Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
56 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Well I guess that's the end of Ben Carson's campaign... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: But_Obama_Did_it! [+] [View All]
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He did research on fetal tissue!?!? OMG, what????

Quote:
Dr. Ben Carson, GOP nominee hopeful, told Fox’s Megyn Kelly that “There’s nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue” and that the benefits of fetal tissue have been “over promised” and the results have “very much under-delivered.”

Carson also said, “At 17 weeks, you’ve got a nice little nose and little fingers and hands and the heart’s beating. It can respond to environmental stimulus. How can you believe that that’s just a[n] irrelevant mass of cells? That’s what they want you to believe, when in fact it is a human being.”

Dr. Carson, like everyone, is entitled to an opinion no matter how wrong, What he says doesn’t change the fact that fetal tissue plays a vital role in medical research. For example it is being used to develop a vaccine against Ebola. Many researchers depend on fetal tissue to understand and hopefully develop treatment for a myriad of conditions from blindness to HIV. Without fetal tissue neurosciences research, something essential for the development of neurosurgical techniques, would be far less developed. Dr. Carson should be intimately aware of this fact.

While opining on the uselessness of fetal tissue research to Megyn Kelly Dr. Carson neglected to mention his own paper Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation published in Hum Pathol 23:811-816 in 1992. The materials and methods describe using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”

Yes, Dr. Ben Carson has done research on fetal tissue and published his findings. His name is on the paper so that means he had a substantive role in the research and supports the methods and findings.

How does one explain this given Carson’s stand on fetal tissue research?

Perhaps Dr. Carson feels that only his work delivered the goods and all other researchers have produced inconsequential work, an Ebola vaccine clearly not of merit by Carson’s logic.

Could he think his own research was useless? However, if it was non contributory to the field why was it published?

Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue? Convenient I suppose if you are a Presidential hopeful and want to use your doctor credentials to get prime Fox and Brietbart space and there is a fetal-tissue-for-research issue.

It could have been some resident research paper that just needed a faculty member and he was sympathetic so got stuck with the job, but then again if you are running for President shouldn’t you know your own CV? And there is still that sticky issue of why add your name if you find fetal tissue research so unnecessary?

Might he feel that fetal tissue research was ok then, but not now? Using that logic we must have learned everything about medicine by 1992 and now we’re just working out the kinks while waiting for the cure for Alzheimer’s, HIV, and Parkinson’s to drop from the heavens.

As a neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson knows full well that fetal tissue is essential for medical research. His discipline would have a hard time being were it is today without that kind of work. What is even more egregious than dismissing the multitude of researchers whose work allowed him to become a neurosurgeon is the hypocrisy of actually having done that research himself while spouting off about its supposed worthlessness.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meh, plenty of time has passed for the ole "I was young, I know better, I've found Jesus" thing to sweep it under the rug.

Side question; What's a Ben Carson?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank F
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
IF YOU WANT IT
badge
Please investigate a resource based economy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hypocrisy has always been a significant plank of the republican platform.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
Meh, plenty of time has passed for the ole "I was young, I know better, I've found Jesus" thing to sweep it under the rug.
He's not apologizing for doing it. he says it was ok for him because... reasons.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
1992 was a pretty long time ago...23 years. I suspect his position here "evolved" just like Obama's did on gay marriage.

Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Donald wrote:
Meh, plenty of time has passed for the ole "I was young, I know better, I've found Jesus" thing to sweep it under the rug.
He's not apologizing for doing it. he says it was ok for him because... reasons.

His official reason is that he didn't do it, the extent of his part of the research was on brain tumors he removed from patients.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's not the justification he gave when interviewed by the WaPo:

Quote:
Ben Carson defended the use of fetal tissue for medical research Thursday, after a blog published excerpts of a 1992 paper describing work the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate carried out using aborted fetuses. In an interview with The Washington Post, Carson called the revelation "desperate," and ignorant of the way medical research was carried out.

"You have to look at the intent," Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. "To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. 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."

Carson, who has risen in primary polls since last week's debate, is among the Republicans who've condemned Planned Parenthood after undercover videos revealed executives in the organization coldly discussing the extraction and distribution of tissue from aborted fetuses. In a July interview on Fox News, after the first videos broke, Carson said that there was “nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue" and that babies aborted at 17 weeks were clearly human beings.

That inspired Jen Gunter to excavate a 1992 paper, co-authored by Carson, in which doctors described how they applied "human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation." That, wrote Gunter, was quite the contrast from Carson's 2015 denunciation of fetal tissue research.

"Could he think his own research was useless?" Gunter asked. "If it was non-contributory to the field why was it published? Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue?"

