Hey! It`s green energy!

[wr250]

No they aren't, they're already asked what they want to do with the fetus as a matter of policy. You're solving a problem that's already been solved to push your views that males should have no say in matters of pregnancy.

Men don't. They certainly have no say if they wish to have the foetus aborted, so why should they if the mother wishes to abort? I don't see a problem really. The OP was about disposal of an nonviable foetus. Sort of run it's course I think..Slow news day, splash.

my solution is to keep my pants zipped up. therefore not having to worry about pregnancy and all that.

[UnscreenedCaller]

No hospital by purpose incinerates fetal tissue against a mother's directives. It is entirely possible that sloppy and "short-cut" procedures lead to improper practice. That is unacceptable but it isn't wanton disrespect by medical professionals. And just so everyone knows fetal tissue isn't a mannequin that is easily identifiable. Second, fetal tissue in the first and early second trimester is quite small. At 3 months a fetus is about 2 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 inches in length and weighs less than an ounce. So to  make the claim that extremities are being burned is fucking way over the top... and that is exactly what that article's purpose was.

No one, I repeat no one is using fetal tissue for the purposeful heating of any building. That is pandering. The fact that one person thought it was meaningful shows either stupidity or the willingness to continue the pandering for their agenda.

I did a search for more information on this subject and after 15 minutes couldn't find more information; just the retelling by anti-abortion sites. Fine, everyone needs a day job.

This story came up on another site I moderate and, like you, I went looking for more information. Beyond the anti-abortion sites, nothing. But it's a disingenuous attempt to manipulate an emotional response when, as anyone who's experienced an early miscarriage knows, fetal tissue can as easily be inadvertently flushed at home as end in a hospital incinerator. Sorry to be so indelicate, but stories like this make me do a slow burn.

[albrecht]

This story came up on another site I moderate and, like you, I went looking for more information. Beyond the anti-abortion sites, nothing. But it's a disingenuous attempt to manipulate an emotional response when, as anyone who's experienced an early miscarriage knows, fetal tissue can as easily be inadvertently flushed at home as end in a hospital incinerator. Sorry to be so indelicate, but stories like this make me do a slow burn.

Yeah, I think it was just a way to make some headlines. There are a lot more real problems with social services and the NHS that should be addressed. Like the child abuse stuff that seem to be popping up everywhere and the allegations of euthanasia protocols for elderly and children without proper informed consent (Liverpool Care Pathway, etc.)

[SciFiAuthor]

Men don't. They certainly have no say if they wish to have the foetus aborted, so why should they if the mother wishes to abort? I don't see a problem really. The OP was about disposal of an nonviable foetus. Sort of run it's course I think..Slow news day, splash.

It looked to me like it was about burning them in a standard incinerator with the heat reclaimed for hospital heating. I mean, it's not a far stretch for hospital management to realize that such thing has a high likelihood of eventually causing a huge public scandal. Instead, they chose to save a few pounds by using an incinerator instead of having an undertaker pick the fetuses up for a proper off-site cremation.

The pre-existent policy was to ask the mother what do with the remains. You already have what you are advocating.

[FightTheFuture]

It looked to me like it was about burning them in a standard incinerator with the heat reclaimed for hospital heating. I mean, it's not a far stretch for hospital management to realize that such thing has a high likelihood of eventually causing a huge public scandal. Instead, they chose to save a few pounds by using an incinerator instead of having an undertaker pick the fetuses up for a proper off-site cremation.

The pre-existent policy was to ask the mother what do with the remains. You already have what you are advocating.

Well, of course that is at the crux of the issue; the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life. The pro-abortion people would like you to ''move along'' as they claim there is ''nothing to see, here''.

Unfortunately, there IS a story here, and a very disturbing one.  Many couples were lied to regarding the handling of the remains of their miscarried children. They were assured that the remains would be cremated in a respectful manner. Instead, we learn that many of those  miscarried remains for carted of f to be used as heating oil.

Despite what the typical pro-abortion apologist would like you to think, this is, in fact, a very big deal. The UK's NHS are certainly  taking this matter very seriously.

[SciFiAuthor]

Well, of course that is at the crux of the issue; the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life. The pro-abortion people would like you to ''move along'' as they claim there is ''nothing to see, here''.

