Just imagine it's a pith helmet or whatever So you know how Ben Carson was a co-author of a paper involving fetal tissue research, even though he thinks fetal tissue research is really gross and squicky, and Planned Parenthood should stop selling Buicks that are made out of babies?
This article appears to be purposefully deceptive. The fetal tissue used by Dr. Carson and his colleagues in their 1992 study appears to have come from banked tissue of "spontaneous aborted (i.e. miscarriage)" babies. It is common for miscarried babies to be autopsied (as are other deceased human beings) and their tissues banked for further study. An autopsy of a miscarried baby is a far cry from killing a baby for convenience sake and then selling its body parts. If you can not recognize the difference between a miscarried baby and a baby purposefully killed then you are being willfully ignorant!
Ms. Appleton, there have been no, zero, nada, nyet, nil instances of the tissue from aborted fetuses, spontaneous or otherwise, being sold for 'body parts'. THAT is a purposefully deceptive statement, designed to distract from the truth about the manipulated videos purporting to show such a traffic, with Planned Parenthood at the center. This is false. The people who made those videos also know that this is false, but they are trying to shut down legal abortion in this country, and so they manipulated their recordings to make it seem as if there was some sort of scandal, hoping to generate enough outrage to make it possible to destroy what remains of reproductive choice in this country. They will fail at this.
The reasonable people of this country want to see abortion become as rare as is possible, with education and inexpensive, easily available birth control ensuring that only women who wish to become pregnant will. But even if such a best-case scenario ever comes to pass, there will still be the need for safe abortions to protect women (and children) who have been raped, to save the lives of women when pregnancy goes wrong, and to prevent the needless suffering of babies who would be born with terrible genetic malfunctions and die within minutes to hours of birth. Forcing women (and children) who have been abused and impregnated against their will to carry that pregnancy to term, to deny the right to life of an actual woman in favor of a potential life which would kill or terribly injure her, and/or making malformed babies suffer, is not in any way, shape, or form "pro-life" - only forced-birth being used as punishment for women's sexuality. The vast, sensible majority of this country do not approve of this, having, as they do, selves, mothers, sisters, aunts, daughters, cousins and close friends who have a right to dominion over their own bodies. Unless you are proposing to make the bodies of every woman of reproductive age the property of the state, a vision worthy of Stalin, never again will abortion be illegal in the U.S. We, the humane and rational people, will make certain of it.
Here are the guidelines for authorship used in most scientific and medical journals:Authorship criteria (Adapted from the recommendation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE))
Authorship credit should be based on the following: 1)substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2)drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;and
3)final approval of the version to be published.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, authors should have confidence in the integrity of thecontributions of their co-authors. Corporate authorship is not accepted.
LarkintheAM, all the readers need to do to determine the truth as to whether PP employees are discussing the sale of body parts of murdered babies is to review all the videos in their entirety. By the way, the babies being killed are not the "body" of the woman. Once conceived, each child killed had its own DNA, blood type, etc. The bioligical mother was only nurturing the child conceived inside of her. The vast majority of abortions were for "convenience" sake and not because of rape or because the mother's life is in danger.
Once a human being is conceived, all it normally needs to develop to adulthood is proper nurturing (whether inside the womb or not). Fetus is a medical term to define any unborn vertabrate after it has attained the basic characteristics of its kind. This term is often used by non-medical persons to dehumanize an unborn child. Show any small child a 3d ultrasound of a 22 week old "fetus" and ask them what it is. Ask any pregnant woman "who wants her child" if she is carrying a "fetus" or a "baby". Both the small child and the pregnant woman "who wants her child" will say the unborn human being is a "baby". Whether an unborn child is called a fetus or a baby, the truth is that willful abortion is the killing of a human being whose life was destroyed by persons who thought his/her life not as valuable as theirs.
Ms. Appleton, I will not be replying further to you, but I have watched the videos. There is a link on Vox.com and also an analysis of same. The takeaway is this: "This is a consistent theme throughout the 12 hours of video footage: Planned Parenthood officials emphasize, repeatedly, that they do not see fetal tissue as a revenue stream, nor do they intend to make money off of fetal tissue procurement.
Rather, they talk about it as a service they can provide to researchers and patients — something that patients want to participate in and that they want to facilitate, provided it does not lose their clinic any money.
This is the type of footage that tends to get edited out of the Center for Medical Progress clips — and it's much more prevalent than the troublesome moments I'll discuss later.
This was especially true for a three-hour lunch with Nucatola. She makes this point repeatedly during the lunch. Here are a few examples:
"This is not a new revenue stream the affiliates are looking at. This is a way to offer the patient the service that they want. Do good for the medical community."
"Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that's not what it is."
"Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They're looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line."
In the tapes I watched, Planned Parenthood officials never started the conversation about price; it was always something the buyers brought up.
So why take a meeting with a (fake) fetal tissue procurement company in the first place? Mostly, Planned Parenthood's staffers seemed to think they were doing something good — but they wanted to make sure they wouldn't lose money if they began to devote more staff time and work to processing fetal tissue donations."
That is not at all about the "sale of body parts of murdered babies". So, to say that it is, is a lie. And the same people in the congress who are screaming the loudest about it now are the very same people who voted to allow fetal tissue to be used in research and to permit the agencies which collect it to recoup the costs of doing so.
And just in case there's an off chance that reason hasn't left you concerning this subject entirely, I will call to your notice that abortion is legal in this country, and that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS why a woman would seek to terminate a pregnancy. That is between a woman and her physician. But since anti-abortion extremists are all too eager to deny access to birth-control as well, arguing about abortion for "convenience" sake isn't likely to be a winner for you, either. Did you not read what I wrote? Women would prefer to NOT be in the position of having an abortion if they can help it. I have never heard of a woman who had one on a whim. Being too young, or being too poor, or too homeless, or any of a number of circumstances where if birth control had been cheap and easily available the pregnancy could have been prevented in the first place would have also prevented the abortion. But preventing unwanted - for whatever reason - pregnancies from occurring isn't what you folks are about. Instead what you are about is forcing any woman who has sex to be in the position to get pregnant and then forcing her to give birth, after which you lose all care and concern about the life you have just demanded be brought into the world.
Btw, when one becomes pregnant, one does not lose ownership of one's body. Until a fetus is viable, it is completely dependent on the mother's body to sustain it. All spontaneous abortions (i.e. miscarriages) also had their own DNA. So far we have been able to avoid the spectre of miscarriages being treated as possible murders until proven otherwise, but if you folks had your way, it would only be a matter of time until all pregnant women are taken into "protective" custody at the moment of conception.
Speaking of which, the idea of life beginning at conception is a religious doctrine. Last I checked my constitution, we are not a theocracy. Your religious dogma cannot trump any other person's religious dogma, and thus cannot be used to make the law. There are many religions (Judaism, Buddhism, some denominations of Christianity, most animist religions, etc.) which do not agree that life "begins" at conception, and the science does not support this view either. If all your definition of "life" requires is the meeting of sperm and egg, then God is the biggest abortionist of them all, as a majority of all pregnancies abort themselves, often before a woman even knows there has been a conception.
But in all of this talk about when "life" begins, you and your co-religionists seem to be forgetting about the very real lives of the women whose bodies we are discussing. They are already here and living them, and have the right to *continue* living their lives. You don't seem to give a damn about them beyond their capacity as an incubator. Since the only lives which matter to you are zygotic, embryonic or fetal, you will need to be a lot more inclusive to be entitled to call yourself "pro-life".
looked at perhaps, but not read it or grasped it it seems on homers part. in his effort to call me a liar (indirectly, but a liar none the less) he did trigger a poor reflex on my part. the scream I apologize to you and the others here for. the gist of my reply i do not regret. bottom line if you need to call me a liar when in fact you are wrong is a bad thing indeed.
I do this for a living, too. I also review papers for publication for multiple scientific journals. Every one of those journals would disqualify Carson as an author for simply providing tissue samples. To be an author, one must have made a significant contribution to the research in terms of the design and execution of the experiments *and* have actually written up the portions of the research for which one is responsible or revised the drafts *and* have final approval before publication - everyone who is listed as an author must sign a statement to this effect before they can be credited as an author of the paper. M.D.s simply providing tissue do not meet these criteria.
I have been a PI for many years, and review for high impact journals. You are technically correct. However, those more stringent guidelines are pretty recent, and everyone knows that to bypass them when they state the author's contribution, they write something like "BC contibuted patient samples, participated in study design and coordination, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."
Calling an embryo or fetus a baby no more makes it so than does calling an acorn an oak tree. The same goes for conflating abortion with murder.
Canada has abortion on demand - & fewer abortions per capita than the US. The best way to make fewer abortions happen isn't closing health centres, it's good sex education & access to cheap or free birth control.
Howdy, colleague! :-) Yes, the guidelines are relatively recent, but, at least in my field (molecular biology), it's been been well understood by authors that providing reagents isn't enough. Courtesy authorship was strongly discouraged, as authorship meant that you approved its contents and were thus responsible for any academic misconduct contained therein. I'm glad I do basic science. Wrestling with the egos of would-be collaborator surgeons for where their efforts would get acknowledged is certain to do no good for my ulcer. :-P
This article appears to be purposefully deceptive. The fetal tissue used by Dr. Carson and his colleagues in their 1992 study appears to have come from banked tissue of "spontaneous aborted (i.e. miscarriage)" babies. It is common for miscarried babies to be autopsied (as are other deceased human beings) and their tissues banked for further study. An autopsy of a miscarried baby is a far cry from killing a baby for convenience sake and then selling its body parts. If you can not recognize the difference between a miscarried baby and a baby purposefully killed then you are being willfully ignorant!
A correction/update is on the way. Also, fetuses are not babies.
Ms. Appleton, there have been no, zero, nada, nyet, nil instances of the tissue from aborted fetuses, spontaneous or otherwise, being sold for 'body parts'. THAT is a purposefully deceptive statement, designed to distract from the truth about the manipulated videos purporting to show such a traffic, with Planned Parenthood at the center. This is false. The people who made those videos also know that this is false, but they are trying to shut down legal abortion in this country, and so they manipulated their recordings to make it seem as if there was some sort of scandal, hoping to generate enough outrage to make it possible to destroy what remains of reproductive choice in this country. They will fail at this.
The reasonable people of this country want to see abortion become as rare as is possible, with education and inexpensive, easily available birth control ensuring that only women who wish to become pregnant will. But even if such a best-case scenario ever comes to pass, there will still be the need for safe abortions to protect women (and children) who have been raped, to save the lives of women when pregnancy goes wrong, and to prevent the needless suffering of babies who would be born with terrible genetic malfunctions and die within minutes to hours of birth. Forcing women (and children) who have been abused and impregnated against their will to carry that pregnancy to term, to deny the right to life of an actual woman in favor of a potential life which would kill or terribly injure her, and/or making malformed babies suffer, is not in any way, shape, or form "pro-life" - only forced-birth being used as punishment for women's sexuality. The vast, sensible majority of this country do not approve of this, having, as they do, selves, mothers, sisters, aunts, daughters, cousins and close friends who have a right to dominion over their own bodies. Unless you are proposing to make the bodies of every woman of reproductive age the property of the state, a vision worthy of Stalin, never again will abortion be illegal in the U.S. We, the humane and rational people, will make certain of it.
Here are the guidelines for authorship used in most scientific and medical journals:Authorship criteria (Adapted from the recommendation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE))
Authorship credit should be based on the following: 1)substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2)drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;and
3)final approval of the version to be published.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, authors should have confidence in the integrity of thecontributions of their co-authors. Corporate authorship is not accepted.
LarkintheAM, all the readers need to do to determine the truth as to whether PP employees are discussing the sale of body parts of murdered babies is to review all the videos in their entirety. By the way, the babies being killed are not the "body" of the woman. Once conceived, each child killed had its own DNA, blood type, etc. The bioligical mother was only nurturing the child conceived inside of her. The vast majority of abortions were for "convenience" sake and not because of rape or because the mother's life is in danger.
Once a human being is conceived, all it normally needs to develop to adulthood is proper nurturing (whether inside the womb or not). Fetus is a medical term to define any unborn vertabrate after it has attained the basic characteristics of its kind. This term is often used by non-medical persons to dehumanize an unborn child. Show any small child a 3d ultrasound of a 22 week old "fetus" and ask them what it is. Ask any pregnant woman "who wants her child" if she is carrying a "fetus" or a "baby". Both the small child and the pregnant woman "who wants her child" will say the unborn human being is a "baby". Whether an unborn child is called a fetus or a baby, the truth is that willful abortion is the killing of a human being whose life was destroyed by persons who thought his/her life not as valuable as theirs.
Ms. Appleton, I will not be replying further to you, but I have watched the videos. There is a link on Vox.com and also an analysis of same. The takeaway is this: "This is a consistent theme throughout the 12 hours of video footage: Planned Parenthood officials emphasize, repeatedly, that they do not see fetal tissue as a revenue stream, nor do they intend to make money off of fetal tissue procurement.
Rather, they talk about it as a service they can provide to researchers and patients — something that patients want to participate in and that they want to facilitate, provided it does not lose their clinic any money.
This is the type of footage that tends to get edited out of the Center for Medical Progress clips — and it's much more prevalent than the troublesome moments I'll discuss later.
This was especially true for a three-hour lunch with Nucatola. She makes this point repeatedly during the lunch. Here are a few examples:
"This is not a new revenue stream the affiliates are looking at. This is a way to offer the patient the service that they want. Do good for the medical community."
"Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that's not what it is."
"Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They're looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line."
In the tapes I watched, Planned Parenthood officials never started the conversation about price; it was always something the buyers brought up.
So why take a meeting with a (fake) fetal tissue procurement company in the first place? Mostly, Planned Parenthood's staffers seemed to think they were doing something good — but they wanted to make sure they wouldn't lose money if they began to devote more staff time and work to processing fetal tissue donations."
That is not at all about the "sale of body parts of murdered babies". So, to say that it is, is a lie. And the same people in the congress who are screaming the loudest about it now are the very same people who voted to allow fetal tissue to be used in research and to permit the agencies which collect it to recoup the costs of doing so.
And just in case there's an off chance that reason hasn't left you concerning this subject entirely, I will call to your notice that abortion is legal in this country, and that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS why a woman would seek to terminate a pregnancy. That is between a woman and her physician. But since anti-abortion extremists are all too eager to deny access to birth-control as well, arguing about abortion for "convenience" sake isn't likely to be a winner for you, either. Did you not read what I wrote? Women would prefer to NOT be in the position of having an abortion if they can help it. I have never heard of a woman who had one on a whim. Being too young, or being too poor, or too homeless, or any of a number of circumstances where if birth control had been cheap and easily available the pregnancy could have been prevented in the first place would have also prevented the abortion. But preventing unwanted - for whatever reason - pregnancies from occurring isn't what you folks are about. Instead what you are about is forcing any woman who has sex to be in the position to get pregnant and then forcing her to give birth, after which you lose all care and concern about the life you have just demanded be brought into the world.
Btw, when one becomes pregnant, one does not lose ownership of one's body. Until a fetus is viable, it is completely dependent on the mother's body to sustain it. All spontaneous abortions (i.e. miscarriages) also had their own DNA. So far we have been able to avoid the spectre of miscarriages being treated as possible murders until proven otherwise, but if you folks had your way, it would only be a matter of time until all pregnant women are taken into "protective" custody at the moment of conception.
Speaking of which, the idea of life beginning at conception is a religious doctrine. Last I checked my constitution, we are not a theocracy. Your religious dogma cannot trump any other person's religious dogma, and thus cannot be used to make the law. There are many religions (Judaism, Buddhism, some denominations of Christianity, most animist religions, etc.) which do not agree that life "begins" at conception, and the science does not support this view either. If all your definition of "life" requires is the meeting of sperm and egg, then God is the biggest abortionist of them all, as a majority of all pregnancies abort themselves, often before a woman even knows there has been a conception.
But in all of this talk about when "life" begins, you and your co-religionists seem to be forgetting about the very real lives of the women whose bodies we are discussing. They are already here and living them, and have the right to *continue* living their lives. You don't seem to give a damn about them beyond their capacity as an incubator. Since the only lives which matter to you are zygotic, embryonic or fetal, you will need to be a lot more inclusive to be entitled to call yourself "pro-life".
looked at perhaps, but not read it or grasped it it seems on homers part. in his effort to call me a liar (indirectly, but a liar none the less) he did trigger a poor reflex on my part. the scream I apologize to you and the others here for. the gist of my reply i do not regret. bottom line if you need to call me a liar when in fact you are wrong is a bad thing indeed.
back off moron
Fair enough.
I do this for a living, too. I also review papers for publication for multiple scientific journals. Every one of those journals would disqualify Carson as an author for simply providing tissue samples. To be an author, one must have made a significant contribution to the research in terms of the design and execution of the experiments *and* have actually written up the portions of the research for which one is responsible or revised the drafts *and* have final approval before publication - everyone who is listed as an author must sign a statement to this effect before they can be credited as an author of the paper. M.D.s simply providing tissue do not meet these criteria.
I have been a PI for many years, and review for high impact journals. You are technically correct. However, those more stringent guidelines are pretty recent, and everyone knows that to bypass them when they state the author's contribution, they write something like "BC contibuted patient samples, participated in study design and coordination, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."
Calling an embryo or fetus a baby no more makes it so than does calling an acorn an oak tree. The same goes for conflating abortion with murder.
Canada has abortion on demand - & fewer abortions per capita than the US. The best way to make fewer abortions happen isn't closing health centres, it's good sex education & access to cheap or free birth control.
Carson 2016: TAKE BACK AMERICA OR MESOPOTAMIA OR SOMETHING!
Howdy, colleague! :-) Yes, the guidelines are relatively recent, but, at least in my field (molecular biology), it's been been well understood by authors that providing reagents isn't enough. Courtesy authorship was strongly discouraged, as authorship meant that you approved its contents and were thus responsible for any academic misconduct contained therein. I'm glad I do basic science. Wrestling with the egos of would-be collaborator surgeons for where their efforts would get acknowledged is certain to do no good for my ulcer. :-P
you misspelled "moran"