Posted on 09/15/2015 9:50:23 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson denies that he personally handled the remains of aborted children during a medical research project – while defending the use of aborted babies' cells for such research.
The blog of an OB/GYN who supports abortion on demand revealed that Dr. Carson took part in a 1992 experiment that used cells taken "from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation."
Thursday night, Dr. Carson denied that he was "in the laboratory actually doing the research, or retrieving fetal tissue."
"My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope," he said.
"The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study," he added.
Fetal tissues used by researchers can "come from a variety of different places, ectopic pregnancies, spontaneous abortions," as well as elective abortions.
"But," he said, "just because they get the fetal tissue [by abortion], does it mean they should throw it out? Of course they don’t."
"That’s how science is advanced," he said.
Carson further told CNN during a stop in Manchester, New Hampshire, "To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?"
However, many bioethicists - and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church - would disagree that it is morally permissible to participate in any study using cells obtained by elective abortion...even if the aborted remains were supplied by others.
The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote that medical professionals have the "duty to refuse to use such 'biological material' even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed...the abortion."
"This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life." (Emphases in original.)
A declaration by the Pontifical Academy for Life asked, "Is it morally licit to use [embryonic stem] cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable?"
"The answer is negative," it concluded.
Such an action would represent "a proximate material cooperation" in an immoral action.
The theologian Lucas Pollice wrote, "The use of stem cells for medical research that have been obtained from the deliberate and violent destruction of human life is also absolutely morally unacceptable."
Research related to the destruction of innocent human life, Pope Benedict XVI said during his pontificate, "is not truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves."
Carson had previously upheld the use of RU-486, also condemned by pro-life and Roman Catholic ethicists. However, the retired neurosurgeon tied among likely Iowa caucus goers as the Republican most trusted on abortion, alongside Gov. Mike Huckabee.
This could get Carson into some hot water if pro-lifers want to press the issue.
I think that Dr. Carson maybe about to go on a diving expedition to the bottom of the political sea.
Article’s old and been posted and obviously hasn’t hurt his poll numbers.
Last I checked it’s illegal to possess stolen merchandise. So why is it moral to use the remains of aborted babies for something?
In related news, Simon Legree says it is “foolish” not to use already imported Africans as slaves on plantations.
/s
Was never going to vote for him anyways but now he is showing he on the dark side.
Taking this thinking to its logical conclusion, I assume that it would also be foolish to not call the local abortion clinic and arrange for delivery of the exact type of tissue needed as it becomes available?
I agree.
I remember no more than ten or fifteen years ago, a lot of public agonizing about using data collected by Nazi doctors on oxygen deprivation and depressurization through fatal experiments on Jews and other subjects.
This is the same thing. Some biological materials and some data are morally poisonous.
And abortions are taking place NOW. There is no practical danger that Auschwitz is going to be re-opened as a death camp. That is, until after the Muslims take over.
I’m sure there were those who wanted to use the data collected by the Japanese during WWII as they used vivisection on conscious prisoners, immersed people in icy water, injected them with diseases, and starved them to death all in the name of research. The Allies deigned to forgo the “benefits” of the knowledge obtained.
Carson would not, apparently, have let it go to “waste.”
Hey Ben, those who think they’re smarter than God all GTH.
Sickening.
It’s foolish not to pluck out the hearts and lungs and livers and kidneys from Jews before you throw them in the ovens.
Hmm. People wonder why the medical industry in this idiocracy, I mean, in America, is in a mess
People wonder why the medical industry in America is referred to as an ‘industry’
“Article’s old and been posted and obviously hasn’t hurt his poll numbers.”
Well that’s probably because no one in the race has asked him pointedly about the remarks. Trump needs to do that so the more folks know the truth about Carson’s “ideas.” He also needs more “exposure” on the 2A and immigration. The more I see of Carson, the more he looks like a GOPe plant too.
A host on my Christian radio station just said Ben was drawing in the evangelicals.
How will they feel about *this*?
Bye, Ben.
OOOPS!!!!
Bye Bye Carson.....
For the "good" doctor to completely fail to realize this says a tremendous amount about his character and morals.
One month old article is not old. Where has this been?
I already considered Carson a monster from the latest on this, and now I’m sure. HOW any real conservative or pro-life person can be for him is beyond me.
To whoever posted this - thank you.
One of two I would have voted for.
Not any more.
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.
