Two UK hospitals incinerated the remains of dead babies for heat

posted at 11:21 am on March 24, 2014 by Allahpundit

Another 10 hospitals incinerated remains as part of standard garbage disposal protocol. Treat the unborn as “medical waste” and don’t be surprised when some facilities take that idea to its logical conclusion.

The Telegraph’s headline implies that incineration was reserved for aborted babies, as some sort of final ghoulish indignity for the unwanted, but the story says the policy was broader than that. Miscarried fetuses ended up being burned too.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’…

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

Another ‘waste to energy’ facility at Ipswich Hospital, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 foetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

They were brought in from another hospital before being burned, generating energy for the hospital site. Ipswich Hospital itself disposes of remains by cremation.

How do you process this story if you’re a pro-choicer? I can imagine three camps. One is the “so what?” group. If “life” doesn’t begin until viability (or birth, for the hardcore abortion warrior), then yeah, this is medical waste. You don’t cremate tumors, do you? Toss it in the incinerator. Next is the group that wants to distinguish between miscarried babies and the aborted. The parents of the former saw a life in the making even if pro-choicers didn’t; the remains should thus be treated with due decorum, as a consolation to the bereaved. The remains of the aborted needn’t be similarly respected. Finally, there’s the group that’s uncomfortable with treating fetal remains as waste (or fuel) under any circumstances. I don’t know how to square that with the idea that life begins at viability, though. To do it, you need to move from the standard pro-choice position that what’s growing in the womb isn’t really “life” to the position that yes, okay, it’s human life, but abortion is a form of justifiable homicide. Then you can treat the remains with the dignity due, say, an executed prisoner. But most pro-choicers are obviously reluctant to make that move; once you concede that a life is at stake, you’re on dangerous ground politically.

Anyway, question for our three lefty readers: Which group are you in?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Meow

Bmore on March 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Wouldn’t the incineration of these babies ad to CO2 emissions? I guess there really is MAN-MADE global warming.

BierManVA on March 24, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Ba-dum-tish.

Yes, it increases emissions, as explained by

chuckh on March 24, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Total disregard of human life.
Euthanizing the elderly is not far off.

justltl on March 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM

I’m sure if you scratch the surface, that is already going on in UK hospitals.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM

No doubt.

Obamacare dictates it in order to bend the cost curve down. They just haven’t fully implemented the death panels yet.

Happy Nomad on March 24, 2014 at 11:47 AM

No question about it. Denial of a service based on arbitrary criteria rather than medical appropriateness is very close to, if not outright, euthanasia. Clearly they will make rules such as no dialysis after age such and such, regardless of the condition or outlook of individual patients.

justltl on March 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM

I did not pick a fight. I saw Nazi comparisons right off the bat and spoke up about how inappropriate they are.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Maybe we need Godwin’s 2nd Law in order to classify people who react to valid Nazi comparisons with the kneejerk and inaccurate application of Godwin’s Law.

Midas on March 24, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Pless1foEngrish on March 24, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Another one. I expressed no opinion on the practice of disposal of aborted fetuses this way. You ASSumed a lot.

Nazi comparisons only weaken and discredit the argument your side is trying to make. It makes you look shrill, obnoxious and desperate.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM

The only real flaw with the Nazi comparison is that it’s not quite inclusive enough. This is something I would expect to see from virtually any totalitarian regime. Once you view people as animals and the state as everything, the only real reason to give people dignity in burial is for propaganda. Aborted babies are as disposable as they come, because nobody’s watching.

So yes, I expect the Nazis did this, and the fascists in Italy, and the Soviet and Chinese Communists, and the North Koreans, etc.

What this really reveals is just how close the socialist British government is to the very totalitarianism they fought in World War 2, and resisted during the Cold War.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 24, 2014 at 12:15 PM

The world run by liberals and leftists is a lovely place, isn’t it?

justltl on March 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

…I’m sick!
…welcome back AP!

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Typical, evil leftists. No one should be surprised by this.

