Ben Carson did research on 17 week fetal tissue

[jon_berzerk]

yeah a brain surgeon is a dummy

while a pot head is a genius

go figure

--LOL

 

[tigerred59]

Is being a lying hypocrite a requirement for running for the GOP nomination?


Ben Carson has performed research on aborted fetal brain tissue

Carson told Fox News that fetuses were human at 17 weeks -- the same age as those he performed research on

Not even a full day after GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson
told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that the abortion industrial complex known as Planned Parenthood was designed to collect fetal tissue and control the black population, BuzzFeed’s Virginia Hughesreports that Carson and his colleagues at Johns Hopkins actually used fetal tissue in a 1992 study about the development of the brain’s ventricles.

As Dr. Jen Gunter noted on her blog, Carson has repeatedly claimed that there’s no research that “can’t be done without fetal tissue,” and that the promise of fetal tissue research has been exaggerated, while the results have “very much under-delivered.”

On “The Kelly File” last month, Carson spoke of the humanity of fetuses at 17 weeks, saying “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 an irrelevant mass of cells? That’s what they want you to believe, when in fact it is a human being.”

That he specified the 17th week of gestation in his conversation with Kelly is significant, given that in his 1992 study — Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation — the brain and nasal cavity tissues were “obtained from two fetuses aborted at the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”

As Dr. Gunter pointed out, this fact might be inconvenient for Ben Carson the fringe Republican presidential candidate, but it was de rigueur for Ben Carson the celebrated Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon.

“As a neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson knows full well that fetal tissue is essential for medical research,” she wrote. “His discipline would have a hard time being [where] it is today without that kind of work.”

That is so true, I heard it was from George Bush Jr's brain

 

[Dot Com]

Looks like another con golden boy has bit the dust in re: the SOCON vote lol

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

If tissue, any tissue, was about to be thrown out, but research said wait, we can use that to save lives.........

Why is that objectionable if the tissue is donated?

Is it just the idea of it not yet being human? It is rejected tissue. If the donor does not care what happens, why should you, it's not your tissue?

No, the issue was the tissue a viable human being who was murdered for convenience....that is the issue.

You have the problem with the right of the woman decide or needs an abortion? Or the donation of the tissue?
The courts said she has the right to choose, not you, not the man down the street.

It is not a viable life till after birth. Without extraordinary means premies could not survive on their own, they need artificial help and often that is not enough.

You have no legal or moral right to interfere in the woman's life, nor in her decision to donate the tissue that comes from her body. Do you have a say in what happens to her menses or miscarriage? It could be considered potential life as well. You expect her to stuff it back in and somehow, plug it back to her blood supply?

Thank goodness you don't control my body, nor that of anyone else that is an adult.

Keep your concerns to just your body, unless you want others telling you what to do and what medical treatment you should have a right to access.

Next time you get a medicine or treatment, you can refuse on the basis that almost everything is based on animal or human tissue research. Even herbal meds have to go through human testing. Somewhere back in time alternative medicine relied on human trial and error, experimentation. If you just watch the animal life, they can eat plants that to humans would be poison, but till you see someone eat and die you might have been the one reaching for that plant.

Knowledge is based on testing to prove an idea/theory. Now with a baseline, 'some' can be done with computers, but eventually it still has to be tested in the real world. Di Vinci's flying machines look great on paper, but till they were built and tested, no one would know they did not function correctly. Close, but not quite.

Children learn by putting things in their mouths. If we did not let them experiment and experience their surroundings they could not develop into a functioning person capable of making decisions. Everything in life is human experimentation and research.

I am not interfering with the woman's right to choose...I am interfering with her decision to murder her child. That is what she is doing no matter how you want to disguise the act. You say the baby is not a life until it is born...so you believe you can perform an abortion/murder till just before natural birth....9 months in?

 

[2aguy]

Fetal tissue cured polio.

false

Vaccines Abortion Fetal Tissue

Not just human but animal fetuses as well..........and the animals have less choice than the woman.
Women are not given abortions for the tissue any more, but the tissue resulting of the abortion can be donated instead of disposed of as waste.

