Aborted and Miscarried Babies Used to Heat Hospitals in UK

[jv_coach]

http://godfatherpolitics.com/14885/aborted-babies-used-heat-hospitals-uk/  

 

 

To my liberal friends why is this wrong? 

[LumRaiderFan]

Liberals that are pro-choice/anti-life will have no problem with this, after all, an unborn child is only a fetus/blob of flesh...whatever.

Doesn't' matter what is done with it...right?

[bullets13]

it's no surprise that every rightwing "news source" has picked this story up, greatly misrepresenting and distorting the facts. however, if you find the actual facts, it's that aborted babies and miscarriages at a small number of hospitals were treated as "medical waste" and were incinerated along side other medical waste and trash. in a couple of instances, hospitals were using the incinerators to create power for their hospitals. now, thanks to the very misleading title, the image that comes to mind is a big fire with babies being tossed in to create heat for the hospital. what in fact was happening was that hospitals were burning all of the trash, as well as their "medical waste" together in the incinerator that was used to power the facility. the vast majority of this would be the regular trash from the hospital, a much smaller amount would be medical waste such as tumors, amputations, removed organs, etc., and an even smaller amount would be the unwanted remains of either abortions or early term miscarriages. And while i am pro-choice, i do have a problem with this practice. but i also have a problem with the way the story is being portrayed. In the United States, the remains of early term miscarriages are also often incinerated. while some mothers do choose to have some sort of burial or cremation service for an early-term miscarriage, the majority of US early-term miscarriages are also treated as medical waste unless the mother chooses differently. it isn't until a baby is at 24 weeks in the womb that they are considered "stillborn", meaning that either a burial or funeral home cremation is required in the US. so while i'm not a fan of the practice of burning the remains in a fire that is used to provide heat for a hospital- two hospitals in England after the cost of professional cremation became too much for them to afford... from the title you'd think this was a common practice- i don't really understand what you'd have them do. if the mother does not want the remains, what should the hospital do with them? they're basically doing the same thing that a funeral home would do.

[LumRaiderFan]

it's no surprise that every rightwing joke of a "news source" has picked this story up, greatly misrepresenting and distorting the facts. however, if you find the actual facts, it's that aborted babies and miscarriages at a small number of hospitals were treated as "medical waste" and were incinerated along side other medical waste and trash. in a couple of instances, hospitals were using the incinerators to create power for their hospitals. now, thanks to the very misleading title, the image that comes to mind is a big fire with babies being tossed in to create heat for the hospital. what in fact was happening was that hospitals were burning all of the trash, as well as their "medical waste" together in the incinerator that was used to power the facility. the vast majority of this would be the regular trash from the hospital, a much smaller amount would be medical waste such as tumors, amputations, removed organs, etc., and an even smaller amount would be the unwanted remains of either abortions or early term miscarriages. And while i am pro-choice, i do have a problem with this practice. but i also have a problem with the way the story is being portrayed. In the United States, the remains of early term miscarriages are also often incinerated. while some mothers do choose to have some sort of burial or cremation service for an early-term miscarriage, the majority of US early-term miscarriages are also treated as medical waste unless the mother chooses differently. it isn't until a baby is at 24 weeks in the womb that they are considered "stillborn", meaning that either a burial or funeral home cremation is required in the US.

 

If you are pro-choice, why would you have a problem with it?

 

If you feel it's simply a "choice" for someone to be able to abort a child, then you place no importance whatsoever on the child's life...why would you care how "it" is discarded?

 

And that's what happens with abortion...human lives being discarded like unwanted trash...disguised as a "choice".

[bullets13]

 

Liberals that are pro-choice/anti-life will have no problem with this, after all, an unborn child is only a fetus/blob of flesh...whatever.

Doesn't' matter what is done with it...right?

 
in the matter of safety and disease control, there are only a couple of options. it's not practical to embalm and bury an early-term fetus (nor would most mothers want to), so the logical answer is usually incinerating the remains. my pro-life, conservative step-mother chose to have the remains of TWO early-term miscarriages incinerated rather than face the expense of a funeral for a fetus she'd carried less than ten weeks.