Carson had not forgotten and considered the type of research he did to be useful. "When we obtain tissue like that, we want to know what the origin of that tissue is developmentally," he said. "Knowing that helps us determine which patients are likely to develop a problem. It’s one of the reasons why at the turn of the last century, the average age of death was 47. Now, the average age of death is 80. Using the information that you have is a smart thing, not a dumb thing."

Asked if fetal tissue research should be banned, or if it was immoral, Carson said no.

"Bear this in mind about pathologists," said Carson. "Regardless of what their ideology is, when they receive tissue, they prepare the tissue. They label it. They mark how it got there. Regardless of whether it’s from a fetus or someone who’s 150 years old, they bank them in tissue blocks. Other people doing comparative research need to have a basis. When pathologists receive specimen, their job is to prepare the specimen. They have no job opining on where the tissue came from."

There was no contradiction between this science and Carson's pro-life views, he said. "My primary responsibility in that research was when I operated on people and obtained the tissue," said Carson, who noted that he has not used fetal tissue samples since then. "This has everything to do with how it’s acquired. 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."

Asked if Planned Parenthood should cease its fetal tissue distribution, Carson demurred. He still favored defunding the group, but would not call for the end of fetal tissue research so long as the fetal tissue was available.

"I may not be completely objective about Planned Parenthood, because I know how they started with Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics," he said. "But it would be good for the public to understand this whole aspect of medical research."
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
1992 was a pretty long time ago...23 years. I suspect his position here "evolved" just like Obama's did on gay marriage.
Nope, he's still ok with what he did.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
That's not the justification he gave when interviewed by the WaPo:

Quote:
Ben Carson defended the use of fetal tissue for medical research Thursday, after a blog published excerpts of a 1992 paper describing work the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate carried out using aborted fetuses. In an interview with The Washington Post, Carson called the revelation "desperate," and ignorant of the way medical research was carried out.

"You have to look at the intent," Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. "To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. 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."

Carson, who has risen in primary polls since last week's debate, is among the Republicans who've condemned Planned Parenthood after undercover videos revealed executives in the organization coldly discussing the extraction and distribution of tissue from aborted fetuses. In a July interview on Fox News, after the first videos broke, Carson said that there was “nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue" and that babies aborted at 17 weeks were clearly human beings.

That inspired Jen Gunter to excavate a 1992 paper, co-authored by Carson, in which doctors described how they applied "human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation." That, wrote Gunter, was quite the contrast from Carson's 2015 denunciation of fetal tissue research.

"Could he think his own research was useless?" Gunter asked. "If it was non-contributory to the field why was it published? Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue?"

Carson had not forgotten and considered the type of research he did to be useful. "When we obtain tissue like that, we want to know what the origin of that tissue is developmentally," he said. "Knowing that helps us determine which patients are likely to develop a problem. It’s one of the reasons why at the turn of the last century, the average age of death was 47. Now, the average age of death is 80. Using the information that you have is a smart thing, not a dumb thing."

Asked if fetal tissue research should be banned, or if it was immoral, Carson said no.

"Bear this in mind about pathologists," said Carson. "Regardless of what their ideology is, when they receive tissue, they prepare the tissue. They label it. They mark how it got there. Regardless of whether it’s from a fetus or someone who’s 150 years old, they bank them in tissue blocks. Other people doing comparative research need to have a basis. When pathologists receive specimen, their job is to prepare the specimen. They have no job opining on where the tissue came from."

There was no contradiction between this science and Carson's pro-life views, he said. "My primary responsibility in that research was when I operated on people and obtained the tissue," said Carson, who noted that he has not used fetal tissue samples since then. "This has everything to do with how it’s acquired. 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."

Asked if Planned Parenthood should cease its fetal tissue distribution, Carson demurred. He still favored defunding the group, but would not call for the end of fetal tissue research so long as the fetal tissue was available.

"I may not be completely objective about Planned Parenthood, because I know how they started with Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics," he said. "But it would be good for the public to understand this whole aspect of medical research."

I was commenting on a facebook post that came across my feed, which appeared to be from him, basically he denies that he did any work on aborted fetuses, in that study his part of the research was from brain tumors he was taking out.

Furthermore, the questions don't necessarily overlap...do you think we should abort fetuses to study them? no Do you think we should study fetal tissue? Yes...you can get fetal tissue without an abortion.

Additionally, the hubbub about Planned Parenthood, at least from what I've seen, has more to do with the fact that Planned Parenthood was actively engaged in negotiations to sell the aborted fetal tissue. If someone has a legal abortion, donates the tissue of their own volition to be studied and it gets studied, I don't see how anything else is relevant. As the Dr. himself said, the researcher doesn't really have a place to opine on where it came from. I don't think we know the specifics of the tissue collection strategy of the study, but there hasn't been evidence shown that they actively purchased or tried to influence the procurement of the samples through unethical means.

You want to play a "gotcha" where there isn't one to be had.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not gong to comment on what you saw in your Facebook feed. I'll stick to published news reports.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There also hasn't been shown any evidence that PP profited from fetal tissue sales...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
jmilum wrote:
That's not the justification he gave when interviewed by the WaPo:

Quote:
Ben Carson defended the use of fetal tissue for medical research Thursday, after a blog published excerpts of a 1992 paper describing work the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate carried out using aborted fetuses. In an interview with The Washington Post, Carson called the revelation "desperate," and ignorant of the way medical research was carried out.

"You have to look at the intent," Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. "To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. 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."

Carson, who has risen in primary polls since last week's debate, is among the Republicans who've condemned Planned Parenthood after undercover videos revealed executives in the organization coldly discussing the extraction and distribution of tissue from aborted fetuses. In a July interview on Fox News, after the first videos broke, Carson said that there was “nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue" and that babies aborted at 17 weeks were clearly human beings.

That inspired Jen Gunter to excavate a 1992 paper, co-authored by Carson, in which doctors described how they applied "human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation." That, wrote Gunter, was quite the contrast from Carson's 2015 denunciation of fetal tissue research.

"Could he think his own research was useless?" Gunter asked. "If it was non-contributory to the field why was it published? Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue?"

Carson had not forgotten and considered the type of research he did to be useful. "When we obtain tissue like that, we want to know what the origin of that tissue is developmentally," he said. "Knowing that helps us determine which patients are likely to develop a problem. It’s one of the reasons why at the turn of the last century, the average age of death was 47. Now, the average age of death is 80. Using the information that you have is a smart thing, not a dumb thing."

Asked if fetal tissue research should be banned, or if it was immoral, Carson said no.

"Bear this in mind about pathologists," said Carson. "Regardless of what their ideology is, when they receive tissue, they prepare the tissue. They label it. They mark how it got there. Regardless of whether it’s from a fetus or someone who’s 150 years old, they bank them in tissue blocks. Other people doing comparative research need to have a basis. When pathologists receive specimen, their job is to prepare the specimen. They have no job opining on where the tissue came from."

There was no contradiction between this science and Carson's pro-life views, he said. "My primary responsibility in that research was when I operated on people and obtained the tissue," said Carson, who noted that he has not used fetal tissue samples since then. "This has everything to do with how it’s acquired. 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."

Asked if Planned Parenthood should cease its fetal tissue distribution, Carson demurred. He still favored defunding the group, but would not call for the end of fetal tissue research so long as the fetal tissue was available.

"I may not be completely objective about Planned Parenthood, because I know how they started with Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics," he said. "But it would be good for the public to understand this whole aspect of medical research."

I was commenting on a facebook post that came across my feed, which appeared to be from him, basically he denies that he did any work on aborted fetuses, in that study his part of the research was from brain tumors he was taking out.

Furthermore, the questions don't necessarily overlap...do you think we should abort fetuses to study them? no Do you think we should study fetal tissue? Yes...you can get fetal tissue without an abortion.

Additionally, the hubbub about Planned Parenthood, at least from what I've seen, has more to do with the fact that Planned Parenthood was actively engaged in negotiations to sell the aborted fetal tissue. If someone has a legal abortion, donates the tissue of their own volition to be studied and it gets studied, I don't see how anything else is relevant. As the Dr. himself said, the researcher doesn't really have a place to opine on where it came from. I don't think we know the specifics of the tissue collection strategy of the study, but there hasn't been evidence shown that they actively purchased or tried to influence the procurement of the samples through unethical means.

You want to play a "gotcha" where there isn't one to be had.

I don't know anyone who advocates us8ng abortions *to* get fetal tissue for research. I know people who advocate using fetal tissue *from* abortions that have happened for sething other than filling plastic baggies.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grady Smithey
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
I was commenting on a facebook post that came across my feed, which appeared to be from him, basically he denies that he did any work on aborted fetuses, in that study his part of the research was from brain tumors he was taking out.

He said this on his Facebook:

"Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true."

He wasn't trying to deny that the fetal tissue he was experimenting on came from aborted fetuses; he was trying to deny that he worked on fetal tissue at all, and the study he authored about the results of the experiments he and his team performed on fetal tissue proves that claim false.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is all a,really silly thing to try to get him on. Carson's voiced beliefs in interviews contain enough attrocious stuff.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
This is all a,really silly thing to try to get him on. Carson's voiced beliefs in interviews contain enough attrocious stuff.
I don't think he should be 'gotten' over it, but I suppose his supporters that are currently hating on PP may think differently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think harvesting humans for research is an ethically correct decision to be made as a society. Especially considering we have an estimated 3 million miscarriage per year in the USA that can be potentially donated.

But then again, its hard to argue with the results of the Democrats war on black Americans, somewhere in hell, Margaret Sanger is smiling !
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
Drew1365 wrote:
If I've learned anything from RSP's Obama-lickers it's that Jer's attack on Ben Carson is obviously motivated by racism.
ben carson is black
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
single sentences wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
If I've learned anything from RSP's Obama-lickers it's that Jer's attack on Ben Carson is obviously motivated by racism.
ben carson is black
That is his point, it's a dig.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
I don't think harvesting humans for research is an ethically correct decision to be made as a society.

Good thing no one is doing that. Harvesting material from already planned and completed abortions is not the same thing. But you get your "Use hyperbole in a sentence" gold star sticker for the day.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
I don't think harvesting humans for research is an ethically correct decision to be made as a society.

Good thing no one is doing that. Harvesting material from already planned and completed abortions is not the same thing.

You're now suggesting that the aborted babies aren't human? What are they? Walruses?
Is a finger a human being?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
snakebitcat wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
I was commenting on a facebook post that came across my feed, which appeared to be from him, basically he denies that he did any work on aborted fetuses, in that study his part of the research was from brain tumors he was taking out.

He said this on his Facebook:

"Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true."

He wasn't trying to deny that the fetal tissue he was experimenting on came from aborted fetuses; he was trying to deny that he worked on fetal tissue at all, and the study he authored about the results of the experiments he and his team performed on fetal tissue proves that claim false.

The entirety of the relevant portion of his facebook post...

Quote:
I wanted to use our time tonight to directly deal with an attack launched on me today by the left and the media. A couple questions came in on this subject, so I want to address it head on.
Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors.
I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.
I am sickened by the attack that I, after having spent my entire life caring for children, had something to do with aborting a child and harvesting organs. My medical specialty is the human brain and even I am amazed at what it is capable of doing. Please know these attacks are pathetic attempts to blunt our progress.

So his denial is that he personally did not work on the fetal tissue and his part of the research paper was providing tumors he had removed. Additionally the fetal tissue that was used seems to have come from a research hospital that had it available for study.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

You're now suggesting that the aborted babies aren't human? What are they? Walruses?

I've suggested it before. They are inanimate flesh. Just like "human" hair isn't human. To me, when someone says "harvesting humans" that implies selecting still living humans to euthanize for their pieces parts. The parts come from humans, but they are not humans. You have to have to be alive to be human.

If you are going to dubiously extend the definition of "human" to all material that once was part of a human, then things are going to get weird and complicated fast.

So yes, I think that once life/spirit/consciousness has fled the mortal coil, the remains are no longer "human".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grady Smithey
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
snakebitcat wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
I was commenting on a facebook post that came across my feed, which appeared to be from him, basically he denies that he did any work on aborted fetuses, in that study his part of the research was from brain tumors he was taking out.

He said this on his Facebook:

"Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true."

He wasn't trying to deny that the fetal tissue he was experimenting on came from aborted fetuses; he was trying to deny that he worked on fetal tissue at all, and the study he authored about the results of the experiments he and his team performed on fetal tissue proves that claim false.

The entirety of the relevant portion of his facebook post...

Quote:
I wanted to use our time tonight to directly deal with an attack launched on me today by the left and the media. A couple questions came in on this subject, so I want to address it head on.
Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors.
I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.
I am sickened by the attack that I, after having spent my entire life caring for children, had something to do with aborting a child and harvesting organs. My medical specialty is the human brain and even I am amazed at what it is capable of doing. Please know these attacks are pathetic attempts to blunt our progress.

So his denial is that he personally did not work on the fetal tissue and his part of the research paper was providing tumors he had removed. Additionally the fetal tissue that was used seems to have come from a research hospital that had it available for study.

And the report he and his team wrote about their research includes this part that makes his "I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion" a false claim:

"Human choroid plexus, ependyma, and nasal mucosa were obtained from two fetuses aborted at the ninth and 17th week of gestation."

At best, Carson is spinning things to try to use "Well, nobody on my team performed an abortion to get tissue" as a defense against charges that his team did what it did. At worst he's just showing a complete disregard for the truth. Either way, the only actual question is exactly how dishonest he's being here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

You're now suggesting that the aborted babies aren't human? What are they? Walruses?

I've suggested it before. They are inanimate flesh.

Now you're insisting they're not even alive? Dude, do you even science?

Wait, you are now saying aborted babies are alive? You might want to look up the definition of science yourself.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


Uh, . . . so although you previously insisted they weren't human, now you're saying that they were human until they were aborted? Can you find a narrative and hop on?

A child in the womb is not "part human." It is an entire human being.

But I'm surprised you're bringing up an argument about "ensoulment" ("once life/spirit/consciousness has fled the mortal coil"). Here's an easy question: when does life begin?

Is this where we start weasel wrestling again?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |