Ben Carson: It was OK for me to do research on aborted fetuses

[GMDino]

(08-14-2015, 03:19 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: I don't think it's dishonest at all.  Let's talk about the reason for the attacks in the first place:  He is telling the truth about the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.

The sky is blue.  That is the truth.

I have green hair.  That is not.

Just because Dr. Carson says one truth you believe does not mean he cannot be lying about something else.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2015, 03:28 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: This subject is very relevant because this is the reason they dug through his medical research back to 1992.  They had to go 25 years to find ANYTHING.  He has been bringing up Margaret Sanger's racism and the real reason she started Planned Parenthood.  She wanted to eradicate the black population.  Since the Democrat power base is built on the backs of dead babies, they had to do something to try and stop him.  Hopefully it doesn't stop him.

Let's just assume everything you wrote is true. Did you not read my explanation?

[BonnieBengal]

(08-14-2015, 03:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: The sky is blue.  That is the truth.

I have green hair.  That is not.

Just because Dr. Carson says one truth you believe does not mean he cannot be lying about something else.

The fact that Margaret Sanger was a racist is not just Ben Carson's opinion.  You can easily find her writings and read them yourself.

[BonnieBengal]

(08-14-2015, 03:41 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: "Democrat power base" is incorrect grammar. The word you were looking for is "Democratic".

People are free to read about Sanger anytime they want. This came out because he has publicly condemned the use of aborted fetuses for research when he himself has been involved in it.

Yeah because incorrect grammar is just as important as over 55 million dead babies killed by an organization started by a racist.

[GMDino]

(08-14-2015, 05:17 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: The fact that Margaret Sanger was a racist is not just Ben Carson's opinion.  You can easily find her writings and read them yourself.

Again, just because he tells the truth about one thing does not mean he is telling the truth about everything.

Sanger was racist =/= I just signed off on a study and didn't know aborted fetus material was used.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2015, 05:17 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: The fact that Margaret Sanger was a racist is not just Ben Carson's opinion.  You can easily find her writings and read them yourself.

Again, I will assume everything you wrote is true. It doesn't change the fact Ben Carson is a liar and a hypocrite.

[BonnieBengal]

(08-14-2015, 06:07 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Again, I will assume everything you wrote is true. It doesn't change the fact Ben Carson is a liar and a hypocrite.

He supplied tumors for a study 25 years ago and that was the extent of his involvement.   Pro abortionists are grasping at straws.  How hypocritical is the left?  They scream that the right is racist yet they revere a racist (Margaret Sanger).  Hillary Clinton has said she greatly admires Sanger.  

[BonnieBengal]

(08-14-2015, 05:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again, just because he tells the truth about one thing does not mean he is telling the truth about everything.

Sanger was racist =/= I just signed off on a study and didn't know aborted fetus material was used.

He didn't say he "signed off on a study."  He said he supplied tumors for a study.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-14-2015, 07:05 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: He supplied tumors for a study 25 years ago and that was the extent of his involvement.   Pro abortionists are grasping at straws.  How hypocritical is the left?  They scream that the right is racist yet they revere a racist (Margaret Sanger).  Hillary Clinton has said she greatly admires Sanger.  

None of this does anything to refute the issue at hand for Carson.

(08-14-2015, 07:06 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: He didn't say he "signed off on a study."  He said he supplied tumors for a study.  

His name was on the study. He was involved. Scientists that are asked to take part in a study they have objections to, even if they aren't directly involved in the objectionable part, recuse themselves all of the time. Why did he not do that?

[jakefromstatefarm]

So doing research on already aborted babies is equal to aborting and/or supporting the abortion of babies.

Interesting take.

Now if he somehow encouraged abortions to take place in order to make money doing research, okay....I could get on board with that.

Otherwise, this is like claiming that the county coroner is in favor of homicide because it keeps him in business.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2015, 07:05 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: He supplied tumors for a study 25 years ago and that was the extent of his involvement.   Pro abortionists are grasping at straws.  How hypocritical is the left?  They scream that the right is racist yet they revere a racist (Margaret Sanger).  Hillary Clinton has said she greatly admires Sanger.  