[LumRaiderFan]

 
 
in the matter of safety and disease control, there are only a couple of options. it's not practical to embalm and bury an early-term fetus (nor would most mothers want to), so the logical answer is usually incinerating the remains. my pro-life, conservative step-mother chose to have the remains of TWO early-term miscarriages incinerated rather than face the expense of a funeral for a fetus she'd carried less than ten weeks.

Your step-mother made some very sensible choices after some very unfortunate instances...this is not what I'm talking about at all.

[bullets13]

 

If you are pro-choice, why would you have a problem with it?
 
If you feel it's simply a "choice" for someone to be able to abort a child, then you place no importance whatsoever on the child's life...why would you care how "it" is discarded?
 
And that's what happens with abortion...human lives being discarded like unwanted trash...disguised as a "choice".

 
oh, you misinterpret. sorry i wasn't clearer. i think it's kind of creepy to power a hospital with medical waste. tumors and amputations included. fortunately, this was only the case at 2 hospitals, it was not a widespread practice, as some would have you believe.

[bullets13]

 

Your step-mother made some very sensible choices after some very unfortunate instances...this is not what I'm talking about at all.

 
i agree that she did as well. that being said, what she went through is responsible for the great majority of the "burned babies" that the author of this piece is trying to use to get a gutteral response about abortion, and i also use her situation to show that this practice of "burning fetuses" is commonplace here in the US as well as Great Britain. i don't like the idea of a hospital using medical waste to heat it's buildings, but i don't have a problem with unwanted early-term fetuses, whether miscarried or aborted, being treated as medical waste, in order to prevent possible disease. Regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, the fact remains that the remains of both aborted and miscarried early term fetuses are often treated the same way. and this article is about their disposal, not about abortion itself. the "article" is presented in such a way that one can be misled to believe that hospitals are somehow encouraging or supporting abortion in order to take advantage of a great heaping pile of fetuses that they will then use to heat their buildings to save money (i apologize for the imagery, but it's what one imagines when they see the titles being used). that, in fact, could not be further from the truth.

[LumRaiderFan]

 
 
oh, you misinterpret. sorry i wasn't clearer. i think it's kind of creepy to power a hospital with medical waste. tumors and amputations included. fortunately, this was only the case at 2 hospitals, it was not a widespread practice, as some would have you believe.

 

Sad part is that we could power a lot of hospitals with the aborted babies since Roe V Wade...over 50,000,000

 

This story is a little tiny graphic illustration of what's been happening LEGALLY a long time.

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/18/55772015-abortions-in-america-since-roe-vs-wade-in-1973/

[bullets13]

 

Sad part is that we could power a lot of hospitals with the aborted babies since Roe V Wade...over 50,000,000
 
This story is a little tiny graphic illustration of what's been happening LEGALLY a long time.
 
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/18/55772015-abortions-in-america-since-roe-vs-wade-in-1973/

 
i know you'll disagree, but 55,000,000 extra unwanted children being born into poverty, unloving homes, or orphanages over the last 40 years would've caused a much larger problem for our country than abortions have.

[LumRaiderFan]

 
 
i know you'll disagree, but 55,000,000 extra unwanted children being born into poverty, unloving homes, or orphanages over the last 40 years would've caused a much larger problem for our country than abortions have.

I do disagree...the complacency we, as a nation, have towards this will at some point have major consequences.

 

55,000,000...that's 1,375,000 a year for 40 years.  In no way is that some sort of solution...not one that 1,375,000 a year would agree with anyway.

[bullets13]

And many if not most of those would end up in bad situations, leading to increased crime rates, increased poverty, more government handouts, and... Even higher rates of unwanted pregnancies.

[LumRaiderFan]

And many if not most of those would end up in bad situations, leading to increased crime rates, increased poverty, more government handouts, and... Even higher rates of unwanted pregnancies.

So we'll just kill them...problem solved!

