reproduction yesterday. Even THEY know that in order to reproduce, a sperm must fertilize the egg. Nice to know my two kids are smarter than these college-age pro-aborts….
Do you think these kids are mad at PP for making them look like fools? This is of course assuming PP is the one that educated them for this debate, which I sincerely hope is true rather than that they learned this in any biology class.
I sure would be – mad as heck!
From the SecularProLife.org blog:
When I heard “[T]here’s research on our side that says that the heart doesn’t beat until 24 weeks,” I immediately thought of Amillia Rose Taylor, the Florida girl who was born at just 22 weeks. I guess her survival was an even greater medical miracle than previously thought, since apparently her heart didn’t start beating until two weeks after she was born!
These people are fools! I just hope I live long enough to see them all crumble under the awful burden their lies have become. My kindergartener could teach them a thing or two about science. Its just a crying shame they can’t articulate their “opinions” in an educated manner. I don’t know how the audience was able to sit through that vomit with straight faces.
Do you hear the baby in the background. Ironic!
It would be more funny – if it were not so serious.
The scariest part – the audience response to the natural woman question.
For that many to respond there is no such thing as a natural woman suggests that way too many are drinking the kool-aid.
Chris,
Scary, but not surprising. I don’t think there are many options for science, philosophy, or critical thinking classes in the “Women’s Studies” curriculum. I believe “Women’s Studies” was born around the time of the radical feminist movement (in the 1970’s). Those students are now the teachers of this generation. How embarrassing!
SC,
I noticed the baby sounds in the background too. So sweet!
Good gracious – so much for a college education! And will these young people be surprised when they hear their baby’s heart beat at the doctor’s office, let alone see their child during an ultrasound!
Goodness – don’t like the argument, throw out the whole of science.
And these people may be our future leaders. Let’s hope that they learn quite a bit more before they go out into the world! :)
And one professor here in the women studies’ program was convinced that abortion does not harm women (her ‘research’) – contradicting a life-long medical doctor who saw it first hand. That professor also argued that ‘according to her research’ that the pro-lifers ‘only care for the rich white women – not poor ones.’
bunk. she never met us.
“I started to shred fertilized eggs every month when I was eleven years old and in sixth grade”
——————————–
Dang! I’m a guy and I’m not even that much aware nor interested of what goes into the female ‘monthly’ cycle but I KNOW you ladies do NOT shed fertilized eggs…
I wonder how that was explained by her mom? Unless PP stepped in and “explained” the female menstrual cycle with a pro-abort twist.
Dang! I’m a guy and I’m not even that much aware nor interested of what goes into the female ‘monthly’ cycle but I KNOW you ladies do NOT shed fertilized eggs…
RSD, Well, actually there are times when a fertilized egg (blastocyst) is expelled with the menstrual blood, but it is not with the frequency that the A4C member stated: “And again on the biological note, I just want to add really quickly that all of us women out there we shed fertilized egg pretty much every month.”
I guess she was using bad science to make the point that a dead fetus is not a big deal.
Cranium, I don’t know any Christian who believed that Jesus walked with dinosaurs.
So the heart doesn’t start beating till week 24? So that ultrasound at 5 weeks that clearly showed my son’s strong heartbeat was just pro-life trickery! Golly!
Sydney,
I know what you mean, each time I went in for my first OB appt. with each child the doctor always did an ultrasound, and the first thing he said each time was there is the heartbeat!
Shedding “fertilized eggs”?
I don’t think so:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/03/fertilized-eggs-vs-zygotic-human-embryos/
Wow. It’s really easy to get a bunch of college kids together and let adults attack them and then have adults put it on youtube.
Take a look at the ‘Creation Museum’ or read a bit of Ken Ham sometime SydneyM.
This is why I have no respect for anyone simply because of a piece of paper from some college. Seriously, college, sixth grade, what’s the difference? And these are the “learned professionals” of the future??? God save us!
Also, anyone with an X and Y chromosome is never for even a moment EVER female. Before the testes drop and all that fun, they may APPEAR physically female, but they are still biologically male. Even after they have a mental crisis and get a “sex change” operation, still biologically male even while physically female. Please!
Planned Parenthood sponsored this student group, FLC Ft. Lewis student. And I didn’t see anyone attacking anyone else. I saw adults presenting the facts to OTHER adults in college. The college-age ADULTS are big boys and girls and if they think they can defend their positions (which they obviously do, or they wouldn’t have debated) then I think they can handle having their debate on YouTube.
FLC Student
October 27th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Wow. It’s really easy to get a bunch of college kids together and let adults attack them and then have adults put it on youtube.
Grow up and put on your big boy pants. They acted like they knew it all and when presented with evidence to the contrary they ignored it.
Hey Cranium, I am familiar with Ken Ham and the Creation museum. They teach that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago not millions but they don’t teach that Jesus walked with dinosaurs.
Sydney,
Cranium is actually another of my failed attempts at writing an artificial intelligence program that Jill was kind enough to allow me to try out here. As you can see, it has turned on its creator and now I have lost control. I’m sorry if it has upset you. ;-)
Gerard– ?
Cranium is actually another of my failed attempts at writing an artificial intelligence program that Jill was kind enough to allow me to try out here.
LOL! :D Good one.
Irony SydneyM, irony.
Gee that’s almost amusing Dr. Nadal. But then again I do often find what you have written to contain flaws :-)
Wow. It’s really easy to get a bunch of college kids together and let adults attack them and then have adults put it on youtube.
