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: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Briebart??
www.breitbart.com...

And a dozen other places?

He was the surgical end of the research.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
dp
edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
EDIT: Your selective editing of tonight's Breitbart article and O'Reilly transcript is curious.
edit on 13-8-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Indigo5


His paper specified aborted fetuses.

No..with research publications you do not get to be a top-line author unless you drove and participated in the research.


So, their is only one way for fetuses to be classified as "aborted"?

A research publication can't be a collaboration of several people? They all must be in there "slicing and dicing", or they don't get top billing?

Naivete is cute on you.


He has explained that surgical "operation"..."Slicing and dicing" was precisely his role in that fetal research...

Being exactly wrong is cute on you?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


What reply reply is necessary. Amongst all his semantics he admits that his role was surgical..he denies "researching" fetal tissue...cuz according to him his role was Operation and delivery of the tissue to researchers..he dissected aborted fetuses..specifically the brain tissue to remove and deliver part of the brain..He explains it in your post...what are you missing?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


What reply reply is necessary. Amongst all his semantics he admits that his role was surgical..he denies "researching" fetal tissue...cuz according to him his role was Operation and delivery of the tissue to researchers..he dissected aborted fetuses..specifically the brain tissue to remove and deliver part of the brain..He explains it in your post...what are you missing?


NEWSFLASH: Dr. Carson is a Pediatric BRAIN surgeon.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


uhhh..How do you read this?

"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."

In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..

He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?

His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..

Strange the manner of denial folks employ..



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


What reply reply is necessary. Amongst all his semantics he admits that his role was surgical..he denies "researching" fetal tissue...cuz according to him his role was Operation and delivery of the tissue to researchers..he dissected aborted fetuses..specifically the brain tissue to remove and deliver part of the brain..He explains it in your post...what are you missing?


NEWSFLASH: Dr. Carson is a Pediatric BRAIN surgeon.


He is also, now by his own admission, an aborted dead fetus brain surgeon....

Psst..absent the fetus being alive...which it wasn't..he is either sick in the head or was conducting research, no matter what crap he said...otherwise why is he dissecting a 17 week aborted fetuses brain?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


uhhh..How do you read this?

"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."

In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..

He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?

His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..

Strange the manner of denial folks employ..


IN HIS OWN WORDS: It was tissue from brain surgery not from an aborted fetus.
AND...it was NOT HIS paper (again...stated in his own words).

Watch the video and listen please.
Then please admit your title is incorrect.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


uhhh..How do you read this?

"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."

In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..

He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?

His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..

Strange the manner of denial folks employ..


IN HIS OWN WORDS: It was tissue from brain surgery not from an aborted fetus.
AND...it was NOT HIS paper (again...stated in his own words).

Watch the video and listen please.
Then please admit your title is incorrect.


Please show me a quote?..His words..not yours...cuz the quotes from Briebart and other places from this interview directly contradict what you are claiming.

Transcript or quote and link please.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5



His paper specified aborted fetuses.

No..with research publications you do not get to be a top-line author unless you drove and participated in the research.





His part was to obtain the fetus, however it had been aborted, and provide it to the other researchers. you are confusing the dissection done by the other researchers, with him doing an operation to retrieve the fetus. It's not hard.

ETA: If Dr. Carson was operating on a live patient, and removal of some tissue was necessary, could he have delivered this to the pathologist? There are too many variables to accept just your understanding. I would really like to see a quote from "his paper" concerning him actually doing dissection of fetal brain tissue in the research for this paper.
edit on 8 13 2015 by retiredTxn because: add some



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


uhhh..How do you read this?

"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."

In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..

He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?

His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..

Strange the manner of denial folks employ..


IN HIS OWN WORDS: It was tissue from brain surgery not from an aborted fetus.
AND...it was NOT HIS paper (again...stated in his own words).

Watch the video and listen please.
Then please admit your title is incorrect.


Please show me a quote?..His words..not yours...cuz the quotes from Briebart and other places from this interview directly contradict what you are claiming.

Transcript or quote and link please.


I asked you very nicely to listen to his own lips saying it in his own words by watching the video in the Breitbart/O'Reilly video.
Is there some reason you ignored my previous request? Are you afraid to actually watch it for yourself?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

His part was to obtain the fetus, however it had been aborted, and provide it to the other researchers. you are confusing the dissection done by the other researchers, with him doing an operation to retrieve the fetus. It's not hard.

ETA: If Dr. Carson was operating on a live patient, and removal of some tissue was necessary, could he have delivered this to the pathologist? There are too many variables to accept just your understanding. I would really like to see a quote from "his paper" concerning him actually doing dissection of fetal brain tissue in the research for this paper.


Dissection does not mean performing an abortion.

