Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dr. Carson Denies Using Fetal Tissue in His Research

Dr. Carson Denies Using Fetal Tissue in His Research

“Nothing but propaganda”

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/13/dr-ben-carson-stands-comments-planned-parenthood-targets-black-communities

Dr. Ben Carson came into the public eye with his 2013 Prayer Breakfast speech at the White House.  Conservatives, myself included, were thrilled to see a prominent physician speak out for life and against many Obama policies . . . with Obama squirming in his chair only a few feet away. We love someone who is brave enough to stand for their principles and unafraid to take on the powers that be (as witnessed by the strong conservative support we are currently seeing for Trump). Dr. Carson was, many conservatives thought and still think, just what the doctor ordered.

There was a hiccup along the way, however, when Dr. Carson made his remarks that the Second Amendment should only being applied to some people, depending on where they live. Populated areas, he felt, were not the place for legal gun ownership. He later clarified these remarks and asserted that he is “extremely pro–Second Amendment, no question about it,” and the issue kind of faded away.

Now, Dr. Carson is facing another controversy stemming from Dr. Jen Gunter’s blog post stating that he “once did research on 17-week aborted fetal tissue.” It seems that Dr. Carson was one of several authors listed on a paper, published in Human Pathology in 1992, detailing his and others’ study of adult and fetal tissue.

Dr. Carson’s first defense of his purported fetal tissue research appeared in The Washington Post:

“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.”

. . . .  “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.

This gets complicated for some because, as with fetal stem cell research, it opens a can of worms that pits medical research and scientific study against morality and human ethics.  It is further complicated because Dr. Carson himself said in July that Planned Parenthood’s defense is “spurious” because there is “nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue.”

Last night, he was interviewed by Eric Bolling for the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the racist origins and purpose of Planned Parenthood.  During this interview, the topic of the claims that he had engaged in fetal research was broached, and Dr. Carson stated, apparently contradicting his comments to WaPo, that he had “not actually worked with fetal tissue.”

The interview starts at around the minute mark; the relevant comments about fetal tissue research at 5:28.  Watch:

Dr. Carson’s statements explaining his role in the 1992 paper from the above interview:

“Well, I have not actually worked with fetal tissue. The left has put out information saying that I’ve done research on fetal tissues because my name appears on an article in which the pathologist compared specimens that I delivered from the operating room to some fetal tissues, in an attempt to decide which way the cells were being differentiated. You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation. So, to suggest that I’m in the laboratory actually doing the research, or retrieving fetal tissue, is nothing but propaganda.”

Also making the rounds are his comments on Neil Cavuto’s show in which Dr. Carson expressed his support for the distribution of the “abortion pill,” RU-486, in cases of rape or incest.

Watch:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Dr. Carson, who is a stellar human being from all I can tell, seems confused here.

He needn’t be. Of course there are medical advances and even some essential vaccines that have been derived from research on fetal tissues. And that is not necessarily illegal, immoral or fattening (though it can be the first two, depending).

The selling of aborted babies or their parts is CERTAINLY both immoral and illegal, as are the practices of Planned Abortionhood in obtaining “products” for buyers.

It really is no more complex than that.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 11:48 am

    It may be illegal to sell late term fetuses or their body parts, but it’s not immoral unless the woman requesting the abortion was pressured to have it to acquire those fetuses, or the fetus was used for medical research without her concent

    What in your pea brain view of the world is immoral in making medical use of an aborted fetus instead of incinerating it?

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 11:53 am

      Wrong…and stupid and evil…as always.

      But play on. I LOVE it when you come here to show your ass!

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 12:14 pm

        Another non answer from a nonentity.
        What’s immoral about using fetal tissue or body parts for medical research?

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 12:41 pm

          Why, nothing, you lying sack of shit. Post a link to where I’ve said otherwise.

          JoAnne in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 2:27 pm

          There are things people are missing here. Fetuses are sometimes aborted naturally – and they are called abortions. If the mother has no problem with assigning these babies to science, I don’t see any harm. But it the fetus is removed from the womb by unnatural means, then I have a problem with it. It sets up the scenario for abortion for profit.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 2:56 pm

          ‘Post a link to where I’ve said otherwise.’

          The link is to your own words above, ding-dong.
          “The selling of aborted babies or their parts is CERTAINLY both immoral and illegal.”

          Are you so confused or in lying denial you don’t know what you just posted?
          You really are a hypocrite, a putz of the nth degree.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 3:25 pm

          No. That’s a lie, and you are are liar.