If you can legally vote, go into the military, get married without parental permission, and smoke, you’re an adult. All of your “stop picking on us, we’re just kids” excuses ended when you graduated from high school. If the students in this video are such children, maybe they should leave the political and scientific debates to the adults. They stepped into the arena and now you want to whine that it’s unfair to criticize them. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I graduated from college in 2008, by the way.
Cranium,
Nice rejoinder! ;-)
FLC Student,
I’m a professor, and I treat my students as adults. That means I have adult expectations of them. If a group of students are going to gather at a college and argue for the death of babies, militantly so, and at the same time proclaim nonsense, then they deserve to be ridiculed.
If they are going to admonish their audience to ignore the truth of science when they demonstrate an appalling lack of mastery over seventh grade biology, then they deserve to be ridiculed.
College is the domain of serious intellects in pursuit of the truth. It has been perverted by the PC crowd who have mangled and shredded the truth, chasing it from campus in the headlong pursuit of social engineering. So, yes, adults such as myself who have spent their entire adult lives in serious scholarship laugh with scorn at these monstrous babies who have no place in higher education.
I just tried watching the second video, and it said it’s now private. If anyone knows if it’s available somewhere else, I’d be much obliged.
Cranium: “To most people the conversation about abortion is not about the science.”
Really? Then maybe you’d care to explain who so many accuse pro-lifers of bringing their “religious views” into the debate when the pro-lifers mention that embryos and fetuses are human beings.
FLC Student: “Wow. It’s really easy to get a bunch of college kids together and let adults attack them and then have adults put it on youtube.”
Seventh-graders (hella younger than you) who’ve studied human biology could school you, dude. We don’t even need the adults.
Interestingly, not a single PCer tried to support the PC students claims about heartbeat at 24 weeks, shedding of fertilised egg and other scientific facts in their comments. Probably…..because they know they can’t, since it isn’t true.
But also, not a single PCer so far has addmitted that the PC students in the debate were wrong. Probably…. because that would mean addmitting that pro-lifers were right! SHOCK HORROR!
They lose!!!! With flying colours! I don’t care if they decide to throw science away, both science and God is on our side anyway! Wooo hooo!!! :)
Really? Then maybe you’d care to explain who so many accuse pro-lifers of bringing their “religious views” into the debate when the pro-lifers mention that embryos and fetuses are human beings.
Exactly. They start waxing philosophical when confronted with actual science, whereas any other time it’s “Don’t thump yer Bible at me, yew crazy terrorists!”
Cracks me up when they say things like, “Oh, we don’t know when the fetus gets a soul…” Frankly, who cares?!? It makes no difference to the pro-life stance.
I have never mentioned souls – don’t believe in them. I have mentioned religion when people here cite scripture and religious based beliefs as part of their anti-choice rhetoric. When the religious ‘speak’ gets a bit much, atheists such as myself will tend to ridicule peoples faith in an ‘imaginary sky friend’.
My main focus is on the accuracy and application of the science, such as the invalid claims of cancer links and mental health issues.
My other main point is that people don’t operate purely on the facts of science in their feelings, emotions and decisions in life – that is why people find abortion acceptable or in some cases, at least tolerable.
“But also, not a single PCer so far has addmitted that the PC students in the debate were wrong”
C’mon, cran. You could be the first!
“that is why people find abortion acceptable or in some cases, at least tolerable.”
Be more careful cran. You forgot the word SOME in the above sentence — again.
The bit about natural women really cracked me up. Just because a man gets surgery and puts on a dress, he does not magically become a real woman. When I wear a sheet over my head with two eye holes for Halloween, I do not suddenly become a real ghost.
I already did Praxedes. I said “what dills they are”.
I’ll go for MOST, that’s what the stats I saw here a while back said.
Sorry cran I missed the dills comment. My bad.
MOST is ok with me. ALL is not the Truth.
I have a story. There was a man driving down the road when suddenly he crashed into a tree. When the paramedics where checking him, they asked him what happened, why he crashed into a tree? The man replied: “I don’t believe in trees!”
Proof of the existence of a soul using the scientific method, is as hard as proving that 1+1=2 using the scientific method. However, both arguments can be proved through philosophy, since science is limited to our current knowledge and understanding of the world we live in.
I agree with John Jansen; where can we find the 2nd video? Help please?
The link to the longer version doesn’t work. Apparently the college has made them take it down? Comments on Facebook said that the kids corrected their errors. I’d like to see the full version. What efforts in that direction?
“Also, anyone with an X and Y chromosome is never for even a moment EVER female.”
Rarely waste time in forums like this, but could not let such nonsense stand unchallenged. XY individuals can and do develop as females. Look up “SRY mutations” or “androgen insensitivity syndrome”, etc. Should individuals that inherit such conditions stop “cross-dressing” as females, since (in your view) their chromosomes declare loud and clear that they must be male? NOTHING in biology is absolute.
By all means, let the rabble speak. Just remember that scientific illiteracy is rampant across the board.
“NOTHING in biology is absolute.”
How about when human life begins?
Dr. XYZ: “NOTHING in biology is absolute.”
Praxedes: How about when human life begins?
To answer your question as stated: Human life has been around for millenia, but I am not in a position to say when it began: there is no definitive line between “modern” humans (Homo sapiens) and our pre-human ancestors.
