Ben Carson defends fetal tissue research

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Ben Carson: No apologies for 1992 fetal tissue research

By David Weigel August 13 at 10:46 AM

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?"

read more at....... http://www.washingto...issue-research/

Well I think I'm going to cross Ben Caron off my list now of potential candidates I'd vote for. This is hypocritical of Carson. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood but at the same time he still supports fetal tissue research. That's the whole reasoning to defund Planned Parenthood is because they are profitting from fetal tissue research by selling baby parts. Can't have it both ways. I would still consider voting for him if he were consistent on the issue even if I disagreed with it but him being hypocritical is what does it for me. We have enough hypocrites in Washington D.C. we don't need more.

[MDM4AU 332]

I don't mean to sound like I am coming to his aid (he's not my candidate) and I haven't looked at all the details, but is it possible that his position changed somewhat over the last 23 years? I certainly look at a lot of things differently now than I did back then. Just a thought...

[autigeremt 6,618]

No! Lilly White or nothing. Period.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I don't mean to sound like I am coming to his aid (he's not my candidate) and I haven't looked at all the details, but is it possible that his position changed somewhat over the last 23 years? I certainly look at a lot of things differently now than I did back then. Just a thought...

He still balked when asked recently and wouldn't say that he thinks Planned Perenthood should stop selling fetal tissue/baby parts.

[AURaptor 1,123]

I don't mean to sound like I am coming to his aid (he's not my candidate) and I haven't looked at all the details, but is it possible that his position changed somewhat over the last 23 years? I certainly look at a lot of things differently now than I did back then. Just a thought...

He still balked when asked recently and wouldn't say that he thinks Planned Perenthood should stop selling fetal tissue/baby parts.

When was that asked ? Cite ?

[Mims44 1,869]

"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."

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like he's against PP because they are performing abortions and then using the tissue, whereas he is ok if a baby dies of natural causes and the tissues are used.

[autigeremt 6,618]

"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."

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like he's against PP because they are performing abortions and then using the tissue, whereas he is ok if a baby dies of natural causes and the tissues are used.

I thought the same thing but when you read where they used fetal tissue from abortions 9 to 17 weeks it seems to add up....but I'll let him stand on his own merit. He's a good man it appears (in my opinion).

[WarTim 3,456]

I don't mean to sound like I am coming to his aid (he's not my candidate) and I haven't looked at all the details, but is it possible that his position changed somewhat over the last 23 years? I certainly look at a lot of things differently now than I did back then. Just a thought...

The pantsuit changes her "core beliefs" daily. Conservatives are not allowed to learn and grow...ever.

[AURaptor 1,123]

"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."

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like he's against PP because they are performing abortions and then using the tissue, whereas he is ok if a baby dies of natural causes and the tissues are used.

It's worse than we thought. They're even ( allegedly ) allowing the fetuses to grow to the point of viability, research wise , instead of just terminating early. They're literally growing humans for the explicit purpose of then aborting them to sell for 'parts'.

That's the horror of it all that isn't being explained nearly enough.

[autigeremt 6,618]

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I don't mean to sound like I am coming to his aid (he's not my candidate) and I haven't looked at all the details, but is it possible that his position changed somewhat over the last 23 years? I certainly look at a lot of things differently now than I did back then. Just a thought...

He still balked when asked recently and wouldn't say that he thinks Planned Perenthood should stop selling fetal tissue/baby parts.

When was that asked ? Cite ?

Look at the first paragraph that was quoted from the article in post #1.

It said Carson's comments were from Thursday, which would be today. The blog that brought up his 1992 research was posted yesterday.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Carson called the revelation "desperate," and ignorant of the way medical research was carried out.

Sounds like to me that Carson is debunking the claims and taking his comments from TWENTY THREE YEARS AGO completely out of context.

Your claim that he ... " still balked when asked recently and wouldn't say that he thinks Planned Perenthood should stop selling fetal tissue/baby parts. " is what I was referring to when I asked for cites.

I don't see where he's balked at that particular question.

[Grumps 3,704]

One issue is abortion. Fetal tissue is a separate issue. It doesn't make any sense to have readily available abortions but then say that fetal tissue is sacred and should be buried or burned when it could be used to save lives. I think that Carson was saying that he had nothing to do with abortions. Abortions had occurred and he obtained some specific tissue from the aborted fetuses.

[AURaptor 1,123]

One issue is abortion. Fetal tissue is a separate issue. It doesn't make any sense to have readily available abortions but then say that fetal tissue is sacred and should be buried or burned when it could be used to save lives. I think that Carson was saying that he had nothing to do with abortions. Abortions had occurred and he obtained some specific tissue from the aborted fetuses.

Sounds like, but I think the issue is being intentionally distorted to give PP cover for pushing for more and later term abortions , for the purpose of selling parts, and then trying to make Carson seem like a hypocrite, which he was absolutely not.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Carson called the revelation "desperate," and ignorant of the way medical research was carried out.

Sounds like to me that Carson is debunking the claims and taking his comments from TWENTY THREE YEARS AGO completely out of context.

Your claim that he ... " still balked when asked recently and wouldn't say that he thinks Planned Perenthood should stop selling fetal tissue/baby parts. " is what I was referring to when I asked for cites.

I don't see where he's balked at that particular question.

Here's part of the article I'm talking about:

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.

Had he clarified his comments by stating something like "Planned Parenthood can continue to sell baby parts but I don't think they should get federal funding if they're going to do it; because I think what they're doing is immoral by profitting from it when they're already getting federal funding". He's not clarifying his position in that regard. He's leaving a big gap in his stance by just saying that fetal tissue research is ok but Planned Parenthood shouldn't get federal funding because I don't like abortion. He's nit-picking. That's not going to fly because abortions aren't illegal. Just because he doesn't like abortion doesn't mean he can defund Planned Parenthood. I don't like abortion either but I'm not going to use that as the main reason why I think Planned Parenthood should get their federal funding cut.