          Again.

          As always.

          You’ll never find anywhere where I’ve said research using any king of human tissue is, per se, wrong.

          The SALE of human body parts is illegal. Not their use. Not collecting them and preserving them. Not research on those tissues.

          But their SALE, as HERE with Planned Abortionhood, for fun and profit.

          You miserable excuse for a human being, and lying sack of shit.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 5:55 pm

          So, Jay, when did you get your Lamborghini? And tell us, please, how is Frau Gatter doing these days? Still under the weather?

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 12:33 pm

      Oh, I see you brought your friends again today!

      Well, let’s fisk…

      “It may be illegal to sell late term fetuses or their body parts…”

      No, liar. It IS illegal to sell parts of ANY human being. So that’s TWO lies in one sentence fragment, because it isn’t limited to “late term fetuses”.

      “…but it’s not immoral unless the woman requesting the abortion was pressured to have it to acquire those fetuses, or the fetus was used for medical research without her concent [sic]”.

      Sure it is. It is ALSO immoral to sell human bodies under the circumstances (which you called me names over the other night) you mention. But it is ALLLLLLLLLLL immoral.

      “What in your pea brain view of the world is immoral in making medical use of an aborted fetus instead of incinerating it?”

      You can’t read, huh? But we knew that. Especially when you feel the need to show that ass!!!

      Rags–“And that is not necessarily illegal, immoral or fattening (though it can be the first two, depending).”

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 3:03 pm

        It’s NOT ILLEGAL to sell human body parts.
        It’s illegal to sell them for PROFIT ( beyond normal expenses fo preserve and transport them.)

        Are you too simpleminded to understand the distinction?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 6:03 pm

          Jay, I take it you’re in favor of the Nazi’s practice of ethnic cleansing through their abortion program popularly known as “Auswahlfeiheit” (“Freedom of Choice”) since it wasn’t a for-profit scheme.

          http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/nazis.html

          Skookum in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 6:47 pm

          To sell implies a profit motive. It’s something else altogether to donate and be reimbursed for auditable expenses, like shipping costs. Planned Parenthood is seen on video negotiating sales prices, not expenses. Expense negotiations, as anyone who has ever negotiated a contract, are relatively straight forward.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 6:58 pm

          JackRT: where’d you come up with this Nazi cleansing accusation?
          I’m not in favor of forced abortions anymore then I’m in favor of the kind of forced-non-abortions the ‘lifers’ want to foist o. Those women who want one. I’m in favor of CHOICE. The choice to abort or not abort.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 3:27 pm

        Obviously not, you disgusting excuse for a human being.

        Planned Abortionhood was using the SALE of human parts as a profit center.

        Now, deny that, and I’ll punk you all over this thread.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 5:59 pm

          The law is clear: if they were selling fetal tissue for profit they should be prosecuted.
          So where’s the proof of that you rumor monger pimp ?
          You have any real evidence that’s their organization policy?
          What percentage of their yearly budget is financed by fetal tissue sales?
          Who in the organization directly profits from it?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 6:10 pm

          Where’s the proof?

          All over those videos, you lying POS.

          And we’re about to find a LOT more, like in both criminal and civil courts.

          Wanna bet, you SOS?

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 8:03 pm

          Planned Parenthood WAS NOT using the sale of fetal tissue or body parts for profit, you nitwit: the dollar amounts quoted in the heavily edited first video show that, smuck:

          “Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit.”

          http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 9:33 pm

          Liar, please…!!!

          Let’s see what the CRIMINAL and civil courts turn up.

          “$30 to $100” per sample is QUITE substantial when Planned Abortionhood has low-wage “product pickers”, and only has to “transport” the samples upstairs in some instances. Look up UPS, ya moron. They move a LOT of biological samples CHEAP. The paperwork…to the extent it conforms with the law (that’ll be fun in discovery) is boilerplate.

          Use you stupid, crap-packed skull. Your average restaurant is doing really well to have tabs on a given night of “$30 to $100”, AND they have to put a lot of inputs into their product to get that.

          Planned Abortionhood CHARGES up to $1,500.00 for a FIRST trimester abortion, according to their own website. What they get after that is gravy.

          Which, moron, is WHY you have directer-level ghouls haggling over pricing on the videos, and talking Lamborghini. (That’s not the pasta dish they’re scarfing down, BTW, you miserable excuse for a human being.)