 

That's not yours, mine or anyone's call to make...or shouldn't be anyway.

 

So if someone doesn't have an abortion and a child is born in a terrible situation and on gov assistance, should there be an option to "terminate" this child?  No wait, that's illegal...same result, though.

 

The same, EXACT result!

[jv_coach]

it's no surprise that every rightwing "news source" has picked this story up, greatly misrepresenting and distorting the facts. however, if you find the actual facts, it's that aborted babies and miscarriages at a small number of hospitals were treated as "medical waste" and were incinerated along side other medical waste and trash. in a couple of instances, hospitals were using the incinerators to create power for their hospitals. now, thanks to the very misleading title, the image that comes to mind is a big fire with babies being tossed in to create heat for the hospital. what in fact was happening was that hospitals were burning all of the trash, as well as their "medical waste" together in the incinerator that was used to power the facility. the vast majority of this would be the regular trash from the hospital, a much smaller amount would be medical waste such as tumors, amputations, removed organs, etc., and an even smaller amount would be the unwanted remains of either abortions or early term miscarriages. And while i am pro-choice, i do have a problem with this practice. but i also have a problem with the way the story is being portrayed. In the United States, the remains of early term miscarriages are also often incinerated. while some mothers do choose to have some sort of burial or cremation service for an early-term miscarriage, the majority of US early-term miscarriages are also treated as medical waste unless the mother chooses differently. it isn't until a baby is at 24 weeks in the womb that they are considered "stillborn", meaning that either a burial or funeral home cremation is required in the US. so while i'm not a fan of the practice of burning the remains in a fire that is used to provide heat for a hospital- two hospitals in England after the cost of professional cremation became too much for them to afford... from the title you'd think this was a common practice- i don't really understand what you'd have them do. if the mother does not want the remains, what should the hospital do with them? they're basically doing the same thing that a funeral home would do.

The Nazis did the same thing by the same reasoning no less. The Nazi said its not wrong because the Jews are not human and medical waste gets burned because the cost is to high for the state to bury them all.

[bullets13]

Ok, so let the government enforce a tax to ensure they're all buried. Oh wait, the right's not going to go for that.

[bullets13]

So we'll just kill them...problem solved!

That's not yours, mine or anyone's call to make...or shouldn't be anyway.

So if someone doesn't have an abortion and a child is born in a terrible situation and on gov assistance, should there be an option to "terminate" this child? No wait, that's illegal...same result, though.

The same, EXACT result!

That's the conundrum. The right would like to protect them before they're born, then complain about having to support them once they're born. I respect your beliefs against abortion, but I entirely disagree that if all of these unwanted babies were born and Medicaid, WIC, and welfare all increased dramatically that the right would be okay with that.

[5GallonBucket]

That's the conundrum. The right would like to protect them before they're born, then complain about having to support them once they're born. I respect your beliefs against abortion, but I entirely disagree that if all of these unwanted babies were born and Medicaid, WIC, and welfare all increased dramatically that the right would be okay with that.

i understand and like your point here....but i find that to be 50,000,000 murders. whether you disagree or agree....that is simply killing a human being that had no choice. and that you can't argue against.

[LumRaiderFan]

That's the conundrum. The right would like to protect them before they're born, then complain about having to support them once they're born. I respect your beliefs against abortion, but I entirely disagree that if all of these unwanted babies were born and Medicaid, WIC, and welfare all increased dramatically that the right would be okay with that.

Do you listen to you own argument?  You point your finger at the right like we're the bad guys because we may not want to support babies after they're born, but they ARE getting supported.

 

I assume you think the left are the good guys because they are all for taking care of the "problem" by killing them.

 

There's no conundrum...give them the right to live, like every human being should have, and figure it all out.

 

Take the murder "choice" off the table.

[bullets13]

 

i understand and like your point here....but i find that to be 50,000,000 murders. whether you disagree or agree....that is simply killing a human being that had no choice. and that you can't argue against.

 
 

Do you listen to you own argument?  You point your finger at the right like we're the bad guys because we may not want to support babies after they're born, but they ARE getting supported.
 