Even with the advances in birth control, sometimes it fails. Even with the advances in medicine, sometimes the fetus is a treat to the woman or will die during treatment to save her life. There are many reasons for the need if an abortion. Each woman has the right and the responsibility to make the choice for what is best for her.

Cancer or organ failure are major reasons for abortion, including late term. They might well have wanted children but if she is to stay alive, it is not possible for have both.

There are cases of rape as well that might not go reported till the woman/girl finds out she is pregnant.

The reason for the abortion is not your concern, nor what happens to the tissue from the abortion.

.......and no it is not used as an additive in foods for taste or color by major food companies. That lie has been floated on the disinformation internet as well. Why people would believe such a think shows their gullibility to believe anything.

Actually, planned parenthood is doing that.....performing abortions for the baby organs....and if the tissue is hearts, lungs, livers.....it isn't "tissue" it is human organs...a big difference.

 

[2aguy]

Fetal tissue cured polio.

false

Vaccines Abortion Fetal Tissue

Not just human but animal fetuses as well..........and the animals have less choice than the woman.
Women are not given abortions for the tissue any more, but the tissue resulting of the abortion can be donated instead of disposed of as waste.

Even with the advances in birth control, sometimes it fails. Even with the advances in medicine, sometimes the fetus is a treat to the woman or will die during treatment to save her life. There are many reasons for the need if an abortion. Each woman has the right and the responsibility to make the choice for what is best for her.

Cancer or organ failure are major reasons for abortion, including late term. They might well have wanted children but if she is to stay alive, it is not possible for have both.

There are cases of rape as well that might not go reported till the woman/girl finds out she is pregnant.

The reason for the abortion is not your concern, nor what happens to the tissue from the abortion.

.......and no it is not used as an additive in foods for taste or color by major food companies. That lie has been floated on the disinformation internet as well. Why people would believe such a think shows their gullibility to believe anything.

The life of the mother is the only moral abortion......then you are performing triage, not murder, saving one life when you could loose two.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The $30-100 is for shipping. And if anyone has ever tried to overnight anything from the east coast to California on UPS/Fedex they know that's still about half of what it actually costs for a one-pound box.

The makers of these videos have very good editors.

Yeah, especially illegally harvested human organs! The shipping costs on illegally harvested human organs is outrageous.

Those in the human organ trafficking business, like Planned Parenthood, need to demand lower rates - or start shipping companies of their own.

Maybe "Fed-Death," Or "UBDead"

It's so unfair, all they want to do is kill, and sell an organ or two for a few bucks..

 

[aris2chat]

Fetal tissue cured polio.

false

Vaccines Abortion Fetal Tissue

Not just human but animal fetuses as well..........and the animals have less choice than the woman.
Women are not given abortions for the tissue any more, but the tissue resulting of the abortion can be donated instead of disposed of as waste.

Even with the advances in birth control, sometimes it fails. Even with the advances in medicine, sometimes the fetus is a treat to the woman or will die during treatment to save her life. There are many reasons for the need if an abortion. Each woman has the right and the responsibility to make the choice for what is best for her.

Cancer or organ failure are major reasons for abortion, including late term. They might well have wanted children but if she is to stay alive, it is not possible for have both.

There are cases of rape as well that might not go reported till the woman/girl finds out she is pregnant.

The reason for the abortion is not your concern, nor what happens to the tissue from the abortion.

.......and no it is not used as an additive in foods for taste or color by major food companies. That lie has been floated on the disinformation internet as well. Why apeople would believe such a think shows their gullibility to believe anything.

the illegal sale of fetal certainly is my concern

Tissue of fetus are donate. It is not a sale. Prices if handling and transport can run in the hundred of any tissue, fluid or blood from humans. That is common from hospital, clinic or doctor's office to a lab.

 

[aris2chat]

Fetal tissue cured polio.

false

Vaccines Abortion Fetal Tissue

Not just human but animal fetuses as well..........and the animals have less choice than the woman.
Women are not given abortions for the tissue any more, but the tissue resulting of the abortion can be donated instead of disposed of as waste.

Even with the advances in birth control, sometimes it fails. Even with the advances in medicine, sometimes the fetus is a treat to the woman or will die during treatment to save her life. There are many reasons for the need if an abortion. Each woman has the right and the responsibility to make the choice for what is best for her.