Unfortunately, there IS a story here, and a very disturbing one.  Many couples were lied to regarding the handling of the remains of their miscarried children. They were assured that the remains would be cremated in a respectful manner. Instead, we learn that many of those  miscarried remains for carted of f to be used as heating oil.

Despite what the typical pro-abortion apologist would like you to think, this is, in fact, a very big deal. The UK's NHS are certainly  taking this matter very seriously.

I suppose the real question is why would anyone want to destroy the sanctity of human life in the first place. It's not so abortions can be performed, they've already won that battle. There's more coming as the slope slips and the debate moves on past things that have become the norm such as abortion.

I've never met a liberal yet that can come up with any kind of argument as to why destroying the idea of human life as special is a good thing for society. It's actually a horrible idea and the root cause of warfare, third world social violence, Nazism, perhaps even all crime itself.

I really wish people would question their own viewpoints and trace these sorts of things back to their origin points. Just when did it become fashionable to downplay human life in western culture, who was it that first said something like that and what were their credentials, what other things did they say, what did they really believe in? People would be shocked at where some of this shit on the left comes from and who, I think the liberals most of all.

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, of course that is at the crux of the issue; the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life.

As I said above, the 'sanctity of life' appears to be a price to pay by the living (although you said in the OP it wasn't about abortion) when it comes to ensuring gun ownership. Yet you get all pious when it comes to the disposal of dead fotuses. Funny that. But predictable.

[FightTheFuture]

As I said above, the 'sanctity of life' appears to be a price to pay by the living (although you said in the OP it wasn't about abortion) when it comes to ensuring gun ownership. Yet you get all pious when it comes to the disposal of dead fotuses. Funny that. But predictable.

Wow. Ok, could you further amuse me by attempting to unravel that little nugget of tortuous logic?

[Yorkshire pud]

Wow. Ok, could you further amuse me by attempting to unravel that little nugget of tortuous logic?

Well okay, I'll try to keep it simple (and my last word on it); You started off by saying the topic wasn't anything to do with the rights and wrongs on abortion, but then apparently it is: (Sanctity of life).. Although dead foetal matter isn't live. But in the past you've seemingly accepted (for example) school or shopping mall massacres as a price worth paying for universal gun ownership, even when I've asked directly what the unacceptable level might be, you haven't answered it. So my conclusion is, is that you value dead foetus disposal ethics above the value of the living if the latter would give cause to wind back gun ownership. And as I also mentioned, you haven't get all pious about the killing of full term children in Iraq with depleted uranium..

Fin.

[FightTheFuture]

Well okay, I'll try to keep it simple (and my last word on it); You started off by saying the topic wasn't anything to do with the rights and wrongs on abortion, but then apparently it is: (Sanctity of life).. Although dead foetal matter isn't live. But in the past you've seemingly accepted (for example) school or shopping mall massacres as a price worth paying for universal gun ownership, even when I've asked directly what the unacceptable level might be, you haven't answered it. So my conclusion is, is that you value dead foetus disposal ethics above the value of the living if the latter would give cause to wind back gun ownership. And as I also mentioned, you haven't get all pious about the killing of full term children in Iraq with depleted uranium..

Fin.

Your horridly  twisted logic has somehow taken you from the ghastly practice of surreptitiously using the remains of grieving parents' unborn children as heating oil, all the way to Iraqi school children and depleted uranium. Even by your cognitively diminished standards, a  true masterpiece of convoluted gibberish.

Let's see, because I feel that a parents' miscarried child should be treated with some dignity and respect of human life, that, somehow, is in moral conflict with my feelings about a person's  right to legally possess a firearm to protect their own life, as well as their loved ones?  Is that what you blokes are taught in school, or did you form these bizarre ethics all on your own?

[UnscreenedCaller]

If Yorkshire doesn't mind, I think the point he was making is that it's curious that the living, breathing children destroyed by gun and war violence are not as fervently championed as aborted or miscarried foetal tissue in some circles. I find it curious, too.

[FightTheFuture]

If Yorkshire doesn't mind, I think the point he was making is that it's curious that the living, breathing children destroyed by gun and war violence are not as fervently championed as aborted or miscarried foetal tissue in some circles. I find it curious, too.

Who's circle? Not my circle. Maybe his circle, or Al-Qaeda's circle.

