Planned Parenthood tries to get YouTube to pull embarrassing bloopers videos
Earlier this week embarrassing videos were uploaded to YouTube showing extreme ignorance of human biology by members of the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains student group Advocates for Choice.
And Planned Parenthood doesn’t like it when its disinformation machine is on public display.
The videos, 2:32 and 9:48 minutes long, include excerpts from a 106-minute debate (complete video here) held at Fort Lewis University in Durango, CO, on October 20 on the topic of Amendment 62, which would bestow constitutional personhood status to all human beings in the Centennial State from the moment of fertilization if passed on November 2.
Members of A4C are seen in the videos repeatedly attempting to dismiss science from a discussion of when human life begins, and for good reason.
Whenever they themselves broached the topic it was only to make woeful blunders, such as claiming the human heart begins beating at 24 weeks gestation, a woman sheds a fertilized egg every month, and the combination of X and Y chromosomes begats a female.
One person present at the debate told me today the A4C group apparently came prepared for a different sort of debate, noting that at the top of their stack of resources was a paper entitled, “Amendment 62 and the Bible.” Sorry.
The debate was obviously public. Two video recorders captured the event as well as 3 audio recorders, including 1 by the student newspaper and 1 by A4C.
But Planned Parenthood, as is its typical habit, is now trying to censor its display of ignorance. Yesterday Personhood USA, which posted the videos, received this warning from YouTube:
Personhood USA’s response:
YouTube has absolutely no foundation for pulling these videos. They were of a public debate where both parties gave permission to tape and both parties actually themselves taped. We shall see. Personhood USA has a back-up plan, but censorship by YouTube would be ludicrous.

Aww…too bad. I just went and tried to watch the videos. The shorter one is still up. The longer one has now been marked “private” and we don’t have access unless we’ve been invited to view it. I was pretty amazed by the one I did see. That’s not misinformation, that’s just stupidity. Not being mean or anything, that was the a big bunch of nonsense.
I can’t say that I blame PP. That kind of crass ignorance and deception is a new low for a sewer organization like PP. But then, that’s who they are.
at the top of their stack of resources was a paper entitled, “Amendment 62 and the Bible.”
LOL!! That cracked me up. :D
These people who recorded this need to absolutely upload the video to several sites just in case YT yanks it.
I say put it up everywhere! On the pro-life video site where it won’t be taken down. And if PP or the pro-abort students try to sue – think of the publicity! They will be exposed for the ignoramuses they are, maybe even nationally on television. Their lies and deception will be clear to the world. And people will begin to understand that the pro-lifers know their science — and that science is on our side.
Just curious: did anyone get a copy of the video before it was “privatized”? I’m assuming that the ones contributing the video wouldn’t mind in the least…
My favorites are:
“the fact of the matter is… this is opinion” and
“science is not ultimate truth. That’s why it’s science.”
Well, to be fair (and it’s not like being fair will make these folks look less stupid than they do), science is not ultimate truth. Science is very good at describing the natural world and how it works. That’s what it does. That’s what it’s supposed to do.
Science is not capable, and should not be implied to be capable, of answering questions like, “Do we have a soul?” or “What is the meaning of life?” or “Is this a moral action or not?” The big philosophical/ultimate truth sort of questions. This is where a lot of Dawkins fans start making mistakes when they say “Science proves there is no god!” No, science doesn’t prove that. All it does is not prove if there is one, which is a very important distinction.
Science describes the physical nature of our reality. What we decide to do in response to that is a different matter. I suspect this is where the A4C people were trying to go with what they said, although they crashed onto their noses and exploded (metaphorically speaking) on the way there.
Having said all that, obviously we should not throw science out of the abortion debate. You have to know what reality is before you can decide how to respond to it. Science can tell us about a 10-week-old fetus or whether the unborn is a human or not. Science can’t tell us whether it’s okay to kill that fetus, whether it be human or otherwise. That’s where philosophy and morality come in. These things describe truth that is no less real and objective, but they have different rules.
So, no, science isn’t ultimate truth. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.
You can’t apply science to that pro-abort girl’s body. I do hope she will kindly let her doctor know that before receiving any kind of medical care.
How disgusting. Please let us know when these videos are re-posted on a site that doesn’t cave into the abortion lobby’s demands for censorship.
I was literally doubled over with laughter when I watched this video a few days back. Too bad I was not in the audience, I would totally call them out on their b.s.!!
Absolutely great job pro-lifers! You won the debate hands down! God bless you abundantly in all you do for the least of our brethren. You are in my prayers!! I couldn’t view the entire video, after about minute 75 it shut off. Is there any other site where I can hear/see the whole debate? Thank you and God bless you.
God is being glorified! People HAVE changed their minds about abortion as a result of this debate. No wonder Planned Parenthood wants it removed!
You have to pity their non-existent debating skills. They didn’t argue for any of the vague crap that confuses the issue and plays on people’s fears and sympathy etc. No, they took the most irrational avenue; a direct attack on science itself. Brilliant. Honestly, you couldn’t have picked a weaker team of debating opponents.
Let’s help the video to go viral! And let’s make VERY sure that people know that the ignorant youths were TRAINED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD! Maybe add in a couple of quotes from PP about how they’re all about arming people with “information”.
Abortion is premeditated, prenatal murder. Abortionists are hit men and should be tried under the same laws.
Heavenly Father, may the Light of Truth expose every aspect of abortion, the procedures, and the lies and deceit of the industry, governments, and the United Nations. May all who receive these truths be outraged and disgusted by the barbarity, stop supporting abortion, and demand abortion be made illegal, on par with murder. I ask in Jesus’ name, Your only begotten Son, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever. Amen.
It is a scientific fact that life DOES NOT start at conception. The egg was alive, the sperm was alive and the new DNA began at Meiosis. Life was passed forward, not created.
Read the 12 IAFs. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ItouP7qed2sr_SzR9rMT_UKVAFvlrZd8KSes4AazoP4
Hi Russell.
Your link, though long, only the devotes the first three paragraphs to the “scientific” case. The rest is standard pro-choice argumentation which has been refuted many times. Let’s look carefully then at the first three.
“There is no known case where a human life has been frozen solid, and lived”
This is a great example of a question begging argument. That is, it assumes that a necessary condition for something to be a human life is that it cannot be frozen and remain alive, thereby a priori excluding the embryo from teh category of human life. But what reason is given to believe that a human life cannot be frozen and live? The article does not say. It simply assumes that. This is similar to what I talked about with Dr XYZ above when it comes to cloning and recombining- it is simply a property of the early embryo that it loses as it grows up. Same thing with teh ability to be frozen and live at that stage of life. All teh other science points to the existence of a new organism at fertilization i.e. the beginning of the human organism, and I don’t see why an non-argued arbitrary claim should trump that.
“The zygote and like tissue is living human tissue, but not human life. The differentiation being that human tissue can be frozen and reused and “human life” cannot be frozen and revived.”
This simply repeats the above. Yes, the article has made the assertion that human life cannot be frozen and live. I get taht assertion. What reason is there to believe that? Why is that a necessary condition of being human?
“Human life has a “spark of life” that living tissue does not have.”
Spark of life? Is this a scientific term? Can it be measured, quantified, weighed, studied in a lab? Sounds an awful lot like a “soul” to me; a religious concept, having no bearing on the science at hand, yet smuggled into the “scientific” argument.
“Let’s look at the difference between living human tissue and human life. Fingernails, hair, skin, zygotes and other body tissue is human life. But it is not “alive” –it does not have the spark of life–in the sense that it does not have the attributes of a fully formed “human being”.”
Again, what are the attributes of a fully formed human being and how do we show them scientifically? The article doesn’t say. What makes something human and why? This is simply another assertion that tehre is some criteria out there which the embryo does not satisfy.
“Many tissues that make up humans, have unique DNA, can be frozen, thawed and reused, stored and chemically treated and not lose their usefulness as living human tissue. Living human life cannot be frozen and restored or chemically treated and restored.”
For teh third time, I get that the claim is that you can’t be frozen, live, and be a human. It hasn’t be argued in the least why this is the case.
“Disambiguation between human life as found in human tissue and human life as in the human experience is of essential importance.”
Oops, sorry, I guess we jump into the standard pro-choice philosophical arguments in teh third paragraph. At what point does a being have a human experience? What is a human experience and why does having this experience make something worthy of life?
“One of the primary differences between human tissue as life and “human life” is that human tissue cannot create order out of disorder http://whatislife.stanford.edu/Homepage/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf whereas “human life” can.”
The link appears to be broken, but I can guess. My guess is that the pdf is completely philosophical in nature (which is fine, but not the purpose of this post) given that it is linked in teh context of this “order”, “disorder”, “spark of life” philosophical talk.
“Tissue can create cells, function on its own and carry out its natural duties but it cannot direct those duties and it cannot create a zygote without direction and assistance from a higher order of human life. In order to have the attributes of a human, in order to have that “spark of life”, it must be able to create order out of disorder and a zygote cannot do that. The zygote is simply tissue of the woman, controlled by the woman and created by the woman.”
This is simply mumbo-jumbo. Create order out of disorder? What does that mean? That’s scientific talk? Order and disorder are things that can be measured and studied in a lab? What do those terms mean? Again with the junk-science term “spark of life.”
Thus, I find this so-called “scientific case” extremely unscientific and horribly unconvincing. They have shown absolutely nothing except a desperate attempt to do whatever it takes to defend killing human beings, even if that means engaging in junk science. All I got from this is that there is a wildly unsubstantiated claim that a necessary condition for human life is the ability to not be frozen and live (again, not argued for, simply asserted to exclude the unborn) and a recycling of the old anti-science “quickening” argument in the form of the “spark of life.”