I don't have an issue with his past research from 1992. I don't think Carson's a hypocrite because he did some research in 1992 but I do think it's hypocritical to balk at Planned Parenthood selling fetal tissue/baby parts but want to defund them at the same time. If you don't think selling baby parts for profit is wrong then you shouldn't be saying you'd defund them for it.

[Grumps 3,704]

So Auburnfan91, are you saying that tissue from aborted fetuses should be destroyed even though research on it could yield discoveries that could save lives?

[alexava 6,973]

One issue is abortion. Fetal tissue is a separate issue. It doesn't make any sense to have readily available abortions but then say that fetal tissue is sacred and should be buried or burned when it could be used to save lives. I think that Carson was saying that he had nothing to do with abortions. Abortions had occurred and he obtained some specific tissue from the aborted fetuses.

this^^^. Some things we are better off to not know about.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

So Auburnfan91, are you saying that tissue from aborted fetuses should be destroyed even though research on it could yield discoveries that could save lives?

No, but they can't double dip and profit from it if they're already getting federal funding. If Planned Parenthood wants to continue selling baby parts for profit go ahead but don't expect to get anymore federal funding. When they're profitting enough to try and buy a Lamborghini , then i don't think they're going to be hurting for money.

Planned Parenthood doesn't have the right to sell fetal tissue without patient's consent. Planned Parenthood doesn't seem to care for patients consent. They're going to try to do whatever they want to the fetal tissue even in cases where a patient doesn't give their consent. I highly doubt fetal tissue research will suffer a great deal if Planned Parenthood's federal funding were cut.

[alexava 6,973]

No consent needed imo. If you care so much for this matter being removed then you should keep it. Again what you don't know won't hurt you. I would rather PP profit than the patients profit. The last thing i want is people having financial incentives to terminate.

[homersapien 11,373]

Well I think I'm going to cross Ben Caron off my list now of potential candidates I'd vote for. This is hypocritical of Carson. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood but at the same time he still supports fetal tissue research. That's the whole reasoning to defund Planned Parenthood is because they are profitting from fetal tissue research by selling baby parts. Can't have it both ways. I would still consider voting for him if he were consistent on the issue even if I disagreed with it but him being hypocritical is what does it for me. We have enough hypocrites in Washington D.C. we don't need more.

I don't think that has been established.

[AUDub 11,148]

Well I think I'm going to cross Ben Caron off my list now of potential candidates I'd vote for. This is hypocritical of Carson. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood but at the same time he still supports fetal tissue research. That's the whole reasoning to defund Planned Parenthood is because they are profitting from fetal tissue research by selling baby parts. Can't have it both ways. I would still consider voting for him if he were consistent on the issue even if I disagreed with it but him being hypocritical is what does it for me. We have enough hypocrites in Washington D.C. we don't need more.

I don't think that has been established.

One among many unproven accusations presented as fact in this thread.

[homersapien 11,373]

Well I think I'm going to cross Ben Caron off my list now of potential candidates I'd vote for. This is hypocritical of Carson. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood but at the same time he still supports fetal tissue research. That's the whole reasoning to defund Planned Parenthood is because they are profitting from fetal tissue research by selling baby parts. Can't have it both ways. I would still consider voting for him if he were consistent on the issue even if I disagreed with it but him being hypocritical is what does it for me. We have enough hypocrites in Washington D.C. we don't need more.

I don't think that has been established.

One among many unproven accusations presented as fact in this thread.

Ironically, it reminds me of the Cam Newton "scandal".

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Actually, I gave some pretty good numbers in the other thread showing that one has to twist themselves into a pretzel to really believe Planned Parenthood doesn't profit from the 'transfer' of body parts to tissue providers like StemExpress. In fact, StemExpress says on it's site that the arrangement is "profitable" for the clinics:

Easy to Implement Program + Financial Profits

StemExpress promotes global biomedical research while also providing a financial benefit to your clinic. By partnering with StemExpress, not only are you offering a way for your clients to participate in the unique opportunity to facilitate life-saving research, but you will also be contributing to the fiscal growth of your own clinic. The stem cell rich blood and raw materials that are usually discarded during procedures can, instead, be expedited through StemExpress to research laboratories with complete professionalism and source anonymity.

Your Clinic can Advance Biomedical Research

• Financially Profitable
  
• Easy to Implement Plug-in Solutions
  
• Medical Director Oversight
  

http://stemexpress.com/partnerships/

Emphasis mine.

So is StemExpress bullshitting these clinics on the "financially profitable" aspects of it? I'll also note, the "easy to implement plug-in solutions" bullet seems to parallel what the former PP clinic director said - StemExpress (and companies like them) provide the shipping containers and dry ice. All the clinic does is take something they already had to do anyway (separate and account for all the body parts of the baby to make sure nothing was left inside the mother that could cause a serious infection), and bag it up and pack it in the provided box and seal it up for shipping.

Now, you can wait for Planned Parenthood to come out with a detailed cost list of how getting $200 per container somehow isn't "profitable" and only covers costs, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They are going radio silence on this stuff for the most part and hoping it blows over.

On a side note, the temporary injunction StemExpress sought to keep their own video from coming to light has been tossed.

[autigeremt 6,618]

Facts don't mean......

[homersapien 11,373]

Yeah, and Cam Newton's father discussed play for pay.

Let's wait to see what comes out after a legal investigation or a trial. If they broke the law, then shame on them and let them suffer the consequences.