DisneyFan on March 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Pless1foEngrish on March 24, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Another one. I expressed no opinion on the practice of disposal of aborted fetuses this way. You ASSumed a lot.

Nazi comparisons only weaken and discredit the argument your side is trying to make. It makes you look shrill, obnoxious and desperate.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Where in Pless1foEngrish’s comment was there any Nazi reference?

JetBoy on March 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Frankly, it happens in every country to some extent. Not sure it’s a bad idea either (assuming it’s voluntary… Christ, what a world it is that I have to even think about adding those 3 words to something like this).

Teleros on March 24, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Really? Besides the Liverpool Pathway in the UK, do you have any evidence via links that it happens in “every country to some extent?”

And “assuming it’s voluntary?” There’s every likelihood that in some cases, it’s not voluntary, i.e., the family of the deceased elderly were not informed until, or if at all, afterward, if that person died naturally or because of deliberate neglect. If it was the latter, do you really think hospital personnel would be quick to admit that to the family?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know what level of outrage I’d experience if that happened to anyone in my family, even with the abomination that is Obamacare.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM

What this really reveals is just how close the socialist British government is to the very totalitarianism they fought in World War 2, and resisted during the Cold War.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 24, 2014 at 12:15 PM

America may be a few steps behind, but it’ll happen here too. Dark times ahead.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Next is the group that wants to distinguish between miscarried babies and the aborted. The parents of the former saw a life in the making even if pro-choicers didn’t; the remains should thus be treated with due decorum, as a consolation to the bereaved. The remains of the aborted needn’t be similarly respected.

that’s the mainstream pro-choice position: it’s a person if the mother decides that it’s a person. it makes no logical sense at all but they just hope that people won’t figure that out.

Sachiko on March 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Resist We Much on March 24, 2014 at 12:08 PM

I’m not sure why you quoted me. Are you somehow saying that a crematorium is different from an incinerator? The laws you are referring to are simply health safety laws that require the deceased animals be cremated by an authorized facility. No idea what this has to do with the topic at hand.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM

To do it, you need to move from the standard pro-choice position that what’s growing in the womb isn’t really “life” to the position that yes, okay, it’s human life, but abortion is a form of justifiable homicide. Then you can treat the remains with the dignity due, say, an executed prisoner. But most pro-choicers are obviously reluctant to make that move; once you concede that a life is at stake, you’re on dangerous ground politically.

This is actually Camille Paglia’s stance. I would urge folks to read her on the subject. She’s got an interesting take; even if you disagree with her, you cannot fault her for being honest about it.

Caiwyn on March 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM

In most states, it is against the law for veterinarians to dispose of the remains of animals in waste bins or on-premises incinerators. They must either turn the remains over to a disposal company, which are generally crematoriums, or return them to the owners for burial.

Resist We Much on March 24, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Which is why I’m stunned anybody is defending this practice.

Happy Nomad on March 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Welcome back, AP!
This is baby-burning is evil!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Perversion.

Bmore on March 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM

JetBoy on March 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

His post was a response/complaint to my post calling Godwin’s law on an earlier post. Got it?

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Really? Besides the Liverpool Pathway in the UK, do you have any evidence via links that it happens in “every country to some extent?”

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Um, you seem to be thinking the Liverpool Care Pathway was a programme to euthanise elderly people or something. It wasn’t. it was just another palliative care pathway. It did turn out to be awful for various reasons, but the ideas behind it were well-intentioned, and based in part on requests by patients.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

This is actually Camille Paglia’s stance. I would urge folks to read her on the subject. She’s got an interesting take; even if you disagree with her, you cannot fault her for being honest about it.

Caiwyn on March 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Chilling. The only difference between fetal homicide as it is prosecuted in a majority of states and abortion is the desire of the mother.

Here’s a thought exercise for the utilitarians out there: If a mother intended to have an abortion, but lost the baby due to an injury sustained in an attack, should the attacker still be tried for fetal homicide?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

So yes, I expect the Nazis did this, and the fascists in Italy, and the Soviet and Chinese Communists, and the North Koreans, etc.