I don't know a single person who would not, at the drop of a hat, lay down their life for that of a child. But I'm still waiting to hear how my possession of a firearm to protect lives stands in conflict to my concern about miscarried children being burned as fuel oil -- explicitly against the wishes of the parents, whom were assured, I remind you, that that would not happen. Sorry, but the proof is not in the pudding.

[onan]

Who's circle? Not my circle. Maybe his circle, or Al-Qaeda's circle.

I don't know a single person who would not, at the drop of a hat, lay down their life for that of a child. But I'm still waiting to hear how my possession of a firearm to protect lives stands in conflict to my concern about miscarried children being burned as fuel oil -- explicitly against the wishes of the parents, whom were assured, I remind you, that that would not happen. Sorry, but the proof is not in the pudding.

You really are clueless. Hundreds of thousands of miscarriages (close to a million) happen yearly in the US alone. A vast majority of them happen in the home. They don't have memorials let alone funerals. Was anyone defrauded? no. Is it something to be explained in detail to a saddened family? again no. That as you say would be macabre. Yet you keep using the reference to heating similar to cord wood and fuel oil... which is nothing short of hysterical pandering.

And that has nothing to do with laying down one's life to save another... nothing.

[SciFiAuthor]

And as I also mentioned, you haven't get all pious about the killing of full term children in Iraq with depleted uranium..

I've always found this claim interesting. It's universally made by the anti-war left specifically in Britain (actually almost solely in Britain) and particularly in regards to the 2003 Iraq war, but wasn't made anywhere close to as much in Kosovo and the 1991 Gulf war. There are tons of claims for the war the British left didn't support (and neither did I), but almost no claims for the ones the left did support (and I didn't, other than the 1991 war) despite the Balkans being littered with spent DU rounds in much closer proximity on average to human settlement than the Iraqi desert.

The fact is the WHO/UN reports that no developmental, reproductive or carcinogenic effects have been observed from DU thus far. Its radioactivity is far less than natural Uranium ore deposits, it's used in everything from sailboat keels to shielding from much more potent sources of radiation in medical radiography equipment, and has never been demonstrated unambiguously to be any more of a problem than burning plastics are. Sure, it's a toxic heavy metal, and you really shouldn't eat it, but it's nothing close to as toxic as lead (regular bullets), mercury or arsenic. While it may have long-term effects due it it's nature of being a heavy metal, that's not what is claimed, the claims center on an almost immediate "rise" in birth defects right around the war and then a slump off. That's not how radiation or chemical exposure to heavy metals works, it is a cumulative phenomenon and takes time. I would be worried if there was a localized current rise a decade later, such as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there isn't.

It's also not a US thing. It's used by most NATO nations and it doesn't seem to be causing demonstrable problems at target ranges (I guess the ambulance chasers haven't figured out that angle yet).

The world should focus on real problems of war, such as abandoned landmines, before falling for scare tactics because something has the word "uranium" or "radioactive" in it.

[FightTheFuture]

You really are clueless. Hundreds of thousands of miscarriages (close to a million) happen yearly in the US alone. A vast majority of them happen in the home. They don't have memorials let alone funerals. Was anyone defrauded? no. Is it something to be explained in detail to a saddened family? again no. That as you say would be macabre. Yet you keep using the reference to heating similar to cord wood and fuel oil... which is nothing short of hysterical pandering.

And that has nothing to do with laying down one's life to save another... nothing.

Good Lord, Tweedle Dee disappears, and out pops Tweedle Dum. Well, let me wade into your little stream of non sequitur logic.

You said: "Hundreds of thousands of miscarriages (close to a million) happen yearly in the US alone. A vast majority of them happen in the home. They don't have memorials let alone funerals. Was anyone defrauded? no. Is it something to be explained in detail to a saddened family? again no. "

AGAIN...what....does....that.....have....to....do.....with....this....story? The relevant part of this story -- at least the part in which I have made relevant -- is about people who find themselves in a very emotionally agonizing situation; post miscarriage, relying on the good word of medical "professionals", only to be deceived, and treated inhumanely. People were, rightfully, upset. Prospective parents were, in fact, outraged. Yes. Their dreams, perhaps; the child they desperately wanted to raise, is now gone (BTW, ever go through a miscarriage with your loved one? I hope not, but I have. Twenty years ago. To this very day, it troubles us). And then, they learn that the baby which occupied their dreams and so much of their energy and time,  was thrown out with cafeteria scraps and sent to a facility to be incinerated for the singular reason of heating a building. Yeah, fuel oil. Please tell me, oh wise one, what would be the difference? Both are serving the same singular purpose. Nothing hysterical there.