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 15, 2015 at 12:02 am

          So far the CRIMINAL and civil courts haven’t shown there’s anything illegal going on. And there’s ZERO evidence Planned Parenthood as an organization is trying to profit from the sale of fetal tissue.

          That’s why the Republican Governor of Idaho just turned down a request by state lawmakers to launch an investigation into PP, stating, “There is no evidence a crime has been committed.”

          Indiana, Massachusetts and South Dakota have also cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing after investigations in those states.

          It may be that a few rogue employees in a particular PP office tried to skim money from the fetal tissue process, but that doesn’t implicate Planned Parenthood as an organization in any willful criminal intent.

          But even if there’s no real evidence the organization was trying to profit from those sales, I bet that won’t stop you from your lying bullshit smears of half-truths and distortions.

          Like your statement PP “CHARGES up to $1,500.00 for a FIRST trimester abortion, according to their own website”

          That’s hooey. They charge between $390 and $430 for first trimester abortions, according to their Pennsylvania website:

          http://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-western-pennsylvania/patients/fees-services

          And you’re even more abysmally ignorant stating $30 to $100 for processing fetal tissue is QUITE substantial. You don’t have a clue what it costs to handle live tissue in a medical environment. What do you think they pack it in you dumb dunce, a Styrofoam burger box wrapped in a McDonald’s paper bag? There’s a complicated protocol for handling live tissue in a medical environment. If you have proof it’s not time consuming and expensive, PROVE it with a link, and not your usual uninformed bullshit.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 15, 2015 at 12:03 pm

        https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures

        You are SUCH a lying sack of shit.

        But you’re known for it, and the reason you follow me around is because I’ve DEMONSTRATED it time and again.

        As here…

        HEH!

    faboutlaws in reply to Ragspierre. | August 14, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    I agree with you about Dr. Carson, but I read somewhere about a week and a half ago, possibly on this site or PJ Media, that not a single cure or treatment has come from the use of fetal tissue. I don’t know whether or not the contention is true. I believe that abortion and choice should be kept out of Republican politics. It costs us too many votes and belittles all other issues that are important to us. Roe v. Wade set the law pretty much and except for a few minor adjustments, it won’t change in our lifetimes.

      faboutlaws in reply to faboutlaws. | August 14, 2015 at 1:27 pm

      OOps, I posted a reply to the wrong comment by Rags. It should have been to his first one.

      JoAnne in reply to faboutlaws. | August 14, 2015 at 2:37 pm

      Everything I’ve read about it says that. Here is a link to an overview of research using fetal cells.

      https://www.lozierinstitute.org/history-of-fetal-tissue-research-and-transplants/

      Since fetal cell treatments have been such a bust, why is StemExpress buying these parts as the middleman? Who are the organizations buying from StemExpress? I would love to see their books opened up – where are they getting their money for the research?

        jayjerome66 in reply to JoAnne. | August 14, 2015 at 3:27 pm

        The article you linked to is slanted and dishonest by omission
        Prepared ny an organization funded by anti abortion religiosios, they slanted their findings by OMISSION.

        where for instance is the first and most famous medical advance using fetal tissue? The development of the polio vaccine was a fetal tissue success, estimated to have saved MILLIONS of lives since it was developed in the 1930s.

        There are dozens of vaccines and medicines on the market today that were developed with fetal tissue I,prime notation. You can find them if you do a through Google search..

          JoAnne in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 3:54 pm

          Did you not read the paper?

          “Vaccine development: Early attempts at growing viruses used cultures of mixed human fetal tissue, not individual cells, e.g., for growth of poliovirus, 1949.[18] Later, poliovirus was produced in human fetal cell lines (WI-38, 1961,[19] fetal female lung; MRC-5, 1966, [20]fetal male lung). Now most manufacturers of polio vaccine use other cell types including monkey cells, and most do not use fetal cells.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to JoAnne. | August 14, 2015 at 3:57 pm

        Since fetal cell treatments have been such a bust, why is StemExpress buying these parts as the middleman?

        A 2004 California ballot initiative that created an enormous slush fund for such purposes.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_71_%282004%29

        Most scientific research or published scientific studies are worthless or wrong – these more than others.

        Now the project that Ben Carsom participated in may actually have been somewhat useful – to learn more about normal development – but how many times do you need to repeat it to gain basic knowledge?

          That’s right! I had forgotten about Prop 71. I voted against…it’s all coming back now! Thank you.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 14, 2015 at 6:47 pm

          You mean a slush fund for cures for a wide range of diseases, right Sammy. Everything from cancer, to eye disease, to neurological diseases, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, to methods for regenerating organs and body parts damaged as a result of birth defects and accidents, etc.