Cancer or organ failure are major reasons for abortion, including late term. They might well have wanted children but if she is to stay alive, it is not possible for have both.

There are cases of rape as well that might not go reported till the woman/girl finds out she is pregnant.

The reason for the abortion is not your concern, nor what happens to the tissue from the abortion.

.......and no it is not used as an additive in foods for taste or color by major food companies. That lie has been floated on the disinformation internet as well. Why people would believe such a think shows their gullibility to believe anything.

The life of the mother is the only moral abortion......then you are performing triage, not murder, saving one life when you could loose two.

and in the case if rape? Rape of a child? Is is right to make an 8 yr old or 11 yr old to be denied an abortion?

Is is right to make any woman suffer not just the rape but continue to suffer for the next nine months? Not all raoe is reported in the first 24 hours. Shame and fear keep many women from sying what happen. Date rape drug are being used as well that make even the memory of what happened vague or non-existent.

 

[aris2chat]

If tissue, any tissue, was about to be thrown out, but research said wait, we can use that to save lives.........

Why is that objectionable if the tissue is donated?

Is it just the idea of it not yet being human? It is rejected tissue. If the donor does not care what happens, why should you, it's not your tissue?

No, the issue was the tissue a viable human being who was murdered for convenience....that is the issue.

You have the problem with the right of the woman decide or needs an abortion? Or the donation of the tissue?
The courts said she has the right to choose, not you, not the man down the street.

It is not a viable life till after birth. Without extraordinary means premies could not survive on their own, they need artificial help and often that is not enough.

You have no legal or moral right to interfere in the woman's life, nor in her decision to donate the tissue that comes from her body. Do you have a say in what happens to her menses or miscarriage? It could be considered potential life as well. You expect her to stuff it back in and somehow, plug it back to her blood supply?

Thank goodness you don't control my body, nor that of anyone else that is an adult.

Keep your concerns to just your body, unless you want others telling you what to do and what medical treatment you should have a right to access.

Next time you get a medicine or treatment, you can refuse on the basis that almost everything is based on animal or human tissue research. Even herbal meds have to go through human testing. Somewhere back in time alternative medicine relied on human trial and error, experimentation. If you just watch the animal life, they can eat plants that to humans would be poison, but till you see someone eat and die you might have been the one reaching for that plant.

Knowledge is based on testing to prove an idea/theory. Now with a baseline, 'some' can be done with computers, but eventually it still has to be tested in the real world. Di Vinci's flying machines look great on paper, but till they were built and tested, no one would know they did not function correctly. Close, but not quite.

Children learn by putting things in their mouths. If we did not let them experiment and experience their surroundings they could not develop into a functioning person capable of making decisions. Everything in life is human experimentation and research.

I am not interfering with the woman's right to choose...I am interfering with her decision to murder her child. That is what she is doing no matter how you want to disguise the act. You say the baby is not a life until it is born...so you believe you can perform an abortion/murder till just before natural birth....9 months in?

it is not a child till birth. What of a child she did not agree to carry?
You have no right to force a women to carry a fetus for nine months. It is hard and deforms the body. If you make her carry, you cannot make her care for her body or get prenatal care. She might resort to suicide if she is not mentally willing to carry the fetus. How does that make sense? it is her body. Why should a child that was raped be denied an abortion and have to carry the evidence of the rape? If a woman have a D&C, why should she not be allowed an abortion? Are you going to keep her from access t plants like cohosh, pennyroayal, mugwort and papya? You deny her a clean safe abortion but how do you prevent her from some back street abortion?
How does this make sense to you?

 

[Katzndogz]

Abortions to save the life of the mother or a result of rape are infetestimal compared to the number of abortions performed.

It's enough to cause a moral crisis. Most of the abortions are performed on black women. Which necessarily means thousands of fewer black people. If they wish to self genocide, should we really stop them?

 

[aris2chat]

If tissue, any tissue, was about to be thrown out, but research said wait, we can use that to save lives.........

Why is that objectionable if the tissue is donated?

Is it just the idea of it not yet being human? It is rejected tissue. If the donor does not care what happens, why should you, it's not your tissue?

No, the issue was the tissue a viable human being who was murdered for convenience....that is the issue.