Let me tell you something. If you had come at me with that smug-ass attitude 20 years ago, I`d have pulled your sorry ass off that white horse, and administered the beat down of the century.

No "hysterical pandering" here, boss. This is a story of interest to a great many people.

[onan]

Good Lord, Tweedle Dee disappears, and out pops Tweedle Dum. Well, let me wade into your little stream of non sequitur logic.

You said: "Hundreds of thousands of miscarriages (close to a million) happen yearly in the US alone. A vast majority of them happen in the home. They don't have memorials let alone funerals. Was anyone defrauded? no. Is it something to be explained in detail to a saddened family? again no. "

AGAIN...what....does....that.....have....to....do.....with....this....story? The relevant part of this story -- at least the part in which I have made relevant -- is about people who find themselves in a very emotionally agonizing situation; post miscarriage, relying on the good word of medical "professionals", only to be deceived, and treated inhumanely. People were, rightfully, upset. Prospective parents were, in fact, outraged. Yes. Their dreams, perhaps; the child they desperately wanted to raise, is now gone (BTW, ever go through a miscarriage with your loved one? I hope not, but I have. Twenty years ago. To this very day, it troubles us). And then, they learn that the baby which occupied their dreams and so much of their energy and time,  was thrown out with cafeteria scraps and sent to a facility to be incinerated for the singular reason of heating a building. Yeah, fuel oil. Please tell me, oh wise one, what would be the difference? Both are serving the same singular purpose. Nothing hysterical there.

Let me tell you something. If you had come at me with that smug-ass attitude 20 years ago, I`d have pulled your sorry ass off that white horse, and administered the beat down of the century.

No "hysterical pandering" here, boss. This is a story of interest to a great many people.

I would bother explaining to someone that had some modicum of emotional stability. Not only are you clueless, but you attempt to be a bully. You are a sad pathetic little man that needs to win if not by reason and patience then with aggression, verbally and potentially with physical harm. So very christ like.

[FightTheFuture]

I would bother explaining to someone that had some modicum of emotional stability. Not only are you clueless, but you attempt to be a bully. You are a sad pathetic little man that needs to win if not by reason and patience then with aggression, verbally and potentially with physical harm. So very christ like.

Did I make you cwy again?

[onan]

Did I make you cwy again?

what no more 20 years ago shit? you are laughable. and pathetic and clueless.

[Jackstar]

I don't know a single person who would not, at the drop of a hat, lay down their life for that of a child.

Is the child in question old enough to mow a lawn without supervision? The answer to this question matters here.

Also: is the hat tailored?

[b_dubb]

Did I make you cwy again?

It's more than a little odd that the most outspoken Christian on the board is the same person who seems to constantly be trying to pick a fight.  And a threat of physical violence. 

You're confused.

[FightTheFuture]

what no more 20 years ago shit? you are laughable. and pathetic and clueless.

I'm going to refrain from making light of your jr. high level reading comprehension, and merely recommend that you stick to telling fart jokes with the Three Stooges. It seems that you have found your niche in that regard.

[FightTheFuture]

Is the child in question old enough to mow a lawn without supervision? The answer to this question matters here.

Also: is the hat tailored?

Yes and no.

[FightTheFuture]

It's more than a little odd that the most outspoken Christian on the board is the same person who seems to constantly be trying to pick a fight.  And a threat of physical violence. 

You're confused.

Well, b_dumbb, if you must know, 20 years ago  was -- as I refer to it -- PJ (pre-Jesus), thus my reference to a horrible event in my life and, the actions I would have taken with regard to ''Pete Singer'', thereupon, 20 years ago -- not today.

[onan]

Let me tell you something. If you had come at me with that smug-ass attitude 20 years ago, I`d have pulled your sorry ass off that white horse, and administered the beat down of the century.

My reading comprehension is fine. 20 years ago... and today still full of shit.

As I said you are laughable. Also pathetic and clueless...

And smug... pot meet kettle, jackass.