          So far most of the grant money went to build infrastructure of labs, and personnel training, and preliminary testing. Hopefully in the next decade or two we’ll see positive results from the distributed funds. Time will tell.

          .

        jayjerome66 in reply to JoAnne. | August 14, 2015 at 5:23 pm

        Yes I read the article, JoAnne.

        From the time fetal tissue was used to develope the first antiPolio vacines until what the article describes as ‘now’ (approximately 50 years) human fetal tissue was used to manufacture the polio vaccine. If human fetal tissue
        hadn’t been used for that half century, MILLIONS of children would have suffered the ravages of the disease. If human fetal hadn’t been used, modern replacements would most likely not been found. And though some fetal trials have failed, others have succeeded. That’s how medical science advances – failures, lead to eventual progress and success.

        If a woman who aborts her fetus has no objection to it being used for medical research, why should you? And if a staunch Conservative like Nancy Reagan was in favor of using fetal tissue for Altzheimers disease research – her opinion should be worthy of praise by other Conservatives as well.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 5:26 pm

          Put up your links, liar.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 6:03 pm

          Be specific, smucko – links to what?
          If you mean links to your credibility as a ‘gentleman’ who speaks truth, there are none.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 6:11 pm

          Yeah. That’s what I knew. You’re typically full of shit.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jayjerome66. | August 14, 2015 at 7:17 pm

          Abortion wasn’t legal in the U.S. when the polio vaccine was invented/discovered. The tissue samples for that research came from cadavers dead from natural causes, accident, miscarry, and so on – NOT abortion. There was not and is not an issue of using fetal tissue when procured under those circumstances of death. There IS a natural, moral issue with killing babies for their parts from “carriers” (I refuse to use the word “mother”) who just want to be rid of them and/or have been lied to and deluded into thinking the child is “just tissue.”

          By the way, “just tissue’ equates to “just money” for these monsters.

          So quit trying to obfuscate the subject. We are not going to let you morph the expedient horror of what these PP barbarians do into the detached practice of ethical procurement and usage of human tissue.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to faboutlaws. | August 14, 2015 at 6:25 pm

      What I understand Dr. Carson to be saying is that the tissue is taken from a body that died of natural causes or a live patient in the course of surgical removal during an operation, not from one that was killed on purpose. When your doc says you have a tumor, they take a biopsy of it, make slides, and examine it for a number of things that only highly-trained medical scientists understand. MEs take samples and biopsies and preserve them when requested for civil suits or medical study if donated by the deceased while still alive.

      I think Dr. Carson is addressing this vicious, left-spinning assault on his background and character with verbiage too technical and medically nuanced for laypeople to understand and is mucking it up. This is an example of where he could use some coaching. He’s not talking to medical students and other doctors and medical scientists. He’s talking to accountants, plumbers, engineers, heavy equipment operators, business owners, receptionists, cops, electricians, car salesmen, chefs, florists, steel workers, school teachers, delivery truck drivers, etc.. He should be drawing comparisons to medical procedures people understand somewhat, have heard of, or have experienced.

DINORightMarie | August 14, 2015 at 11:02 am

After listening to Dr. Ben Carson and the entire video interview, I don’t think what you said in your headline statement is correct. (Aside: Eric Bolling – SPIT IT OUT already! Why so tongue-tied interviewing Dr. Carson?!)

He says he never used fetal tissue, that his name on an article was being taken as an implication that he did work with fetal tissue.

Then he says – seeming to contradict that prior statement – that he “sent samples of his work,” and that all sample tissue banks have fetal tissue; in fact, they include tissue from humans of all ages from pre-birth through old age.

He also states that fetal tissue comes from a variety of sources, including stillbirths, spontaneous abortions, etc.

So to say he said he didn’t “use fetal tissue” is not accurate, or at the very least incomplete – if you listen to what he says.

I believe the better statement is what he CLARIFIED – where he corrected the lie/agitprop that the left is spreading: that he EXTRACTED aborted fetal tissue. That is a blatant falsehood.

Dinor,

You have no proof that he specifically extracted tissue from dead aborted babies and instead you cling like a fat chick to an empty packet of smarties to a lie created in your mind.

His statement was pretty clear. If you are struggling with understanding what he said then that’s more to do with your own personal ideology than it has to do with reality.