You have the problem with the right of the woman decide or needs an abortion? Or the donation of the tissue?
The courts said she has the right to choose, not you, not the man down the street.

It is not a viable life till after birth. Without extraordinary means premies could not survive on their own, they need artificial help and often that is not enough.

You have no legal or moral right to interfere in the woman's life, nor in her decision to donate the tissue that comes from her body. Do you have a say in what happens to her menses or miscarriage? It could be considered potential life as well. You expect her to stuff it back in and somehow, plug it back to her blood supply?

Thank goodness you don't control my body, nor that of anyone else that is an adult.

Keep your concerns to just your body, unless you want others telling you what to do and what medical treatment you should have a right to access.

Next time you get a medicine or treatment, you can refuse on the basis that almost everything is based on animal or human tissue research. Even herbal meds have to go through human testing. Somewhere back in time alternative medicine relied on human trial and error, experimentation. If you just watch the animal life, they can eat plants that to humans would be poison, but till you see someone eat and die you might have been the one reaching for that plant.

Knowledge is based on testing to prove an idea/theory. Now with a baseline, 'some' can be done with computers, but eventually it still has to be tested in the real world. Di Vinci's flying machines look great on paper, but till they were built and tested, no one would know they did not function correctly. Close, but not quite.

Children learn by putting things in their mouths. If we did not let them experiment and experience their surroundings they could not develop into a functioning person capable of making decisions. Everything in life is human experimentation and research.

I am not interfering with the woman's right to choose...I am interfering with her decision to murder her child. That is what she is doing no matter how you want to disguise the act. You say the baby is not a life until it is born...so you believe you can perform an abortion/murder till just before natural birth....9 months in?

If it is necessary for the physical or mental health of the women and it is her choice, yes.

in the last month, if she were to agree, there would be a change of an early delivery by c-section. That is her choice. If the fetus is deform or birth defect would make living short and painful, she might also want to make the choice.

 

[daws101]

According to Ben Carson, fetal tissue used to be obtained from miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. He would welcome a discussion on the use of killing babies for their component parts.

Democrats used to be the party of slavery, buying and selling human beings. They are STILL buying and selling black people today! Their justification is "Well, we kill them first now."

False the party that would become the Republican party bought and sold slaves with same regularly as the democrats.
As we all know it was republicans that tried to distroy the civil rights movement legal abortions and same sex marriage.
Which begs the question who fucked up more.

The republicans supported the civil rights movement while democrats used lynching and bombings and other types of murder to stop them.

Bullshit.

 

[daws101]

So....(wading thru all the bullshit)...Carson wants to defund planned parenthood due to the unethical usage or selling of aborted fetuses yet was the recipient of one of those dead fetuses so he could do tests and shit...which makes him a HUGE hypocrite. Amirite?

No.

Yes

 

[daws101]

Abortions to save the life of the mother or a result of rape are infetestimal compared to the number of abortions performed.

It's enough to cause a moral crisis. Most of the abortions are performed on black women. Which necessarily means thousands of fewer black people. If they wish to self genocide, should we really stop them?

Morality is relative and subjective.

 

[Lakhota]

Is Carson suggesting that black women don't have a legal right to abortion?

The Republican presidential candidate has accused Planned Parenthood of population control.

Ben Carson: Abortions Are Main Cause Of Death For Black People

 

[BULLDOG]

The purpose of a cop sting is to gather evidence. The purpose of that PP video is to manufacture an opinion not backed by any proof of anything.

So again, you are 100% against investigative journalism? Even when used to expose things you WANT exposed? So that 47% leak of Romney was wrong then, right?

The Video recorded people using their own words, thinking they were dealing with people wanting to get their hands on fetal tissue. Money was discussed, procedure was discussed, and in one video, consent or lack thereof was discussed. It's all there on video.

The Romney video was nothing more than recording what Romney said. The PP video was manipulating the conversation to make it sound a specific way. No where near the same.

The mental exercises you are trying to do to somehow not have to consider and counter what is in the videos is almost comical. These Videos also did nothing but record what the PP people were saying, and by the way they responded, it seems they have heard these questions before. That they were misled does not discredit in any way what they said. The people were pretending to be people interested in tissue samples. by the way the conversations went, this seems to be something that has happened before.