But, I suspect your intended question was “when does the life of an individual human begin”. Speaking for me personally, I consider the first significant event (along a continuum) to be the meiotic divisions that gave rise to “my” egg, with the second being that which produced “my” sperm, the third being fertilization to form “my” zygote, etc.
Unfortunately, the above scenario is too simple for those amazing individuals whose narrative includes the fusion of TWO zygotes. (If you don’t know about this, google “human chimeras”.) If I were to apply the usual simplistic standard (beloved by your ilk) of “conception”/fertilization, I would have to assume that such individuals were actually two human beings.
If you wish to be consistent, I suggest that you lobby your elected officials to ensure that BOTH “lives” in such chimeras are afforded the full rights of citizenship, etc. Of course, this would create some interesting problems. Should a human chimera take two ballots at once into the voting booth, or would they have to go back to through the line a second time to let the second zygote vote? Would a criminal that kills a chimera qualify as a serial murderer? Could one soul in the chimera go to heaven, and the other not? The mind reels!
Hi Dr. XYZ.
The fact that there is monozygotic twinning and that two zygotes can fuse together really does nothing to undermine the pro-life cause. True, embryos can fuse together to form one or a single embryo can “clone” itself, but what follows from this? This is simply a property that the very early embryo has and one which we do not have later in life, like many properties that teh human organism enjoys. Because the early embryo has this property, what about this property makes it so that it isn’t a human being? Yes, when two embryos combine to form a new one, it is certainly a possibility that both original embryos were destroyed and a new one was created. Granted. How does it follow that the original two embryos are not human beings? What about having that property at that stage of life undermines the fact that in general the embryo is a human being? In general, most embryos do not split and fuse willy-nilly. The cloning and fusing thing is an exception, not teh norm. Thus, we are justified in holding to the “simplistic standard” which says that human life begins at conception. That is teh ordinary means by which human life comes into existence. Indeed, some life comes into existence in teh embryonic stage, but taht in no way undermines the fact taht our existence normally begins in the zygote stage.
Now consider the example of teh tapeworm, a flatworm which has the ability to “clone” itself when “broken” in two. Since the tapeworm has this property, is a tapeworm who is cloned not really a tapeworm? What about teh fact that teh tapeworm has this property makes it not a life?
I do not know if your scenarios about rights are meant to be taken seriously, but teh fact is that no one would charge an embryo who is teh fusion of two other embryos with murder anymore than we would charge a mother for miscarriage. Clearly they don’t have any sort of conscience decision making, nor does the resulting embryo even exist to be charged with killing two other embryos to come into being or whatever other scenario one might come up with. These attempted reductio ad absurdum arguments against the unborn being human or deserving or rights lack any kind of common sense and tend to treat the unborn as adults with full mental capabilities, which isn’t at all the case. Under teh law we treat toddlers differently than juveniles which we treat differently than adults. That goes for rights like voting and driving, special privileges etc. and punishments for crimes.
Hope that makes sense. Take care.
Thanks so much Bobby for letting me and XYZ know when the life of each individual human begins! It makes so much sense.
Dr. XYZ writes, in reply to Sioko:
[Sioko]
“Also, anyone with an X and Y chromosome is never for even a moment EVER female.”
[Dr. XYZ]
Rarely waste time in forums like this, but could not let such nonsense stand unchallenged.
(*sigh*) Given such a bellicose introduction, I’m sure that what follows will be scintillating…
XY individuals can and do develop as females. Look up “SRY mutations” or “androgen insensitivity syndrome”, etc.
First, you seem to be assuming your conclusion (“chromosomes do not define the conditions of ‘female’ and ‘male’ in the human species”) in order to prove it, and that (being a logical fallacy of a very basic order) simply won’t do; perhaps you might point us to a reliable book on genetics which flatly denies (or otherwise refutes) the idea that “XX = female” and “XY = male”? No one is saying that there won’t be puzzling exceptional cases… and even cases where a clear categorization of “male/female” is utterly beyond us… but that really isn’t to the point, is it?
Second: your use of extraordinary circumstances (SRY mutations, XXY, XYY, etc.) is really beside the point, unless you already assume (cf. the first point, above) that functionality/phenotype defines gender (e.g. anyone with a functional womb and ovaries, and secondary female sex characteristics, is female)… and that is, quite obviously, your mere opinion… and one which flies in the face of canonical genetics. It’s patently obvious (to the unbiased) that “XX” is the genotype for a human female (regardless of whether some disorder renders a different phenotype) and that “XY” is the genotype for a human male (regardless of whether some disorder renders a different phenotype).
Should individuals that inherit such conditions stop “cross-dressing” as females, since (in your view) their chromosomes declare loud and clear that they must be male?
Now, I must ask you to consider this reasonably! You’re speaking of social convention, which is not at all intrinsic to the raw fact of one’s sex (i.e. “male vs. female”); how an individual acts or does not act, dresses or does not dress, is completely beside the point at hand. If every last woman donned “male clothing” (whatever that means, in a given society) and adopted stereotypical male behaviours, and if every last man donned “female clothing” (whatever that means, in a given society) and adopted stereotypical female behaviours, it would change nothing regarding the actual sex of the individuals.
NOTHING in biology is absolute.
(*wry look*) Including that statement, I assume? You haven’t shown exemplary logic here, friend… and, given your own tirade against (what you took to be) Sioko’s “inaccurate categorization”, it’s also rather ironic.
By all means, let the rabble speak.
Mm-hmm. And the trolls, and the drive-by snarks, and those who use illogic to attack what they see to be “bad reasoning”…
Just remember that scientific illiteracy is rampant across the board.
I daresay.
Hey BB,
The intent of my message was not to undermine the ”pro-life” cause per se. It was to point out that biology has no absolutes, and therefore can’t provide a defintive, universally applicable (i.e., absolute) answer to the question of “when a human life begins” (or, for that matter, when a cell division starts, the precise moment when a banana become ripe, etc. etc.)
Your comments indicate that are willing to accept more than one criterion for when life begins: most often at conception, but in other cases somewhat later: upon fusion of two embryos, and in still other cases (twice, simultaneously) upon the fission of an embryo. (New rallying cry: “Life begins at conception (usually)”
What seems to unite all of your scenarios is the slippery notion of “potential”, which biology tells us is always contingent. (E.g., we know that an egg has the potential to develop, but also that its potential normally depends on fusion with a a sperm or other manipulation, e.g., parthenogenesis or cloning technology). IMHO, ”life begins at implantation” would be far superior as a defensible propostion for those who insist on drawing a line in the sand, since a human embryo’s potential is meaningless without that. (Note that that definition works equally for the three distinct types of individual human life you accept).
You misunderstood my point about rights. I was not talking about chimeras in utereo, I was talking about what to do with born (e.g., ADULT) chimeras who vote, or who are murdered (not those which may be aborted, or perform criminal acts themselves), etc. If each life truly begins at conception, then any dizygotic chimera must (by definition) count as two for the duration of their lives
“Your comments indicate that are willing to accept more than one criterion for when life begins: most often at conception, but in other cases somewhat later: upon fusion of two embryos, and in still other cases (twice, simultaneously) upon the fission of an embryo. (New rallying cry: “Life begins at conception (usually)””
Indeed. Actually, this was brought to teh attention of the personhood movement by a professor at Georgetown maybe (can’t remember her name, but a pro-life professor) a couple years ago and that our battle cry should be we protect all human life from biological development onwards. She is correct, and so I have no problem saying that I wish to protect innocent human life from the beginning of biological development onwards. Not everyone was once in a zygote, but they were once an embryo, I believe. So I think it is perefctly alright to admit that there are cases when a new being comes into existence skipping the zygote stage, but I don’t see that as posing any sort of problem to the fact that under most circumstances, life begins at conception.
Now to address your comment about potential, it is true that the egg and sperm have potential to become a zygote. However, once it achieves that potentiality, it is a different kind of thing. It has a completely different nature, unlike the developing embryo at any other time. Going from zygote to embryo stage does not change the whatness of the zygote. Having the potential to split or to combine also does not change the whatness of the embryo.
“a human embryo’s potential is meaningless without that [implantation].”
I think here we have a different understanding of what is meant by potential. The potential of teh blastocyst to grow is located within the blastocyst itself, and it is the uterus that is the outside cause which is able to actualize that potential. Thus, teh potential is indeed there, but it takes an outside cause to bring it about. So on metaphysical grounds I would strongly disagree with the idea that potential is meaningless without actually implanting. Indeed, I have the potential to speak Japanese. I don’t know a thing about teh language and I probably never will actualize that potential in my entire life, but you would agree that that potential is still within me even though I never actualize it. Same thing with the blastocyst. It has that potential to continue life via implantation, but even if it doesn’t implant, that potential is still there.
“If each life truly begins at conception, then any dizygotic chimera must (by definition) count as two for the duration of their lives”
Like I said, normally it does, but sometimes it begins with the fusion of two embryos into a new one (possibly a third, but I don’t know how one would tell) or when en embryo splits into two. When teh two fuse, it seems appropriate, given teh fact that there has never been a person in one body who seems to actually possess two consciousnesses (at least no one that sounds sane), to say that the resulting embryo is one person, whether that be one of the original two or a new one. So I don’t see the rights issue as being a problem.
It’s fun commenting on these message boards, Dr. XYZ, isn’t it? See, now you’re gonna become a regular! :)
“It was to point out that biology has no absolutes, and therefore can’t provide a defintive, universally applicable (i.e., absolute) answer to the question of “when a human life begins” (or, for that matter, when a cell division starts, the precise moment when a banana become ripe, etc. etc.) ”
I forgot to address this- yes, I do agree here. Rather than talk about moments, I think it may be more helpful to talk about events. As I understand it, some argue that fertilization in which one can argue that the egg ceases to be an egg and becomes a zygote anytime within, say, a 24 hour period. That I have no problem with, and I think it is a moot point because the questions at hand about both abortion and h-ESCR take place far after this entire 24 hour window.
to Bobby B.: It is fun to a point, but I don’t expect to become a regular (too much to do in the real world, too many other “recreational” interests to pursue…).
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and can agree with many of your points, though probably not all of the larger issues that are addressed in this forum. I am envious of your potential to speak Japanese: my recent experience with less exotic/distant foreign languages has convinced me that any potential I may have had has long since left!
To Paladin:
In genetics, we make a distinction between “Chromosomal sex” and “phenotypic sex”. For example, XY individuals with a mutated (inactive) SRY gene are “chromosomal males” and “phenotypic females”. This terminology exists because there is nothing “canonical” about automatically defining anyone/everyone who inherits one X and one Y as a “male”. (Note that “XX” and “XY” refer to what is known as the KARYOTYPE, not the genotype.) Despite what you may have (mis)learned, sex in the “XY” systems is not determined by chromosomes, but rather by genes that happen to be linked (at least in most of us) to the sex chromosomes.
These “exceptional” cases are NOT beside the point: the original statement to which I replied claimed that chromosomal males are NEVER female. Under the chromosomal definition alone, that is technically true, but also essentially meaningless for any real world purpose. XY children born with those conditions are readily identified and raised as females. Contrary to Sioko’s statments, these individuals do not need gender reassignment surgery to present as females, but many are understandably prone to psychological problems (Sioko’s “mental breakdowns”), especially when uninformed persons who can’t see past their karyotype insist that they are ”really” males instead of females.
FYI: The chromosomal aneuploids — XYY and XXY – that you mention do not belong in this discussion, since neither causes a sex reversal. Also, neither of the cases that I did include are particularly “puzzling”, once one understands the basic biology of sex deteremination and how the two genes involved in those cases act. Since I have already wasted far too much time on this, I will spare you the details, but any decent genetics textbook should outline the basic picture.
Dr. XYZ,
I’ve no idea if you’re going to check this forum again, but: I’ll try to write back tomorrow, when I can. Date night with my wife (who’s struggling to get over a sore throat) came first…
I remember when debating Gloria Feldt 25 years ago she would make stupid remarks such as these even then. Planned Parenthood has been lying to American women for the last 70 years. It is time we finally use the rule of law to shut down this enemy of women, children and families.
Dr. XYZ,
I’ll comment specifically on your statements, below, but first: I think you’ve mistaken my point(s) on at least three counts. Here are my main objections to your comments, thus far:
1) Lack of logical rigour and accuracy. Your original criticism of Sioko was apparently due to what you saw as a significant inaccuracy (though you put it far more rudely)… but even that is not quite correct: in the absolute sense, her comment was inexact (though she was obviously trying to make a rhetorical point, rather than catch every last exception), but in the genotypic sense (and I’ll address your “karyotypic” comment below), she was quite right, even by your own admission… and your own subsequent dismissal of that fact as “meaningless” is plainly your mere personal preference/opinion… which is hardly a sound logical basis for denouncing the opinions of those who disagree. It’s one thing to say that there is another taxonomy for thus-and-so; but it’s quite another to say that someone else’s valid taxonomy is *wrong* (to say nothing of calling the commenter(s) “scientifically illiterate rabble”). The first statement (which you should have made) would be correct; the second (which you made) is provably (and self-admittedly) false.
2) Lack of logical consistency. In your apparent quest for the “rarefied air of biological purity of terminology”, you might have examined some inexact claims of your own:
“Nothing in biology is absolute”:
This is a near-textbook example of a logical absurdity. Since your statement expresses an alleged fact about biology, and the statement is an absolute statement, then it follows that your statement, to paraphrase Chesterton, “has killed itself in three sentences”.
“(Note that “XX” and “XY” refer to what is known as the KARYOTYPE, not the genotype.)”:
Had you left off the last three words, you would have been correct; but your last assertion (“NOT the genotype”) is false. “Karyo-” refers to chromosomes, true; but “geno-” refers to the genes, of which the chromosomes are made; so even if you hadn’t seen “XX” and “XY” referenced as “genotypes” in common medical literature, that fact should have suggested a correction of your idea to your mind. And if you still assert that “XX” and “XY” cannot be considered genotypes (in addition to being called “karyotypes”), then perhaps you could alert Harvard Medical School, Yale Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, and other such luminaries of their error? I’m sure they’d thank you for bringing such an error to their attention, if it is in fact an error.
3) Lack of all civility (or even sane proportion) in your comment. Had you offered a gentle detail-oriented correction, you probably would have received no rebuke… and perhaps some polite thanks. But if you barge in “with guns blazing”, as it were, and denouncing your opponents as “rabble” and “scientifically illiterate” (especially ironic, since your own comments had the very sort of errors you were trying to denounce!), then you really shouldn’t be surprised if someone takes you to task.
Now, then: you wrote, in reply to my comment:
In genetics, we make a distinction between “Chromosomal sex” and “phenotypic sex”. For example, XY individuals with a mutated (inactive) SRY gene are “chromosomal males” and “phenotypic females”.
No argument, on that specific point (and you’ll note that I never contradicted it). And again, I freely admit that Sioko’s comment has some exceptions to it; but since you’ve made your own fuss about something being “true, but meaningless for all real-world (whatever that means to you) purposes”, I fail to see why you’d object to her own claim with the same implicit qualifier (i.e. “there might be bizarre exceptions to the XX = female, XY = male taxonomy, but they’re meaningless for my purpose, which is to show the biological ignorance of the “Advocates for Choice” panelists). Do you seriously disagree with her main premise? Do you seriously wish to defend the “XY = female” comment as being non-ignorant?
This terminology exists because there is nothing “canonical” about automatically defining anyone/everyone who inherits one X and one Y as a “male”.
Perhaps you might read my earlier comment again. In the phenotypic sense, you’re correct; in the genotypic sense, you’re wrong (i.e. those with “XY” have the male genotype, while those with “XX” have the female genotype; if you see these as “non-canonical”, despite the unanimity of every basic genetics book of which I’ve heard, then I really don’t know what to tell you.
(Note that “XX” and “XY” refer to what is known as the KARYOTYPE, not the genotype.)
Not true, as stated; see above.
Despite what you may have (mis)learned, sex in the “XY” systems is not determined by chromosomes, but rather by genes that happen to be linked (at least in most of us) to the sex chromosomes.
(??) For someone who blusters about the supposed “scientific illiteracy” of others, this is a curiously inaccurate statement for you to make. Genes are not “linked” to the sex chromosomes; they’re EMBEDDED in the very composition of the chromosomes; the chromosome is MADE OF GENES. One might say that a TRAIT is “sex-linked” (in the sense that the gene(s) responsible for that train is/are contained in the Y-chromosome), but for you to say that “genes are linked to chromosomes” simply makes you sound confused… especially since you demand such high precision from others (under pain of your ridicule).
Again: had you come onto the scene politely and offered your views without arrogance, I (or others) would be much more likely to point out such inaccuracies gently, privately, or perhaps not at all; but you “set the tone”, I’m afraid. If you “attack” because of inaccuracies, then you’ll need to live up to your own (lamentable and rude) standard… though it’d be far better if you simply changed your manner of interacting with others.
These “exceptional” cases are NOT beside the point: the original statement to which I replied claimed that chromosomal males are NEVER female. Under the chromosomal definition alone, that is technically true, but also essentially meaningless for any real world purpose.
Not only is this obviously your mere opinion, but it is not even true; if a developing child in the 1-celled stage has the XY genotype (or karyotype, if you prefer), then that is one of many proofs that he is obviously not a “part of the mother’s body” (as many abortion advocates claim)… and the defeat of pro-abortion clap-trap (with the ultimate goal of preventing the murder of the unborn) is most certainly a “real-world” issue (even for those who disagree with the aim). Your use of “real world purpose” seems to mean “purpose about which you personally happen to care”.
XY children born with those conditions are readily identified and raised as females.
Phenotypically, perhaps. I already addressed the non-intrinsic nature of social actions/conditions in my earlier comment.
Contrary to Sioko’s statments, these individuals do not need gender reassignment surgery to present as females,
I’m sorry: where, exactly, did she say that they “needed gender reassignment surgery”? It seemed plain, from the context of her comment, that she finds such surgery to be ill-advised; do you disagree?
but many are understandably prone to psychological problems (Sioko’s “mental breakdowns”), especially when uninformed persons who can’t see past their karyotype insist that they are ”really” males instead of females.
You seem to be laying the lion’s share of responsibility for such psychological problems to the views of the “uninformed”; do I understand you clearly?
I might also add (though Sioko can speak for herself, on this point) that, from what I could tell, she was speaking of individuals who did not have such rare and profound disorders as you described (androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc.), but whose psychological illnesses led them to self-identify as the opposite gender. That, admittedly, is a guess on my part.
FYI: The chromosomal aneuploids — XYY and XXY – that you mention do not belong in this discussion, since neither causes a sex reversal.
:) I’m happy to hear your declarations of what “belongs” in the discussion; and, to be honest, it’s all one to me whether you consider them or not; they were hardly the main point. But since the discussion covered much more than mere “gender reversal”, I think I’ll leave them stand.
Also, neither of the cases that I did include are particularly “puzzling”, once one understands the basic biology of sex deteremination and how the two genes involved in those cases act.
(*sigh*) I suppose it’s a waste of time to tell you that I used “puzzling” to describe not only a broad spectrum of disorders (e.g. the difficulty in determining the sex of a particular individual in some difficult cases, etc.), but in the sense of “why they happen at all” (in the philosophical sense)? It really wasn’t very important a word to my case, you know. (You do have this “puzzling” penchant for attacking very minute and parenthetical remarks with the verve normally reserved for main points…)
Since I have already wasted far too much time on this, I will spare you the details, but any decent genetics textbook should outline the basic picture.
Mm-hmm. See above, re: your own errors in genetics. I’ll leave it to you, of course, to decide whether to “waste more time” on any reply.
(For the record: I’m a mathematician, not a geneticist. I only married a geneticist. :) )
Well, I want to know EXACTLY WHO is fertilizing my eggs without my knowledge???
Thank you Mr.Paladin, you are quite correct in your assumptions of what I meant. And I am quite thankful of your comments regarding how I was treated. :)
I have most definitely enjoyed watching this most awesome discussion, but isn’t it all beside the point?
A human being is a human being from conception no matter what changes s/he goes through whether it be twinning, chimeras, or puberty.
Forgive the generality but “A person’s a person, no matter how small!”
Sioko wrote:
I have most definitely enjoyed watching this most awesome discussion, but isn’t it all beside the point?
:) You’re right, of course (re: the most important point). This particular thread highlighted the disinformation, ignorance, and even lies being spread in order to encourage and/or perpetuate public acceptance of abortion, and “Dr. XYZ” barged in with some inaccuracies of his own which needed to be addressed, but yes… thank you for the reminder to keep our eye on the “main ball in play”!
A human being is a human being from conception no matter what changes s/he goes through whether it be twinning, chimeras, or puberty.
Right. Some of those situations might make it hard for us to determine exactly when a particular person first gains life (e.g. embryonic “twinning”, which is a sort of “natural cloning”) or when a particular person dies (e.g. embryonic “fusion”, when two bodies collapse into one; it may be difficult, if not impossible, to tell which child died, or whether both died and a third was given life, or what-have-you), but human life certainly begins at conception… and those children whose lives began after conception did NOT have any “non-human, non-person existence” (or any other existence) before that point, contrary to what many abortion-tolerant folk might think.
Forgive the generality but “A person’s a person, no matter how small!”
:) Horton would be proud of you!
(You’re quite welcome for the assist, BTW: all in the name of chivalry and truth! ;) )
Well, I want to know EXACTLY WHO is fertilizing my eggs without my knowledge???
LOL. Be careful out there Debbie!
Well, first I hope they did not pass Science class otherwise there teachers should be fired for passing them.
And 2nd-Better to be a fool and be quiet, then to open your mouth & remove all doubt.
Well imagine my surprise that I’ve been dressing my xy chromosome child in male clothing all these years but he is a GIRL! Who knew? I am so glad these students educated me!
Undoubtedly these advocates regard themselves as intellectual elites and defenders of logic and reason against the “belief systems” of others. Which reminds me of my favorite George Orwell quote: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
Because these students insist on struggling about the question of life (when it suits their purposes), I’ll answer that one for them with a bit of help from the fifth century BC:
Human genome present? CHECK.
Metabolic activity? CHECK.
Human life now present and on-board unless the silver rule is violated*.
*No deism required. Belief system sold separately.
Re: Buzz:
(*laugh*) That was classic! Well said!
Paladin,
I am glad to know that you “freely admit that Sioko’s comment has some exceptions to it”. But, the key statement to which I objected (“Anyone with an X and Y chromosome is never for even a moment EVER female”) quite obviously leaves no room for such exceptions, and therefore is inaccurate. IMHO, no thoughtful, scientifically literate person would make such a claim. Considering the basic theme of this thread (“isn’t it funny how illiterate all of those PC’ers are”), the statement is ridiculous (read: worthy of ridicule).
I was amused by your defense of the statement on the grounds that it is correct if one adopts a particular “taxonomy”, in which the genders are strictly defined on the basis of karyotype alone. (Note that individuals with the two syndromes in question are only karyotypically male, NOT genotypically male; see below). But, adhering to such a taxonomy would also be ridiculous. In the real world, we do not insist on classifying someone who has one X and one Y chromosome as male when there is other, more significant evidence to the contrary. Indeed, most of us have no problem referring to someone who was born with female genitalia, has a functional uterus, etc., as a female, even if she happens to have an XY karyotype. This “taxonomy” is the more humane and logical solution in the “exceptional” cases, and is the convention in the relevant medical literature. If someone has a problem with that because they naively elevated a “fact” they once learned (“males have one X and one Y chromosome”) into a universal truth, or into a definition, that is their prerogative. But, they have no business presenting their misunderstandings or semantic idiosyncrasies as incontrovertible facts. (I suspect that Sioko is a morally decent person who would not really insist that the exceptional cases must be male; I am merely pointing out the absurd consequences of taking Sioko’s ignorant statement at face value.)
Your contention that I have made “errors in genetics” because I referred to genes being “linked” to (rather than “embedded in”) sex chromosomes, or because I pointed out that there is a distinction between karyotype and genotype, is laughable. In genetics, “sex linkage” (and the alternative: “autosomal linkage”) applies equally to genes, mutations/allelic variants in genes, and (where applicable) those traits that happen to be determined by those variants. Every geneticist I have known (hundreds) and textbook I have taught from (dozens) uses this terminology. But don’t take my word for it: just Google “sex-linked gene”, “X-linked gene” or “Y-linked gene” and see how many scientific references come up. Then repeat the procedure with “X-embedded gene” or “Y-embedded gene”. If you think there is something substantively incorrect with the original statement (“sex …is not determined by chromosomes, but rather by genes that happen to be linked …to the sex chromosomes”), then I’ll be happy to hear you out. (For all I know, there may actually be evidence somewhere suggesting that chromosomes can somehow determine sex independently of any genes located theron, and if so, I’d love to hear about that.) But please refrain from calling me “confused” because I included terminology that is univeral among the (English-speaking) scientific community.
Despite your contention to the contrary, Sioko’s comment was NOT correct in the genotypic sense: It is precisely the genotype that causes female development to occur in karyotypic (XY) males who inherit a mutated SRY gene or androgen receptor. The distinction between karyotype and genotype is essential: the mere presence of a particular chromosome provides NO information about the state of the genes therein. While I don’t doubt that you may have encountered some sloppy terminology from Harvard press releases, etc., there is no such thing as “the” XY genotype: the XY karyotype is compatible with an astronomical variety of different genotypes. I considered your original sloppy usage to be relatively minor and entirely forgivable, and merely pointed out the karyotype/genotype distinction to help clarify the discussion. But your subsequent comments have only served to reveal how thoughtless and uninformed you really are.
I guess you do not see any distinction between “Nothing is absolute” and “Nothing in biology is absolute” (perhaps because you think that biology is everything; or, that the statment somehow falls in the realm of biology because it was stated by a living organism, or might be uttered in a biology class?), but I do. Anyway, nice try. Next time, skip the silly semantics and “gotcha” games that are barely worthy of a Junior High Debate team. If you can convince me of something meaningful in biology that is unambigously and universally valid, I will be happy to reconsider the statement. (Note that definitions don’t count – e.g., “DNA always consists of/includes deoxyribonucleotides”, nor do statements about physical laws that apply equally to living and non-living systems – e.g., first and second laws of thermodynamics). Otherwise, I see no point in continuing further in this forum (notwithstanding all of the laughs you have provided).