Mailman

    JoAnne in reply to mailman. | August 14, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Must you be so disagreeable? Can’t you argue a point without the degoratory language?

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JoAnne. | August 14, 2015 at 6:57 pm

      I don’t think Dr. Carson extracted tissue from deliberately aborted babies. I also don’t think he’s using simple enough language to explain it in view of the technical nature of the subject. I don’t think people who don’t fully understand the distinction he’s trying to make versus those who do understand it are stupid. I do think Dr. Carson’s confusing delivery of his explanation has lead to frustration seen in comments such as mailman’s. We see the same venom in the blind, smitten-hearted followers of the brand new carnival barker for the RINO establishment. He doesn’t even seem to realize that your last statement says just the opposite of what he accuses you of saying. I think that’s referred to as “going off half-cocked.” 🙂

I wonder what other constitutional rights Dr. Carson thinks have geography-specific application.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to randian. | August 14, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    I agree that Dr. Carson’s statement about guns is another example of misplaced blame. It condemns the gun, not the shooter. The difference with Dr. Carson is that I don’t believe he is a gun-grabber at all. He just doesn’t really fully understand what he’s talking about.

    Perhaps you could send him statistical proof to better inform his opinion so he has the opportunity to correct his misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. I believe some study on the subject would change his mind.

Carson seems to have a utilitarian view, as do many of the commenters. On the good side, it is morally acceptable to take, for example, tumor samples from a child who died from the tumor, as long as the parents approve and the scope is to study the disease. On the other hand, Carson defends all kinds of tissue collections, saying how science is advanced.

Here’s the problem. No one has the right to take the body of a murdered child and use it to advance science. It doesn’t matter if the parents consent because they have no right to speak for their child once they’ve consented to it’s murder.

Take the rubella vaccine, the “R” component of the MMR shot. Babies were deliberately aborted until they got a body to grow the virus. This is horrendous, a crime against the child, and a ghoulish vampire-like practice: taking one life to save others. It’s not advancement of science, but a diminution of humanity. You can’t do evil so that good comes from it. Period.

Carson needs to get his mind straight, but I don’t expect him to come around. He has already joined the choir of those who want to force me to inject the pus of murdered babies into my kids.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JerryB. | August 14, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    That is NOT what the man said. You simply don’t understand what he said. He needs to formulate a definitive statement on the subject and explain it succinctly. He’s not a professional politician. He’s a neurosurgeon and by all accounts, a star in his field, which is one of the most important areas of medicine there is.

    Give him a chance to develop enough media “polish” so that he can more effectively articulate his positions.

    I like him but I’m reserving judgment for now. The fact that it is CLEAR that he is a fine, humane man with a superb brain makes him an attractive candidate. He’s been in ONE debate and done a few interviews. Give him a chance to find his sea legs. He definitely shows some promise at this point. Don’t write him off unless and until you understand him well enough to make an informed judgment about him.

      Jack, here’s what he said:
      http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/13/carson-i-have-not-actually-worked-with-fetal-tissue/

      Carson added, “all pathology departments will have a whole array of tissues, from day one of conception until 99 years old. And if you use the tissue — if you’re comparing or looking for a disease process in elderly people, does that mean you’re doing geriatric research on geriatric tissue? No. It means you’re looking at your tissue, and you’re making comparisons to derive information, and those fetal tissues, by the way, come from a variety of different places, ectopic pregnancies, spontaneous abortions, but just because they get the fetal tissue, does it mean they should throw it out? Of course they don’t. That’s how science is advanced.”

      On vaccines:
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/03/dr-ben-carson-no-philosophical-or-religious-exemptions-for-vaccinations/

      “Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them.”

      The man is an M.D. He’s talking about his field, and I’d expect this world-class neurosurgeon to be able to articulate his mind. I’m taking him at his word. And I won’t vote for him.

      P.S. What I’d like to ask Dr. Carson is, if PP did get parental consent and simply donated the murdered child to “science,” would he find that acceptable?

        Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | August 15, 2015 at 12:06 pm

        If your next of kin donated your carcass to science, would that be immoral?

        Illegal?

        Fattening?

          JerryB in reply to Ragspierre. | August 15, 2015 at 12:53 pm

          Did he murder me first? What was my say in the donation?

          Eventually the needs of “science” and the “advancement of the human species” will necessitate mandatory donation. Take solace that my time will come before yours. Society would be better served by my parts than the contentious bytes I throw on Bill’s server. Just label it a 200-th trimester abortion. Soylent Green, anyone?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend