Navarette: "I don't know if I'm pro-choice anymore"

[Lothar]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ymore.html

[callmeslick]

so, based on clearly doctored videos(even the makers admitted to 'editing' heavily), this nitwit changes his position on a woman's right to make her own choice? Pretty shallow principles if you ask me. The matter of processing tissue specimens for cell culture for research purposes has been well documented, and shows the reality of what is being discussed. The 'Lamborghinin' comment was CLEARLY not spoken in the context(one can see the disconnect of a mediocre edit job in that clip). Not impressed by this piece at all, personally.

[Lothar]

Semi-off-topic:

this nitwit

Whether or not the person you're referring to is an intellectual lightweight, what purpose does name-calling achieve?

IMO it weakens your argument by pulling the rhetorical weight of your opening lines toward "nitwit" and away from "shallow principles", which is a much weightier statement. It furthermore acts as a subtle signal to others who might find value in the man's comments (not necessarily 100% agreement) that trying to respond will result in their being similarly labeled, which reduces the possibility that you might get a worthwhile response. And it drastically increases the chances of the name-calling becoming the center of attention -- either by someone calling it out (like me) or by someone responding in kind (we've all seen that happen in E&C fairly regularly.)

[callmeslick]

sorry to offend, Lothar, but at a certain point you have to call people on shallow logic and easy acceptance of clearly doctored 'facts'. My word choice may have been harsh-sounding, but it was the only thing that came to time. Now, I have to head off for cocktails with a large group of my fellow nitwits, and then go watch folks spend entirely too much money for baby horses. Must convince the wife not to get excited and bid(not that I am putting any money into escrow with Fasig-Tipton anyway, but saves the annoyance for all).

[Lothar]

I didn't say anything about offense.

Instead, I focused on the way your word choice damaged your ability to effectively communicate. Pay careful attention to my comment about the rhetorical weight of "nitwit" vs "shallow principles". If you just eliminate the word "nitwit", then your strongest language goes with your strongest point -- but with the word present, your strongest language is connected to a weak and off-topic meta-point. You "called him out" in multiple ways, but the loudest one was a pointless insult while the more potent one about shallow principles was relegated to an afterthought.

[callmeslick]

I didn't say anything about offense.

Instead, I focused on the way your word choice damaged your ability to effectively communicate. Pay careful attention to my comment about the rhetorical weight of "nitwit" vs "shallow principles". If you just eliminate the word "nitwit", then your strongest language goes with your strongest point -- but with the word present, your strongest language is connected to a weak and off-topic meta-point. You "called him out" in multiple ways, but the loudest one was a pointless insult while the more potent one about shallow principles was relegated to an afterthought.

I'll accept your criticism, but will disagree. Sometimes, the thrust needs emphasis, in my mind. Your thoughts, as always, are quite sound. We all, however, have personal ways of expression, and so long as those don't cross into the blatantly obscene or abusive, I am fine with those, whether they come from me or not.

[woodchip]

so, based on clearly doctored videos(even the makers admitted to 'editing' heavily), this nitwit changes his position on a woman's right to make her own choice? Pretty shallow principles if you ask me. The matter of processing tissue specimens for cell culture for research purposes has been well documented, and shows the reality of what is being discussed. The 'Lamborghinin' comment was CLEARLY not spoken in the context(one can see the disconnect of a mediocre edit job in that clip). Not impressed by this piece at all, personally.

There are plenty of the videos that were the full unedited version that I still don't understand why you persist in presenting the Lefts stance that they were "edited". Please show us where in the unedited version that bolsters your claim the videos are untrue or lies were manufactured via "editing"

[Lothar]

Sometimes, the thrust needs emphasis

yes -- and you placed the emphasis on a weaker point rather than a stronger one. This is a really basic concept -- when you emphasize your weakest points, you drag down the effectiveness of your entire presentation.

[Foil]

Back on topic:

Not sure what to think about the article (honestly, I'm not even certain it's legit, given the reputation of the site).

With that said, one statement that stood out to me:

"I understood the abortion debate was a tug-of-war between competing rights—those of the mother versus those of an unborn baby. I sided with the mother. And I tried not to think about the baby."

This is really the crux of the matter - opinions about rights in the abortion debate (and changes of those opinions) boil down to relative perceptions: perceptions about the mother versus perceptions about the one being aborted.

On one end of the spectrum, we have those who don't know (or don't want to think about) about the stages of development, or who limit their perception of abortion to only include the embryonic stage. These folks tend to weigh the rights of the mother as completely unassailable - the entity being aborted has no rights at all, because it's perceived as inhuman, or it's seen as insignificant in comparison to flawed notions of "my body" / "someone else's body".

On the other end of the spectrum, we have those who don't know (or don't want to think about) issues faced by mothers, or who limit their perception of abortion to solely a matter of life vs. death. These folks tend to weigh the rights of the child as near-absolute - the mother has no rights at all unless her life is in danger, because other issues are considered negligible in comparison to flawed notions about preserving life at all costs.

...And far too infrequently, in the middle, we have people who see both as deserving of protection, who recoil from the description of a fetus as "just a bunch of cells" just as much as they recoil from the description of a mother as "just a slut".

[callmeslick]

fair enough outline, Foil. I might fault your description of the camps in some degree, but close enough for now. I don't think you can ever reconcile the two moral/ethical outlooks(which have remained split about the same way for decades in poll after poll). Thus, I find it the most democratic course to allow the adult human making the choice to follow their set of ethics and morals. Before someone comes back with 'some people feel murder is ok...etc.', let's at least agree that society overwhelmingly condemns murder. Once again, democracy and public mores determine the law, most of the time, with our system designed to err towards protecting the minority opinion more that most systems do.

@Lothar--I get your points. Bottom line, I'm unlikely to do much past think to myself,'oh, THIS is going to grate on Lothar, I hope he at least agrees with my point...'. Time will tell, but I actually appreciate you pointing stuff like this out.

@Woody- the bit about the Maserati is but one example of a clearly spliced and re-ordered 'edit', and NO, the full, unedited footage has never been made available, nor do the activists have any intent to do so. This is why the judge ruled against them the other day, which is a very rare pre-emptive judgement around potential libel or slander. Would they have agreed to submit unedited video, I think the ruling never would have been entered.

Saratoga update-
now, I have to find a drink(two, actually, my wife is back in there someplace).....my head needs settling after what I've been watching. So far, they've sold 9 horses. None has sold for less than $130,000, 5 over $300,000, and one was like 6 hundred and something. Crazy money going down.

[woodchip]

@Woody- the bit about the Maserati is but one example of a clearly spliced and re-ordered 'edit', and NO, the full, unedited footage has never been made available, nor do the activists have any intent to do so. This is why the judge ruled against them the other day, which is a very rare pre-emptive judgement around potential libel or slander. Would they have agreed to submit unedited video, I think the ruling never would have been entered.

First off the judge, unless you can provide information backing your claim, ordered the injunction:

One big factor in Orrick's decision was the non-disclosure agreements the center's representatives signed when they registered as conference participants. He said they were signed "under false pretenses."

As to your claim the full unedited cersion was never released:



All you have to do is take the time to google instead of telling the lie the full version was never released.

Saratoga update-
now, I have to find a drink(two, actually, my wife is back in there someplace).....my head needs settling after what I've been watching. So far, they've sold 9 horses. None has sold for less than $130,000, 5 over $300,000, and one was like 6 hundred and something. Crazy money going down.

Went to a Arabian sale in Scotsdale back when they were the thing and some of the Arabs were going for a million plus.

[callmeslick]

Went to a Arabian sale in Scotsdale back when they were the thing and some of the Arabs were going for a million plus.

Arabians are beautiful horses. They actually race them down at Delaware Park and a few other places. THIS was the big item of last evening, but there are two on tonights program that might be pricier still. Average was around $300,000:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/ ... lls-for-2m

[Tunnelcat]

Dr. Ben Carson obviously has a double standard concerning the use or research of that fetal tissue that comes from those abortions he supposedly despises.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08 ... -research/

[Lothar]

Dr. Ben Carson obviously has a double standard concerning the use or research of that fetal tissue that comes from those abortions he supposedly despises.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08 ... -research/

While I don't agree with his stance, ThinkProgress didn't really manage to capture what he said very well. Click through to the original at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post ... -research/ to see his position laid out more completely.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, the original blog captured it quite well. Carson knew that the fetal tissue he was using for "research" came from 2 aborted fetuses, a 9 week old and a 17 week old (second trimester), and they were both products of ABORTION, not miscarriage or other natural fetal death.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/ ... al-tissue/

From his own research paper.



No matter how you sugar coat it Lothar, he used aborted fetuses for his research and he knew it. He's splitting hairs in the Post article to excuse his own use of aborted fetuses. How is killing babies and taking tissue any different than taking tissue from aborted fetuses? Aren't fetuses still babies in Carson's own definition? A "dead specimen is still a dead fetus that was the result of an abortion, optional or otherwise.

"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."

[Lothar]

Like I said, I disagree with him, but I don't think that blog captured the essence of his point.

From what I understood of his comments, he was basically saying "as a researcher, people give me tissue, and I do my best to use that to save lives. I don't go in with the goal of killing a baby. I don't kill for the purpose of harvesting tissues." In his mind, it's kind of like if someone agreed to donate their body to science, and they were a murder victim -- he doesn't view using their tissue as condoning the murder, but as a way to take some good out of a bad situation.

Again, I don't agree with him, but I can disagree with him without misconstruing his position into something it's not.

[Tunnelcat]

Look at it this way Lothar. When tissue is donated from an adult body, there is some sort of consent granted by that adult, or the immediate family, for his or her tissue to be used for research. On the other hand, tissue from a fetus is pretty much guaranteed to come from an aborted fetus or less common, a miscarriage, not that there is way to tell the difference and most tissue banks probably don't make that distinction when selling the tissue for research. That fetus gave no consent for it's remains to be used for research. It can't because it can't speak for itself to give consent.

Dr. Carson must know that fact, he's a doctor. Therefore he has no moral ground to stand telling others how to behave when he knows that it's pretty much guaranteed that he's receiving fetal tissue from abortions of convenience for his own research, which if he has any integrity, IS violating his own convictions and repulsions about those same abortions of convenience.

Principle Lothar. Principle and integrity. That's what's missing from today's politicians. All they do is blow their political dog whistles in order to rile their base and get those precious votes and they don't give a damn about personal intergity and principle, if they even have those values in the first place, which most don't.

[callmeslick]

Look at it this way Lothar. When tissue is donated from an adult body, there is some sort of consent granted by that adult, or the immediate family, for his or her tissue to be used for research. On the other hand, tissue from a fetus is pretty much guaranteed to come from an aborted fetus or less common, a miscarriage, not that there is way to tell the difference and most tissue banks probably don't make that distinction when selling the tissue for research. That fetus gave no consent for it's remains to be used for research. It can't because it can't speak for itself to give consent.

however, and this is no small legal detail, the mother DOES give the consent for use of tissue and has to consent for any harvest of cells.

Principle Lothar. Principle and integrity. That's what's missing from today's politicians. All they do is blow their political dog whistles in order to rile their base and get those precious votes and they don't give a damn about personal intergity and principle, if they even have those values in the first place, which most don't.

left this TC quote intact because it is SO true. Just like Trump was pro-choice until it became necessary to change, Dr. Carson preaches one thing when he's running that he wasn't willing to practice in medical research.

[Lothar]

That fetus gave no consent for it's remains to be used for research

I completely agree. Though I'm also of the opinion that a legal guardian should be able to give consent for research when a minor dies. And also of the opinion that killing your own child is abhorrent, and should nullify those rights, and thus no one has the right to consent on behalf of the aborted fetus.

Dr. Carson... has no moral ground to stand telling others how to behave

Again, the weak charge of hypocrisy. Yeah, it makes his argument less persuasive due to human psychology, but it doesn't reflect on the correctness or incorrectness of the argument itself. His being wrong (for the reason I outlined above) is tangential to his having or not having the moral high ground.

[Lothar]

Interesting twist that a friend posted on facebook:

Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients.

[woodchip]

This is starting to remind me of the blatant lies the left told about Romney when he was running.

[Tunnelcat]

That fetus gave no consent for it's remains to be used for research

I completely agree. Though I'm also of the opinion that a legal guardian should be able to give consent for research when a minor dies. And also of the opinion that killing your own child is abhorrent, and should nullify those rights, and thus no one has the right to consent on behalf of the aborted fetus.

As slick noted, apparently the parents can give consent for the tissue from either a their aborted fetus or deceased child after to be used for research. Another moral question is should the parents be told how that tissue is going to be used and I wonder would it matter in their decision? Of course the slippery slope argument is that using aborted fetuses encourages even more use and dependence on that tissue in research. In other words, the research is driving more demand for fetal tissue, above and beyond the normal reasons abortions are performed on women and does this give monetary incentives for abortion clinics to do even more abortions? It looks that way.

If we keep performing abortions in this country, do we go ahead and use the tissue for humankind's good, or instead incinerate it as waste? When you get into that aspect, on a moral level it sounds really clinical and disgusting to give as the main reason to use the tissue anyway. It's worse to then make lots of money doing it. I think the monetary incentive is downright evil. It encourages the act many people want to put a stop to, abortions. A better way to lower abortion rates to make sure contraception is cheap and available, but moral conservatives keep trying to put a halt to that as well. It's a self-defeating practice. In 1989, the fetal tissue market took in around $6 million dollars. I'm sure it's skyrocketed since then. Ain't capitalism great.

Found this old article about this moral conflict from back in 1989.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989 ... ch-consent

Dr. Carson... has no moral ground to stand telling others how to behave

Again, the weak charge of hypocrisy. Yeah, it makes his argument less persuasive due to human psychology, but it doesn't reflect on the correctness or incorrectness of the argument itself. His being wrong (for the reason I outlined above) is tangential to his having or not having the moral high ground.

So he claims he only donated tumors from his patients for the research (from your second post). It's a possible explanation since Colloid cysts, the object of the research, are brain tumors. Maybe one of the other researchers needs to step forward and clear up things for Dr. Carson and put the controversy to rest. But if he was actually participating in the research, his name is on the paper, he had to know that the other tissue being studied was fetal. Did it bother him at the time? I have no idea. But, like you say, it's now either here nor there at this point. He hasn't done that type of research since 1992, so he's stuck to his morals and I'll quit harping.

[callmeslick]

As slick noted, apparently the parents can give consent for the tissue from either a their aborted fetus or deceased child after to be used for research.

I was probably expressing it badly, being tired from the road for a week or so. The mother HAS TO CONSENT or the tissue cannot be used, as I understand current law.



on the Carson matter, I am sort of with Lothar, overall, but am more concerned if he actually still lies about the tissue sourcing. As opposed to the suggestion you, TC, to have it clarified, the citation in the materials outline in the paper is pretty damned specific as to sourcing of tissues used, and as an author of the paper, Dr. Carson would presumably read the final draft in its entirety. More so if he presented the paper at any professional gathering or academic seminar.

[Lothar]

the citation in the materials outline in the paper is pretty damned specific as to sourcing of tissues used, and as an author of the paper, Dr. Carson would presumably read the final draft in its entirety

It's fairly standard practice to list people as co-authors on a paper even if they didn't actually write or read any of it, if they were involved in some part of the research. It wouldn't be completely impossible for Ben Carson to be listed as co-author on a paper that he only touched a tiny corner of.

[callmeslick]

the citation in the materials outline in the paper is pretty damned specific as to sourcing of tissues used, and as an author of the paper, Dr. Carson would presumably read the final draft in its entirety

It's fairly standard practice to list people as co-authors on a paper even if they didn't actually write or read any of it, if they were involved in some part of the research. It wouldn't be completely impossible for Ben Carson to be listed as co-author on a paper that he only touched a tiny corner of.

I was in research for years and have NEVER heard of a draft not being circulated among co-authors. EVER. This is science, others have to be able to duplicate your results, and thus, the material list is CRITICAL.