I assume you think the left are the good guys because they are all for taking care of the "problem" by killing them.
 
There's no conundrum...give them the right to live, like every human being should have, and figure it all out.
 
Take the murder "choice" off the table.

 
The problem i run into on this site sometimes is that being in the major minority of many issues, i often make one point and end up having to make rebuttals against many different responses. sometimes it makes me come off as more supportive of something than i actually am because i have to reply over and over and over and over again on something to address multiple people. So here it is... I AM pro choice. While some take the view that it is murder, i personally feel that something the size of a walnut inside of a woman's body is still part of her body and her's to do with as she pleases. I understand that many of you will never agree with me on this, and i can respect that. what i have not had a chance to say is that morally, i disagree with abortions. there are certain situations where i don't have a problem with them (such as in rape, known severe mental retardation, and severe health risk to the mother), but i do not agree with abortions as a convenient form of birth control. that being said, i do feel that a mother should have that choice, and i honestly can understand a 15 or 16-year-old making that choice. even though it's a choice i don't like, it's a choice that should be legal... and if you outlaw it, what about women that are raped? What about women who have health issues? I know a woman who became pregnant, then was diagnosed with kidney cancer. she had to choose between taking chemotherapy to survive, or having the baby. she chose to survive (and her husband and child who'd already been born) over an early-term fetus. So despite the fact that morally i disagree with the act, i don't see it as murder, and i feel that it MUST be kept legal for the few circumstances where it is understandable. So while i am in fact pro-choice, i don't want to give you guys the impression that i'm ready to throw parades outside of the clinics or anything like that.

[LumRaiderFan]

 
 
 
 
The problem i run into on this site sometimes is that being in the major minority of many issues, i often make one point and end up having to make rebuttals against many different responses. sometimes it makes me come off as more supportive of something than i actually am because i have to reply over and over and over and over again on something to address multiple people. So here it is... I AM pro choice. While some take the view that it is murder, i personally feel that something the size of a walnut inside of a woman's body is still part of her body and her's to do with as she pleases. I understand that many of you will never agree with me on this, and i can respect that. what i have not had a chance to say is that morally, i disagree with abortions. there are certain situations where i don't have a problem with them (such as in rape, known severe mental retardation, and severe health risk to the mother), but i do not agree with abortions as a convenient form of birth control. that being said, i do feel that a mother should have that choice, and i honestly can understand a 15 or 16-year-old making that choice. even though it's a choice i don't like, it's a choice that should be legal... and if you outlaw it, what about women that are raped? What about women who have health issues? I know a woman who became pregnant, then was diagnosed with kidney cancer. she had to choose between taking chemotherapy to survive, or having the baby. she chose to survive (and her husband and child who'd already been born) over an early-term fetus. So despite the fact that morally i disagree with the act, i don't see it as murder, and i feel that it MUST be kept legal for the few circumstances where it is understandable. So while i am in fact pro-choice, i don't want to give you guys the impression that i'm ready to throw parades outside of the clinics or anything like that.

 

Just a few verses of what God's view of that "walnut" may be.

 

Jeremiah 1:5 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

 

Psalm 139:13-14

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

 

Isaiah 49:1 

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.

 

[westend1]

:rolleyes:

[5GallonBucket]

on cue as usual

[AledoBearcatsCO2014]

 
 
i know you'll disagree, but 55,000,000 extra unwanted children being born into poverty, unloving homes, or orphanages over the last 40 years would've caused a much larger problem for our country than abortions have.

They wouldn't be unwanted if people actually had morals... If you don't want a kid, don't have sex.

[AledoBearcatsCO2014]

 

Just a few verses of what God's view of that "walnut" may be.

 

Jeremiah 1:5 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

 

Psalm 139:13-14

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

 

Isaiah 49:1 

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.

 

 

Those verses are the reason I pray there's a place in heaven for them. Considering they never got the opportunity to follow Jesus for themselves, due to the fact that they had that choice revoked because of sin.