questionmark Posted March 24, 2014 #26 Share Posted March 24, 2014 So that's how you explain the ban placed on the practice now? Moralists scratching others itches? Quite so, because if they cared they would pay for the funeral. They just want others to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted March 24, 2014 #27 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I thought aborted fetuses were the only source of stem-cells ? I wonder if they harvested them before incinerating them ? I would think the fact they have stem cells makes them a person. They have others way to get stem cells now, like from the skin and spine I think http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted March 24, 2014 #28 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I thought aborted fetuses were the only source of stem-cells ? I wonder if they harvested them before incinerating them ? I would think the fact they have stem cells makes them a person. That just shows how misinformed the average person is about stem cells. Pluriponet stem cells have many sources and aborted fetuses are not one of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted March 24, 2014 #29 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) The issue I have is heating the building with dead to be babies. I understand we dispose of them through incineration. But I morally have issues with us profiting off of disposed fetuses... Edited March 24, 2014 by spartan max2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted March 24, 2014 #30 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I don't see a problem with this. What else are they supposed to do with !medical waste? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted March 24, 2014 Author #31 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Quite so, because if they cared they would pay for the funeral. They just want others to care. I see your point, I don't agree with it. This whole practice is in very poor taste. Burn it by all means. That I'm for. It's the making practicle use of a tragedy that I find personally offeensive. If that's call scratching someone elses itch then so be it. I'm proud to scratch your itch in that case. Need a few morals? It seems I have a few that you could use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Chubb Posted March 24, 2014 #32 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) I think this sounds worse than it actually is... Is incineration not standard procedure, and if those incinerators are linked to an energy supplying source so be it. We are not talking Still-borns here. Are we? Edited March 24, 2014 by Junior Chubb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted March 24, 2014 #33 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Just reading some of the flippant comments in this thread reminds me why I've always kept out of the "right to Choose" debate, and why I really should stop following this thread any more before it makes me even more angry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted March 24, 2014 #34 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Using them for heat? No way!!! If that's the case then where does Baby Oil come from? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted March 24, 2014 Author #35 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think this sounds worse than it actually is... Is incineration not standard procedure, and if those incinerators are linked to an energy supplying source so be it. We are not talking Still-borns here. Are we? Yes they are also talking about still-borns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Chubb Posted March 24, 2014 #36 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Yes they are also talking about still-borns. Just watching it now... Edit to add: Amazing how a well edited TV docu' with the human touch can start too swing your opinion. Edited March 24, 2014 by Junior Chubb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almagest Posted March 24, 2014 #37 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I don't see what's satanic about it when it was the Christians who were so fond of burning human beings. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrunchkruckets Posted March 24, 2014 #38 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) i dont even know what to say about this. . reading this was tough. Edited March 24, 2014 by Scrunchkruckets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MordorOrc Posted March 24, 2014 #39 Share Posted March 24, 2014 This just sounds satanic to me. What is wrong with people? Well, people kept saying they want renewable energy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhen Posted March 24, 2014 #40 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I don't see what's satanic about it when it was the Christians who were so fond of burning human beings. No, that would be the Ammonites and Phoenicians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted March 24, 2014 #41 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Wait, the Torygraph is having a go at something hospitals are doing... what's the bet it's only NHS hospitals and it's going to be discovered shortly that it only happened once, in one hospital by accident and it's been intentionally blown out of proportion just to beat up an already ailing system because even in the state it's in it offends the "free marketeers" in the Tory Party because it's run off the public dollar pound and not there to make a profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted March 24, 2014 #42 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The slippery slope theory is beginning to slide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted March 24, 2014 Author #43 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I don't see what's satanic about it when it was the Christians who were so fond of burning human beings. OMG, would you guys get off of my satanic comment already? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted March 24, 2014 #44 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The slippery slope theory is beginning to slide. Indeed. In fact, the word "moral" or "morals" has negative undertones now. My moral code as a human being does not allow me to see a young human being as anything other than a young human being. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted March 24, 2014 #45 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Indeed. In fact, the word "moral" or "morals" has negative undernes now. My moral code as a human being does not allow me to see a young human being as anything other than a young human being. Agreed. The desensitized mind of many individuals today regard morals with a religious zealot undertone. Detached from the realms their rhetoric aspires other individuals to replicate. The amazing point is most openly identify themselves as athiests. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted March 24, 2014 #46 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Oh my. This just doesn't seem kosher at all does it? From the article: The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found. Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat. Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’ At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered. The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains. Read the rest of the article here This just sounds satanic to me. What is wrong with people? I think they misuse the word "babies", which leads me to believe this article's sole purpose is to inflame and mislead, to manipulate sentiments and emotions. Fetus, zygote and so on would be more accurate. But babies?? Come on. Edited March 24, 2014 by regeneratia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted March 24, 2014 #47 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think they misuse the word "babies", which leads me to believe this article's sole purpose is to inflame and mislead, to manipulate sentiments and emotions. Fetus, zygote and so on would be more accurate. But babies?? Come on. To me it seems like people want to use the word Zygote to label them so that it sounds as much not human as possible, to make us feel better. Because our naturally human impulse is to be sickened by the taking of life, even if the life is still developing and not strong enough to be independent. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted March 24, 2014 #48 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) To me it seems like people want to use the word Zygote to label them so that it sounds as much not human as possible, to make us feel better. Because our naturally human impulse is to be sickened by the taking of life, even if the life is still developing and not strong enough to be independent. The opposite could be said, as well. There was no protest about the lives lost during the illegal Iraqi invasion. Why do you suppose that is? I don't feel "better" because someone else uses specific words. I am not influenced in that manner. Only the thoughtless and dependent in thinking could be influenced like that. Would the article have made headlines if they said "Aborted Tissue Incinerated To Heat Hospitals"? Edited March 24, 2014 by regeneratia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted March 24, 2014 #49 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) The opposite could be said, as well. There was no protest about the lives lost during the illegal Iraqi invasion. Why do you suppose that is? I don't feel "better" because someone else uses specific words. I am not influenced in that manner. Only the thoughtless and dependent in thinking could be influenced like that. Would the article have made headlines if they said "Aborted Tissue Incinerated To Heat Hospitals"? It probably would of not made headlines. But then again it wasn't just aborted "tissue". Tissue would be just random body parts of skin. Not something that debatably is a living human life or something that clearly grows into human life. Its not like its just some amputated hand. We should keep the concept of human life sacred even if its more practical at times not too. I don't like the concept of people profiting of fetus's by using them to heat their buildings Edited March 24, 2014 by spartan max2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Chubb Posted March 24, 2014 #50 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Guys if you can stomach Amanda Holden, watch the program (she even grew on me while watching)... IMO aborted foetuses and miscarriages up to 12 weeks should be disposed of as waste. After that it's a minefield and then at what stage is a still born or 'lost human life' defined? But who am I to make these decisions or cast an opinion, these are debates (with regards to abortions) that have been rolling for and will continue to roll for years as with our current knowledge (mixed with human emotion) it just cannot be defined to an agreeable point. Edited March 24, 2014 by Junior Chubb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now