He did not perform an abortion...

He operated on the aborted fetus and removed specific parts of the fetus's brain...I have cited the anatomy in previous posts as specified in his research paper. You can look up those brain structures. They require dissection to access.

His own words were that his role was operation and supply...but not research.

If that claim is honest then he is saying his role was to remove (via dissecting...aka...slicing into and removing) various parts of the 17 week fetal tissue, namely brain structures (OPERATION)...and then deliver it to the researchers for closer examination (SUPPLY).

I can only say it so many different ways.

This is Dr. Carson himself has explained...

This is what his paper cites...

These are the facts.
edit on 13-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Not surprising at all actually. Here's another one for your list of hypocrites.

McConnell disturbed by fetal tissue research he voted to legalize in '93


In 1988, the Reagan administration began a moratorium on fetal tissue from elective abortions being used in scientific research. But Congress lifted that ban in 1993 when it passed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which allowed research on human fetal tissue regardless of whether the tissue came from a voluntary abortion. McConnell voted for that bill, as did Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), all of whom have condemned Planned Parenthood in the past two weeks for its involvement in the practice. “What we saw was very, very disturbing," McConnell said of the video on Monday.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I felt something wrong about him like a sheep in wolves clothing.
This and pro- vaccines for nationalization are the nail in the coffin for me. But let's be honest currently no candidate( any party lol) looks overly great so far in my opinion. And don't worry none of the candidates will become the next president. Our current 44th will stay in until the new global shifts start to fully ferment.......



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

ben carson?....who cares.....he has zero chance of getting the nomination...

It just gives the pro-murder crowd something to spank about. They've had a rough go of it lately, so they'll jump on anything they can to get fingers pointed in a different direction.

So a marginal political candidate is a hypocrite? Stop the presses.




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5


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.




I've already grown bored with this, but this is the problem. I didn't and haven't called his previous research a misstep. You can see what I said, because you quoted it. Now let me clarify it. If we're going to parse over the granular aspects of ANYONE'S history going back 10, 20, 30 years, NO ONE is going to come out the other side pure enough for anyone looking for a reason to slap them around in public.

So have fun with that.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: Indigo5


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.




I've already grown bored with this, but this is the problem. I didn't and haven't called his previous research a misstep. You can see what I said, because you quoted it. Now let me clarify it. If we're going to parse over the granular aspects of ANYONE'S history going back 10, 20, 30 years, NO ONE is going to come out the other side pure enough for anyone looking for a reason to slap them around in public.

So have fun with that.


I generally agree...but questions of honesty matter...and hypocrisy.

Whilst his experience operating on aborted fetuses was 20 years ago..his slamming of the use of fetal tissue in research is only weeks old. That makes his own experience a significant and legitimate line of inquiry.

HE chose to make fetal tissue research a centerpiece of his rhetorical platform.

This is not some random "granular" minutia from his past...it is precisely the research that he has lambasted publicly for the past several weeks.

...and he attacked fetal tissue research while specifically citing his experience and credentials, but not mentioning that experience included conducting research operations on aborted fetuses.

The topic is very much in the present. He chose that topic and clearly speaks from a place of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

His new claim of not being involved in fetal research...because he only dissected the brain and delivered the relevant portions to the researchers...Is just insanely dishonest and unapologetic for his hypocrisy.

edit on 14-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.


uhhh..How do you read this?

"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."

In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..

He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?

His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..

Strange the manner of denial folks employ..


IN HIS OWN WORDS: It was tissue from brain surgery not from an aborted fetus.
AND...it was NOT HIS paper (again...stated in his own words).

Watch the video and listen please.
Then please admit your title is incorrect.


Since you chose not to quote him and instead demand I sit through and watch a ten minute O'Reilly segment...

I obliged against my better judgment.

Dr. Carson clearly and unambiguously explains that he was responsible for the "operation" of removing the relevant fetal tissue and delivering it to the researchers.

Specifically he removed the "choroid plexus" from two fetuses at 9 and 17 weeks according to the research paper he co-authored.

The Choroid plexus is near the center of the brain...this requires careful dissection.

He thus decides that affords him the ability to deny he was involved in Fetal Tissue "research"....since the actual research and examination under a microscope was done by others.

The obvious logical question is...If he was not "involved in fetal tissue research"...why was he dissecting two fetuses brains? For entertainment?

Try this out...Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that girl!!"...."so...she happened to be naked and I had this cigar...."
edit on 14-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: Indigo5




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.


Can you assure all the folks buying from PP are following this same practice? I doubt the NIH and NCBI are buying from PP.


Can you prove that any aren't? Because that's the real question here. You need to stop assuming guilt before evidence, which is what your request above does. We PROVE guilt and assume innocence in this country.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join