I'm sure tissue samples have been discussed many times before. Exactly which part showed non adherence to any law?

Three questions so far:

1. Did the money made from the tissue exceed the cost of procuring it?
2. Did any PP doctor change their procedure to make getting said tissue easier/get more intact samples?
3. Was some tissue procured without the consent of the patient?

You could have easily added

4. Was Bigfoot involved in any way, or does this have something to do with the WTC attack?

There is just as much evidence for the fourth as there is for the first three,

 

[martybegan]

So again, you are 100% against investigative journalism? Even when used to expose things you WANT exposed? So that 47% leak of Romney was wrong then, right?

The Video recorded people using their own words, thinking they were dealing with people wanting to get their hands on fetal tissue. Money was discussed, procedure was discussed, and in one video, consent or lack thereof was discussed. It's all there on video.

The Romney video was nothing more than recording what Romney said. The PP video was manipulating the conversation to make it sound a specific way. No where near the same.

The mental exercises you are trying to do to somehow not have to consider and counter what is in the videos is almost comical. These Videos also did nothing but record what the PP people were saying, and by the way they responded, it seems they have heard these questions before. That they were misled does not discredit in any way what they said. The people were pretending to be people interested in tissue samples. by the way the conversations went, this seems to be something that has happened before.

I'm sure tissue samples have been discussed many times before. Exactly which part showed non adherence to any law?

Three questions so far:

1. Did the money made from the tissue exceed the cost of procuring it?
2. Did any PP doctor change their procedure to make getting said tissue easier/get more intact samples?
3. Was some tissue procured without the consent of the patient?

You could have easily added

4. Was Bigfoot involved in any way, or does this have something to do with the WTC attack?

There is just as much evidence for the fourth as there is for the first three,

Have you actually watched the videos? All of those topics were discussed at one point or another.

You can only dodge and dismiss so much before you start looking desperate, and you crossed that line 3 posts ago.

 

[BULLDOG]

Based on all the crazy threads we get here @ USMB that are based on ideological opinionated talking points, it must be acceptable to use everything and anything to form an opinion.
Opinions are facts to some people no matter how the opinion is derived. It's quite clear that an opinionated video out weighs actual investigations by unbiased resources (2 States and fact check.org).
Amazing, simply amazing.

So basically cops should not do undercover stings, and no journalist should do undercover exposes? And again, the videos make the accusations, and to me they appear to have some merit. Its the PP people's OWN WORDS being used against them.

And all PP and your side does is attack the packaging, and not the contents.

The purpose of a cop sting is to gather evidence. The purpose of that PP video is to manufacture an opinion not backed by any proof of anything.

So again, you are 100% against investigative journalism? Even when used to expose things you WANT exposed? So that 47% leak of Romney was wrong then, right?

The Video recorded people using their own words, thinking they were dealing with people wanting to get their hands on fetal tissue. Money was discussed, procedure was discussed, and in one video, consent or lack thereof was discussed. It's all there on video.

The Romney video was nothing more than recording what Romney said. The PP video was manipulating the conversation to make it sound a specific way. No where near the same.

Again, attacking the source and not the questions being raised.

Wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Based on all the crazy threads we get here @ USMB that are based on ideological opinionated talking points, it must be acceptable to use everything and anything to form an opinion.
Opinions are facts to some people no matter how the opinion is derived. It's quite clear that an opinionated video out weighs actual investigations by unbiased resources (2 States and fact check.org).
Amazing, simply amazing.

The purpose of a cop sting is to gather evidence. The purpose of that PP video is to manufacture an opinion not backed by any proof of anything.

So again, you are 100% against investigative journalism? Even when used to expose things you WANT exposed? So that 47% leak of Romney was wrong then, right?

The Video recorded people using their own words, thinking they were dealing with people wanting to get their hands on fetal tissue. Money was discussed, procedure was discussed, and in one video, consent or lack thereof was discussed. It's all there on video.

The Romney video was nothing more than recording what Romney said. The PP video was manipulating the conversation to make it sound a specific way. No where near the same.

Again, attacking the source and not the questions being raised.

Wrong.

Not Wrong.