It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ben Carson Conducted Research on Aborted Fetuses

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   



Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Thursday defended his past use of tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research even as he continued to criticize Planned Parenthood.

The retired neurosurgeon said his research, which took place in 1992, does not conflict with his call to defund Planned Parenthood after several undercover videos surfaced that purportedly show officials with the organization working with research companies using tissue from aborted fetuses.


What to say?



Carson, a former neurosurgeon, used 17-week-old fetal tissue samples in a 1992 study seeking to better understand the development of the brain. That revelation, which was published on Dr. Jen Gunter’s blog on Wednesday night, is leading reporters to question why the GOP candidate called fetal tissue research “disturbing” in the wake of several inflammatory videos depicting Planned Parenthood employees collecting biological material from aborted fetuses.

After a right-wing group first published footage suggesting Planned Parenthood was “selling aborted baby parts,” Carson strongly condemned the organization. He told Fox News that the scientific benefits of fetal research have been “overpromised” and “under-delivered.” He also said that 17-week-old fetuses are human beings, saying, “How can you believe that that’s just an irrelevant mass of cells?”


www.cnn.com...

thinkprogress.org...

edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



Washington (CNN)—Ben Carson on Tuesday slammed Planned Parenthood, telling CNN's Jake Tapper that the women's health organization "doesn't seem to understand the sanctity of human life and is willing to destroy that."

www.cnn.com...

The hypocrisy is mind numbing.


edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
No kidding. If people can't be 100% pure without the slightest misstep or apparent contradiction over a 25 year period, how DARE they presume to run for president.

Of course, this should narrow down the list of available candidates fairly quickly.


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
No kidding. If people can't be 100% pure without the slightest misstep or apparent contradiction over a 25 year period, how DARE they presume to run for president.

Of course, this should narrow down the list of available candidates fairly quickly.


I don't blame him for doing research on fetus'. He is a neurosurgeon. And I don't blame him for being "imperfect", as we all are.

At least he could have been honest and not been hypocritical in his calls for the de-funding of PP.

That's what I would take issue with.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
No kidding. If people can't be 100% pure without the slightest misstep or apparent contradiction over a 25 year period, how DARE they presume to run for president.

Of course, this should narrow down the list of available candidates fairly quickly.


I would think that Mr. Carson during all his ranting and raving over Planned Parenthood donating fetal tissue to researchers, might have mentioned that he was one of those researchers that benefited?

He certainly has no hesitation in citing his credentials ...but omitted those credentials involved dissecting 17 month old Fetuses?

And you might make note that Mr. Carson is not defending this revelation as some "misstep" or evolution in thinking.

Good of you to choose that defense for him...maybe you should let him know?
edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

So basically to sum up, it was ok when he was practicing medicine, but now that he's a politician he has to toe the party line and thus it is unacceptable for doctors of this era to do what he did 23 years ago.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
well, darn



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Indigo5

So basically to sum up, it was ok when he was practicing medicine, but now that he's a politician he has to toe the party line and thus it is unacceptable for doctors of this era to do what he did 23 years ago.


His defenses so far is...

(A) there are other ways to do the same research now "if that was the only way..there might be a good argument"

Which means he doesn't consider it life? Killing babies is Ok for research if there isn't an alternative???

(B) the lab had the Fetal tissue...so why not use it for research?..

Hey...it's not my fault because I just use the drugs...now the guy who gave them to me? That guy's got a problem!

I am still waiting for him to try the ..."My thinking has evolved"...bit

Of course the truth..."I am really full of crap and will tell the right wing whatever they want to hear"...is likely not on the short list of explanations.
edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I have absolutely no problem with his explanation.

We'd all like everything to be simple and explained in a one sentence sound bite. Some things are much more complex and require some nuance. You've got slogan chanters, and you've got reasoned intellectuals. I know which I prefer.

By the way, I'm not calling his previous research a misstep, I'm saying that no one is going to be ideologically pure over a 25 year period, no matter who they are.

I get the 'gotcha!' game and both sides play it very well. It just doesn't happen to interest me.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
ben carson?....who cares.....he has zero chance of getting the nomination...



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright



We'd all like everything to be simple and explained in a one sentence sound bite. Some things are much more complex and require some nuance. You've got slogan chanters, and you've got reasoned intellectuals. I know which I prefer.


I can agree and wish the same approach was taken with the PP videos. We cannot have everything put in to context through edited videos and some things are much more complex and require some nuance.

You've got slogan chanters, and you've got reasoned intellectuals. I know which I prefer.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
I have absolutely no problem with his explanation.



Here, let me provide the headline for that link ..
Ben Carson: No apologies for 1992 fetal tissue research





By the way, I'm not calling his previous research a misstep


..here, let me refresh your memory from 5 minutes ago..


originally posted by: yeahright
No kidding. If people can't be 100% pure without the slightest misstep or apparent contradiction over a 25 year period, how DARE they presume to run for president.



edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
I have absolutely no problem with his explanation.



His explanation:


If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it."


I am Demand...not Supply..

I am a drug user..not a dealer?

I took the pay-off..but did not pay anyone off..THAT guy needs to go to jail!

If he believes that a 17 week old fetus is a baby ("killing babies")...then he put in the request for the tissue for his research, received that tissue and as his paper outlines, dissected that fetus...How does being on the demand side of that equation absolve him?
edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
No this is big hypocrisy.

Sure nobody’s perfect but that’s not the point…its still hypocrisy.

He of course doesn’t buy the tissue but uses it...someone has to do the dirty work of buying this stuff


Its like a meat eater complaining about hunters killing the meat they eat



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

From your CNN article...



On the campaign trail in Manchester, New Hampshire, Carson told CNN his research simply used the tissue from aborted fetuses that was made available to him. "We have banked material in the pathology lab from people from every age -- from day 1 of concept to 120 years told. Those specimens are available for people who want to do comparisons," Carson said. "To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?"


And this...



"Virtually everything that can be attributed to progress by using fetal tissue can also use other types of tissue," he said. "If it were the only way to do something and there was no other way, there might be an argument. But under these circumstances, there isn't a legitimate argument."


The tissue used, from a pathology lab, was used for comparison. I highly doubt the doctor's ran to the local PP to get a fresh sample, so they could make a comparison of a disease affecting fetuses and diseased tissue removed from a living subject.

The study was performed at and benefited NCBI, National Center for Biotechnology Information. It is a big stretch to say that making a comparison between tissue, is akin to performing research on a dead fetus.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn



I highly doubt the doctor's ran to the local PP to get a fresh sample, so they could make a comparison of a disease affecting fetuses and diseased tissue removed from a living subject.


Does it matter where it came from? It's still fetal tissue.



The study was performed at and benefited NCBI, National Center for Biotechnology Information.


Does it matter where it was studied? It's still fetal tissue.



It is a big stretch to say that making a comparison between tissue, is akin to performing research on a dead fetus.


The tissue still came from a fetus, correct? Is one more "moral" than the other?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: Indigo5

The tissue used, from a pathology lab, was used for comparison. I highly doubt the doctor's ran to the local PP to get a fresh sample, so they could make a comparison of a disease affecting fetuses and diseased tissue removed from a living subject.



That argument logically fails. That tissue was in that "tissue bank" of that facility because of the demand of researchers like Ben Carson at that facility, who used that tissue.

What happens after he has used that tissue? The tissue bank replenishes it's stores from places like Planned Parenthood.

Claiming you are at the end of the demand equation does not mean you are not part of the demand.

Also...Fetal Tissue is not something you just take off the shelf...you apply for it, make your case for research etc. before being granted that tissue.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
What a hypocrite Ben Carson is. Furthermore, if this article had been about Hillary, Sanders or any other Dem, this thread would go on for 20 pages and the same people absolving Carson would be doing just the opposite. That makes them hypocrites too...the entire lot of them.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
originally posted by: introvert



Does it matter where it came from? It's still fetal tissue.




Does it matter where it was studied? It's still fetal tissue.




The tissue still came from a fetus, correct? Is one more "moral" than the other?


Never denied it was fetal tissue. IMO, "shopping" for fetuses to perform research on, is less moral than doctor's using fetal tissue to discover how diseases start and progress by comparing tissue. Nowhere in Dr. Carson's remarks, or in the abstract linked in the CNN article, was dissection of fetal tissue mentioned. The blogger, presumably a doctor, stated how fetal tissue has already been used to help create a vaccine for Ebola, and numerous treatments for HIV. Africa is still waiting. I guess PP better get on the stick.

When you start changing the methods of aborting fetuses to get the best prices and best fetuses, I have a problem with that.


edit on 8 13 2015 by retiredTxn because: screwed up



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Does it matter where it came from? It's still fetal tissue.


Yes, it matters. If it came from PP, it's evil. If it came from a tissue bank (which came from PP) it's all right.

It's like a person who wears alligator-skin boots, throwing a fit about the people who killed the alligator!

It's TOTALLY hypocritical!




top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join