Posted on 08/13/2015 8:29:11 AM PDT by ghost of stonewall jackson
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 Dr. 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.
Asked if fetal tissue research should be banned, or if it was immoral, Carson said no.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Flip flop much, doctor?
“Asked if fetal tissue research should be banned, or if it was immoral, Carson said no.”
Tells you all you need to know right there.
"But it would be good for the public to understand this whole aspect of medical research."
The way I read it, it depends on if the baby was aborted and tissue collected, or there was a miscarriage and the tissue was collected. I have problems with one, and not with the other.
It seems to me lthat there are two subject: abortion and research. No to abortion, and yes to research is my vote.
Both sides against the middle. This is a definite problem.
he’d fit right in with doctor mengele
without the abortion, there’s no tissue on which to research
I understand but, practically speaking, how would you enforce that? We already know abortionists lie about the “health of the mother” so what I predict is a lot of women being prescribed RU486, having a medically-induced “miscarriage” (chemical abortion) and then harvesting baby parts all under the guise of “well it wasn’t an abortion”
There’s no way that fetal tissue research won’t create an undergroud black market for baby parts. No way. It needs to be banned outright.
He’s just compounded the problem.
This is sure to knock Dr. Carson off some of the purists’ lists. Because the only person we can possibly support is someone who absolutely follows the party line down to the gnat’s eyelash, right? And of course agreeing with me, for example, means that person is perfect, right?
How about if we go for a man of good character who understands the Truth, knows about working hard, is courageous and bold - and then let the rest sift out. The prez does not sit on his throne implementing every single thing he believes in. He guides the country, sets the tone. PP will not be defunded in the next round, but it absolutely needs to follow the law and the reprehensible things it does need to be in the light.
Dr. Carson is a man of good character, he speaks the Truth. I would be happy to have him lead this country. Does he match every single thing I believe in? No. Would he be a good, visionary leader, a man of character? You can bet on that.
Stop with the party line check list. It’s not heaven down here.
This is not about following the party line.
he is a hypocrite. he says a 17 week-old fetus is a “person,” yet has no problem performing research on an aborted 17 week-old corpse
so, stillbirths or miscarriages don’t happen?
There is a difference between death and murder.
no, stillbirths don’t happen at 17 weeks.
and anyway, your hypothetical is irrelevant. carson unapologetically admitted working on aborted fetuses, not fetuses that were the product of a miscarriage
quite right. and carson worked on aborted fetuses, unapologectically
Judging from his paper it sounds like he was working with aborted fetuses and not miscarried. He also said that fetal stem cell research is not immoral. But the way they get the stem cells for research is?
Find me one who’s more consistent with less flip-flops than Ted Cruz.
It would be surprising if any of the scientists bothered to segment fetal issue that came from abortions vs. miscarriages. I’m not sure if any tissue from miscarriages would be typically saved for research at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.