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.
originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: Indigo5
I think folks "get it"...
You want to ferment outrage on a low tier candidate who just happens to be in the field of medicine that happens to deal with tissues, fetal included...
Go for it, it doesn't in anyway soften what planned parenthood folks have been doing...
I am not here to say that they should lose funding, but I do want heads to roll, I want accountability...
If PP does so much more that is beneficial for our society, I would think that their proponents would want this "brushing up against the law" mentality, using their paid legal department, out on their collective asses...
What Dr Carson did in the 90's.. in no way equates to what PP is dealing with...
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
You actually watched the video...so 'kudos' for that, but you're still being clearly obtuse in your responses...
Let's try this:
Is THIS your OP title?
"Ben Carson Conducted Research on Aborted Fetuses"
Yes it is. Agreed?
Does Carson say the tissue he removed was from an "Aborted" fetus/baby (take your pick)?
No, he does not.
IN FACT, he specifically states in the video (which you admit to watching)...that the tissue he removed was from an operation he was performing at the time (you'll remember we discussed that Dr. Carson in a pediatric BRAIN surgeon---in fact, he also is famous for successfully performing surgery on babies still in the womb (a fact touted in the debates, as you may recall).
In the video...Dr. Carson clearly and succinctly states that he was NOT operating on an ABORTED fetus.
You watched the video...so you know this is true.
Ergo, the title of your thread...and it's assertion...is completely false and misleading.
It's a simple fact.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
AND...for the love of God, Carson stated that it wasn't HIS paper...or his words
Carson also issued a statement, saying, "There is absolutely no contradiction between the research I worked on in 1992 and my pro-life views. The issue of fetal tissue has everything to do with how the tissue is acquired. My primary responsibility in that research was operating on people to obtain diseased tissue for comparison to banked tissue samples.
Killing babies and harvesting tissue for sale is very different than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it, which is exactly the source of the tissue used in OUR research."
www.cnn.com...
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
AND...for the love of God, Carson stated that it wasn't HIS paper...or his words. It was written by another doctor who WAS using aborted tissue...who was comparing his results to tissue Dr. Carson removed during operations.
The left has put information that I have done research on fetal tissues because my name appears on an article in which the pathologists compared specimens that I deliver from the operating room to fetal tissues," Carson explained. "My part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on the next operations. To suggest that I am in the laboratory actually doing the research or retrieving fetal tissue is nothing but propaganda."
originally posted by: retiredTxn
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.
I asked a simple question, did not assume guilt or innocence. Assure does not mean prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Geez, can't even ask a question anymore.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
IN FACT, he specifically states in the video (which you admit to watching)...that the tissue he removed was from an operation he was performing at the time (you'll remember we discussed that Dr. Carson in a pediatric BRAIN surgeon---in fact, he also is famous for successfully performing surgery on babies still in the womb (a fact touted in the debates, as you may recall).
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I asked a question too, which you just completely ignored.
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.
originally posted by: retiredTxn
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I asked a question too, which you just completely ignored.
I didn't ignore it. But just to set your heart at ease, no, I can't.
Since that question was not brought up in previous posts, it's moot.
I asked a simple question, and YOU assumed I was asking for proof, and began
telling me what I had done, and how I should conduct myself. Again, I asked a question.
Here is what I was responding to.
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.
Indigo set the parameters, I asked a question.
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?"
www.wdbj7.com...
originally posted by: Indigo5
So scientific reading is a hobby of mine. I also work with researchers of various disciplines.
Can I assure you that every single researcher must apply for fetal tissue vs. just taking it off the shelf?
No..My knowledge is not that absolute.
Back to you question...do I know this protocol to be 100% absolute...no...unlike folks just sayin stuff...honest scientific minds rarely if ever deal in absolutes...and it is that nth percent of a percent that non-scientific minds try and see how much BS they can inject into that small space.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: retiredTxn
If I owned a gun shop, it's not like I have to assure any third parties that everyone who buys a gun from me won't commit a crime with it. Yet you appear to be asking for a double standard here in this ONE situation. Why does a supplier related to abortion have to account for this, yet NO other industry ever forces the supplier to account for the actions of the buyer?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: retiredTxn
You are still misunderstanding me. Why is the question even relevant to begin with? Why even ask it? Answering it or considering it doesn't change anything. One can ask the same question about any other industry and they will be no closer to better understanding that industry. All in all, your question is a red herring.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: retiredTxn
You are still misunderstanding me. Why is the question even relevant to begin with? Why even ask it? Answering it or considering it doesn't change anything. One can ask the same question about any other industry and they will be no closer to better understanding that industry. All in all, your question is a red herring.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.