He supplied those tumors knowing they would be histologically compared to fetal brain tissue so they could test the hypothesis colloid cyst develop from the embryonic paraphysis. There is 0% chance he didn't know fetal tissue was used before his name was added to the list of authors.

He previously stated fetal tissue isn't necessary for research knowing he had participated in research which required fetal tissue thus making him a liar and a hypocrite.  Now he is playing the "I don't want to bore you" with the details because the details are incriminating.

The only mention I have made of Sanger is in response to your excuses. I've assumed everything you wrote is true. None of what you claimed makes Ben Carson less of a liar and a hypocrite.

[Belsnickel]

(08-14-2015, 07:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So doing research on already aborted babies is equal to aborting and/or supporting the abortion of babies.

Interesting take.

Now if he somehow encouraged abortions to take place in order to make money doing research, okay....I could get on board with that.

Otherwise, this is like claiming that the county coroner is in favor of homicide because it keeps him in business.

Then why is he backtracking and trying to claim he had no part in it? Obviously he believes this is going to somehow damage him on the right.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 07:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Then why is he backtracking and trying to claim he had no part in it? Obviously he believes this is going to somehow damage him on the right.

I have no idea.  There are ridiculous people on both sides that want to politicize everything. 

I don't see much to this, other than some people will want to point to his "hypocrisy", that I fail to see.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2015, 07:46 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I have no idea.  There are ridiculous people on both sides that want to politicize everything. 

I don't see much to this, other than some people will want to point to his "hypocrisy", that I fail to see.  

I'm a Ben Carson fan, but it is more than fair for the left to expose this. Carson's response is important. As controversies go it is quite tame, but you take what you can get.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 07:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm a Ben Carson fan, but it is more than fair for the left to expose this. Carson's response is important. As controversies go it is quite tame, but you take what you can get.

Like I said before, if it can be shown that he somehow encouraged more abortions to make more money on research, that would certainly be a red flag. 

Knowing what we know to this point, I think it's a perception issue more than anything else. 

I've been wrong before.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-14-2015, 07:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So doing research on already aborted babies is equal to aborting and/or supporting the abortion of babies.

Interesting take.  

Now if he somehow encouraged abortions to take place in order to make money doing research, okay....I could get on board with that.  

Otherwise, this is like claiming that the county coroner is in favor of homicide because it keeps him in business.

Wrong. Ben Carson specifically came out against Planned Parenthood donating aborted tissue for research, when he himself used aborted tissue for research. That's where the hypocrisy lies.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 08:08 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Wrong. Ben Carson specifically came out against Planned Parenthood donating aborted tissue for research, when he himself used aborted tissue for research. That's where the hypocrisy lies.

Oh, then I read the OP wrong, if this is true.

If this is indeed the case, he is indeed a hypocrite. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-14-2015, 07:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So doing research on already aborted babies is equal to aborting and/or supporting the abortion of babies.

Interesting take.  

Now if he somehow encouraged abortions to take place in order to make money doing research, okay....I could get on board with that.  

Otherwise, this is like claiming that the county coroner is in favor of homicide because it keeps him in business.

Claiming you don't need fetal tissue for research while knowing you participated in research which required fetal tissue is like claiming you don't need eggs to make an omelette after you already made the omelette with the eggs you claim you don't need.

If you're the guy supplying the ham for what you know will be a ham and cheese omelette, you can't claim, "I didn't know we were making a ham and cheese omelette" when you knew the entire time the ham was being used for an omelette.

Carson's response is the equivalent of, " I won't bore you with the details of how to cook a ham and cheese omelette."

Condemning Planned Parenthood for supplying fetal tissue for research is equivalent to blaming the farmer for supplying the eggs while Carson supplies the ham.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-14-2015, 12:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've actually seen a few Pro-Choicers here admit as much. Many state even though they abhor the action, the feel the woman's rights take precedence. Apparently, you are not in that category and have no issue with the morality of the matter.

BTW most folks are adamant that they are right; I don't think it's just a "me" issue. It is called conviction.

So essentially you're no different than someone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq war?  Or any war we've been involved in for that matter.

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2015, 10:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So essentially you're no different than someone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq war?  Or any war we've been involved in for that matter.

Depends on what you mean by different. But yeah, they have conviction in their beliefs.

Not real sure what it has to do with the OP, but if we're focusing on me I guess there's a point.