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.... 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."
August 13, 2015
"Ben Carson defended the use of fetal tissue for medical research..."
"... after a blog published excerpts of a 1992 paper describing work the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate carried out using aborted fetuses."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
The press really doesn't see the difference?
Well, none of them were smart enough to take difficult majors in college...
Poor Ben. Science and religion are
clashing again.
Science says, "Experiments on humans is OK so long as you get someone else to kill the humans for you first." Mrs Mengele's thoughts on lampshades redux.
Religion says God loves humAns and prohibits their murder.
Dr. Carson is right. Using fetal tissue from miscarriages is on a completely different moral plane from using aborted fetuses. It's like the difference between using volunteer test subjects for humanely conducted experiments vs. using captives. Sarah Silverman said it would be wasteful not to use aborted fetal tissue for experiments, or to save lives, to which I say it would have been wasteful for the Japanese not to use Chinese tissue for a good purpose, or for the Nazis not to have used Jew tissue.
Maybe someday someone will formulate a law like Godwin's Law about Margaret Sanger.
"Dr. Carson is right. Using fetal tissue from miscarriages is on a completely different moral plane from using aborted fetuses."
Carson was talking about using tissue from aborted fetuses.
It is a serious moral question. Many of the vaccines that we use were developed with cells from aborted fetuses. This is because of the way that fetal cells will keep dividing in the lab. I understand that the personhood arguments are not the same for a petri dish of cells as they are for a living fetus.
I'm very unhappy with this type of research and (other than the vaccines) I have not been able to find out exactly what this type of research is supposed to produce. Lots of vague talk about Parkinson and Alzheimer's but nothing that actually seems promising- If I am wrong please link me to what this research is supposed to be leading to. I'm not happy with cruel animal research but I'm able to balance that against the possible benefit.
What is the real or possible payoff for this research? and just how real and how possible is it?
To quote Rick Perry, "Oops"
This is why a lot of Trump fans don't leave Trump.
Every candidate has issues like this. Pile upon pile of them. We just don't hear about them yet because they aren't in the spotlight. The longer they are in the spotlight, the more this stuff comes out. Drip drip drip.
With Trump, who cares? He is bullet proof. The rest need to learn the Trump response to stupid crap like this.
As to AAs assertion that Carson was talking about aborted fetuses.
Know what a miscarriage is called? An abortion.
Garbage picking is not a crime, but if you went in to the person's garage and took the items the day before they pulled it to the curb, it would be.
So I guess Mr. Carson is saying the items he uses for research have already been moved to the curb, and the owner didn't want it anyway.
"Carson was talking about using tissue from aborted fetuses." If so, then he's a hypocrite, and won't get my vote. OTOH, "abortion" can be short for "spontaneous abortion", another term for miscarriage. Do we know for sure the tissue came from surgical abortions?
Did he know for sure it didn't, Char Char?
I would love to see evidence that he was sourcing material based on exclusively non-abortion sources. Is that claiming what he did, or did he care less at the time and is only grandstanding here?
Carson calls it "tissue" when he used it, but his anti-abortion supporters call it "baby parts." He knows what he used were "baby parts" but refuses to acknowledge or use that language. I also doubt that he bothered to check the origin of the tissue he used; or once the tissue is collected and labeled anyone goes back to determine whether the abortion was spontaneous or induced.
The difference from the Nazi scientists is that no one is forcing or paying US women to get abortions.
What about the use of cadavers for science ? The Visible Human, Prisoner?
Well of course the use of cadavers is OK to advance human knowledge. Don't be a twit. And don't minimize the seriousness of this topic.
Oh, right, look who I'm responding to. Oh well since it is R.Chatt then have at it! Score points, make cheap-shots, be as low as you want to be.
Enjoy yourself, you fucking worthless Godwin brained shit stain.
eric said...
"This is why a lot of Trump fans don't leave Trump.
Every candidate has issues like this. Pile upon pile of them. We just don't hear about them yet because they aren't in the spotlight. The longer they are in the spotlight, the more this stuff comes out. Drip drip drip.
With Trump, who cares? He is bullet proof. The rest need to learn the Trump response to stupid crap like this"
Trump said the Clintons are wonderful and were good for the economy. He has donated to their slush fund. He will not say a negative thing about her when confronted with things she has said about him very recently. He is running as an obvious stooge.
People supporting him are just gullible and desperate. I understand their desperation but there are better options like Cruz and Fiorina.
Hilary Clinton defends killing babies after birth. Her position is it isn't human until it leaves the hospital.
I doubt Carson's position is worse than hers.
"Enjoy yourself, you fucking worthless Godwin brained shit stain." I don't even know what that means but someone who uses that type of language claims to be morally superior to me. Go figure.
The Weigel post is marked as having been 'updated', but I don't see any sign of what was 'updated'. If the Post people imagine I'm going to wait for the entire thread of comments to load to read their correction or update at the end of that, they are sadly mistaken in their expectations.
"that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it."
Depends on how they got dead, doesn't it?
Cynic!!! People do change their philosophies for good reasons. I CONFESS that I was once a liberal Democrat (When members of that Party were not attempting to destroy the USA by treason and we had such honest politicians as "Clem" Zablocki and Harry S. Truman).
As the Democratic (sic) Party left me in a drive towards Atheistic Socialism, violations of the Bill Of Rights and other crimes, I now am somewhat to the far right.
Carson's point is that if you study the tissue of people who have been murdered, that does not mean you approve of murder or of the murderer.
People, Ben Carson is a pediatric neurologist. If anyone has the moral authority to be conducting research with these, as opposed to making skin rejuvenators, it would be Dr. Ben Carson.
As for cadavers, their supply to medicine has been problematic for some time. I don't think it's like am organic pasta shop where you can meet the cow who made the ricotta. Order one fetus at 8 months development for autopsy, plasticization, sectioning, stains and slides, cultures, whatever, you get what comes in the shipment.
They get 3 day old and 3 month old infants too. Probably some died by neglect, violence, something shameful or whatever, but death is the great leveller and none of it matters anymore.
If you start sobbing and can't go on by the end of Ernest Hemingway's six-word baby shoes story, you may not be cut out to be a pediatric neurosurgeon, or a President.
And what do you think Dr. Carson has seen in his very own practice at Johns Hopkins? Toddlers with head wounds? Domestic violence?
Those who do not know should not speak.
Carson had this to say about it;
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.
Blogger Char Char Binks said...
"Carson was talking about using tissue from aborted fetuses." If so, then he's a hypocrite, and won't get my vote. OTOH, "abortion" can be short for "spontaneous abortion", another term for miscarriage. Do we know for sure the tissue came from surgical abortions?
Does that answer your question? Sounds like it came from slides that hospitals already had on hand for comparison purposes.
Seems like they are trying to hard to make him sound like a hypocrite.
Ben Carson clarifies his "fetal tissue research".
https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson/posts/513020902197714
Post a Comment