Dr. XYZ
October 29th, 2010 at 8:17 am
“Also, anyone with an X and Y chromosome is never for even a moment EVER female.”
Rarely waste time in forums like this, but could not let such nonsense stand unchallenged
Well, for someone who rarely “wastes” time on forums like that, you sure are wasting A LOT of time playing with words and science on this one. Honestly, I don’t think many people read your posts start to finish – simply because of information overload you provide. And the only point you proved? That on an extreemly rare occasions XX=female XY=male is not entirely correct… Well, you could have said it in one sentence or at least one short paragraph, surely. If highly educated scientists (like you) were arguing in that discussion and made a mistake of claiming that XX is ALWAYS a female – sure, argue away that it is not so. But since 99% of people are CLEARLY XX=female XY=male, and that is what we learn in ALL of our schools, seems like you’re working too hard for a very small gain… 1%.
On a different note, wether it’s a XX or XY or any combination possible, it doesn’t make a difference to the fact that it belongs to a live human being (and yes, I’m only talking about human chromosomes, not mice or flies) that has the right to take the first breath.
Buzz
October 31st, 2010 at 12:22 pm
George Orwell quote: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
Hahahahaha!!!! Awesome!!!! That could definitely describe some part of the pro-abortion movement….. When they’re presented with facts, statistics, research, science, reason and proof, they stick their fingers in their ears and keep repeating some absurd ideas someone indoctrinated them with, like “Science doesn’t exist. God doesn’t exist. It’s all just a blob of tissue. Abortion is good for me. CPC’s are the source of evil in this world.” Makes them feel better about themselves in a few minutes, I bet….
Dr. XYZ,
:) By all means, enjoy whatever amusement you like; I’ve made my points sufficiently, I think, and there’s not much more to add to them; fare thee well. I would, however, ask that you work on your manners, in your spare time?
Dear Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr/Rev/Fr Paladin (sorry, I don’t really know which honorific applies):
I hope you are still following this thread, because I wanted to thank you for your constructive suggestion regarding my manners. You have convinced me of the need to review my various postings, so that I might find those that violate the norms for civility and apologize to the offended parties.
Apology at large: In my original comment I used the word “rabble” (a “disorganized and unruly crowd of people” [Merriam-Webster]), which I understand can have a pejorative connotation that some might take exception to. I hereby apologize to anyone who has ever commented on the PC/PL issue (the “crowd” to which I was referring, which includes the stupid kids from PP on the video) who was offended by that term. (Oops, there I go with the rude stuff again: I should have said “kids from PP who have been misinformed”. Kids, if you ever happen to read this, I apologize to you, too.)
Apology to Sioko: In reviewing our exchanges, I was alarmed to discover that you thought I had used the phrase “scientifically illiterate rabble” to describe a particular individual (Sioko), especially because that would violate the “criticize ideas, not people” rule (not to mention the syntactical problem of applying the plural “rabble” to a singular person). I was relieved to discover that that phrase was not present in my original comments, and that I used “scientific illiteracy” in reference to an entire spectrum. But, if Sioko somehow managed to misread my comments in the same way as you, I hereby apologize to him/her.
(I dearly hope you are not offended by my mentioning your misquotation in the previous paragraph, but if you are, please accept my apology for that. Thanks to your wise counsel, I now recognize that it would be rude to point out the various other examples. In this busy world it is hard to always maintain accuracy in our quotations, or to learn and adhere to those rules about using ellipses to indicate missing words, etc., and only an ill-mannered brute would point out specific examples where such silly conventions are violated.)
Apology to you: In my last post, I used the adjectives “thoughtless” and “uninformed” to describe you, which is an obvious and egregious violation of Nurse Jill’s policy. I hope you will accept my apology for that rude ad hominem attack. Please replace the offending sentence with the following:
“Most of the IDEAS you have expressed in your attempts at criticism do not address the content of my argument, and every STATEMENT you have presented as evidence of my own alleged ‘errors’ or ‘confusion’ is wrong. Although I would certainly not wish to apply such a label to you, confused ARGUMENTS that rely on abject ignorance are generally characterized as hubristic.” Understand: I am sure that you personally are not entirely stupid, misinformed and confused; I only wish to indicate that your COMMENTS were. Again, please forgive my rudeness and carelessness.
On a final note, I wanted to thank you for your sensitivity to my concerns about “wasting my time”, by keeping your last post short. Considering your chivalrous nature, I am sure that the only reason you did not include an apology for calling me “confused” and incorrectly claiming that I had made “errors in genetics” was to spare me the time and effort of reading it. My own kettle is obviously not as clean and shiny as I would like, but I am glad to note that your pot remains smudge free!
Science, facts, and Planned Parenthood don’t mix. These students called humans a “host”? So of they think humans are hosts for “parasites” inside the womb do they think that somehow the species radically changes from prior to birth to after birth? Or do they think that humans are still parasites after birth? Their thinking is so nonsensical.
BTW – I was able to view the first video but the second video is private so was unable to view that one. Would it be possible to view it somehow? If it helps, my account on youtube is Thomist36.
I can fully understand why these people would want this video removed from Youtube. What I can’t understand is why they allowed themselves to be taped? I can’t imagine wanting a permanent recording of ones own ignorance. Wow. I am surprised their heads didn’t blow up from the pressure of making up all that crap and attempting to sound intelligent.
Unbelievable…I pray these students being “educated” by Pro-Choice students are smarter than this! >.<