Oh, the Dr XYZ discussion which I refer to above is on teh “Planned Parenthood bloopers: The heart begins beating at 24 wks, and X+Y=female… but never mind science” thread, not this one…
Maybe the property that magically makes us human is when we gain something instead of lose something?
Some of us might think we become human when we begin to produce eggs. Others of us may think we become humans when we begin to produce sperm.
However, we elite, intelligent people know that we become human when we receive the ‘spark of life’. Russell is wrong about when humans receive this ‘spark’. It is not when we lose a property, it is when we gain one.
Humans receive this ‘spark’ when we can produce milk. I hope to see a law passed that anyone who has never produced milk can be legally aborted.
Because the ability to produce milk is what makes us real human beings.
Because I said so.
Praxedes,
This is argued EXACTLY as carefully and thoroughly as the science in the article above. An arbitrary criteria, a nonsense term, and poof. I would love to see how Russell could possibly refute what you wrote.
Furthermore, the ability to produce milk is a biological feature of human beings that does not change based on technology. It is inherent in the human organism. But maybe we just haven’t found the right technology in order to freeze adult humans and have them live. Thus, according to the article, our humanity could change depending on teh technology, but according to Praxedes theory, it will not change. Thus, I find Praxedes’s theory much more compelling.
At the risk of kicking a horse so thoroughly euthanized by Bobby and Praxedes… :) …Russel wrote:
It is a scientific fact that life DOES NOT start at conception. The egg was alive, the sperm was alive and the new DNA began at Meiosis. Life was passed forward, not created.
Er… you were aware of the fact that the slogan “life begins at conception” is short-hand for “the life of a human PERSON begins at conception”, were you not?
Let me add one final thought. That is, that teh claim is that once the embryo LOSES something it gains the status of a human being. Thus, by losing an attribute, teh new thing has MORE moral worth and value than the thing that LOST an attribute? If anything, this proves too much. Why would we NOT value a being who can freeze and live but VALUE the exact same being except that it can freeze and NOT live? The more I think about this argument, honestly I hate to use such a strong word, but teh dumber and dumber it is. You have a being. It loses a property and by LOSING THAT PROPERTY IT ATTAINS DIGNITY AND MORAL WORTH. In other words, you have to die if I freeze you in order for you to have dignity and moral worth.
Wait a second… I thought I froze you… and yet you’re still alive? Now I KNOW that you are not worthy of life and I can kill you!
Losing an attribute causes moral worth. How in teh world is this position defended? Again, at least with Praxades, teh idea of GAINING an attribute causing you to have dignity and moral worth at least seems to make sense (and is indeed an argument espoused by at least reasonable pro-choicers when they talk about sentience or viability or whatever as teh criteria for personhood).
I’d like to say I’m done critiquing this argument, but every time I spend more time thinking about it, the more I am amazed at how bad it is. I think it’s on a different level of bad than even many of the other standard question-begging pro-chocie arguments, and of course nowhere near teh level of personhood or bodily autonomy arguments in favor of abortion rights. This “frozen death” argument makes me embarrassed for pro-chociers who actually put thought into teh arguments they put forward in favor of abortion.
This is the first time I’ve heard the “unable to live after being frozen” requirement for personhood. Bobby’s done a great job tearing it down. I’d just like to add that, as with every other supposed requirement for personhood designed to exclude the preborn from the human family, others are inadvertently caught in the net:
Woman back from dead after she survives record low temperatures
“A woman has been brought back from the dead after surviving the lowest temperature recorded in a human being.
The 29-year-old woman was declared clinically dead after a skiing accident in which she became wedged under thick ice and submerged in freezing water for 40 minutes. By the time rescue services had taken her to hospital, her body temperature had fallen to 13.7C – almost 24 degrees below the normal temperature of 37C. Doctors worked on her for nine hours before she came round and she then spent 60 days in intensive care, 35 of them on a ventilator to assist her breathing.
Five months after the accident last May, she was back at work with only minor problems. Last week, she returned from a two-week skiing holiday in Canada.”
Admins, I’m having technical difficulties. My comment won’t show up, and when I retry I get a “duplicate comment” error.
Did that do it?
Well Kelsey, I guess what that would show then is that this woman wasn’t really a human to begin with! It’s just like the witch trials back in teh day. Put em in water. If they sink and drown, then they weren’t really a witch. If they float, they’re a witch, so burn em!
Similarly, in order to test whether or not someone is a human being, we should freeze them. If they die, then they indeed were a human. But if they survive, then they aren’t really a human, so burn em!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
How did I *know* that someone would post that clip…? :)
lol stupid people for the win!