What this really reveals is just how close the socialist British government is to the very totalitarianism they fought in World War 2, and resisted during the Cold War.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 24, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Frankly, it happens in every country to some extent. Not sure it’s a bad idea either (assuming it’s voluntary… Christ, what a world it is that I have to even think about adding those 3 words to something like this).

Teleros on March 24, 2014 at 11:54 AM

OK … so this happens in primarily socialist/totalitarian countries, but it is always a bad idea, voluntary or not.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Um, you seem to be thinking the Liverpool Care Pathway was a programme to euthanise elderly people or something. It wasn’t. it was just another palliative care pathway. It did turn out to be awful for various reasons, but the ideas behind it were well-intentioned, and based in part on requests by patients.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I willingly let “requests for patients” determine how my medical care proceeds. I am responsible for myself, and no one else. And no one else is ultimately responsible for me. I know my medical ethics, and woe to the doctor who attempts to treat me while discarding them.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

using the remains of human beings for utilitarian fuel

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 11:51 AM

They are disposing of the human tissue the way they dispose of all human tissue. They are also disposing of lots of biohazardous materials. Having “green” incinerators is the problem you have with all of this?

I’m not hearing a reasonable alternative.

db on March 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM

“Evidence does exist that German researchers had developed a process for the semi-industrial production of soap from human bodies. The production of soap from human bodies by Nazis on small scale was confirmed in 2006…”

“Human Fat Was Used to Produce Soap in Gdansk during the War”, Auschwitz–Birkenau Memorial and Museum website

If you can’t see the ethical problem with….I can’t help you.

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Seems to me all the objections are to the incinerators being tied in to the heating systems. So is everyone good if they build a special incinerator that isn’t tied to the heating just for the aborted fetuses. And only use the “green” incinerator just for gauze, sponges, tumors, tonsils, arms and legs?

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Sharia in Britain now

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Years ago, I made the mistake of reading a fashionable short story in The New Yorker, in which the main character, a woman who’d lost her entire family in a freak accident, dealt with the pain by joining a group that collected the “byproducts of abortion” and gave them a sort of rogue religious burial, even sneaking onto consecrated ground. Of course, the group’s leader was portrayed as an ugly fanatic, and the protagonist, while created as a sympathetic character (in a condescending, pitying way, of course), was clearly depicted as being borderline insane, and the burial activity as sick and weird. Fiction is just another weapon against mental and spiritual health in “enlightened” society, isn’t it?

werewife on March 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM

And you, of course, will pick up the cost. Right? I said reasonable alternative.

db on March 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Tack it on to the murderess’ bill, or deduct it from the murdering “doctor’s” pay. No one else should have to pay for any of the horror and we shouldn’t make it more convenient for them to dispose of the evidence of their evil just because it might cost more.

I can’t believe you are playing the devil’s advocate in this if you are pro-life, but you sure are doing a good job for him. Well done.

pannw on March 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

The only difference between fetal homicide as it is prosecuted in a majority of states and abortion is the desire of the mother.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

A trivial difference. /s

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Um, you seem to be thinking the Liverpool Care Pathway was a programme to euthanise elderly people or something. It wasn’t. it was just another palliative care pathway. It did turn out to be awful for various reasons, but the ideas behind it were well-intentioned, and based in part on requests by patients.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

OK, my mistake. But I guess it goes to show that the best “well-intentioned” ideas can get corrupted fairly easily. The slippery slope is indeed slippery.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Are you the dumbest person on the planet? How do you go from safe disposal of a human fetus to making soap out of it?

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Thuja’s thinking on the sanctity of life comes straight out of Peter Singer and Margaret Sanger. That sure as shit isn’t right-wing thinking, Schad.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Indeed, but thuja is not considered a troll, or a leftist.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

db on March 24, 2014 at 11:25 AM

There is a difference in the process of cremation of human remains as opposed to incineration of medical waste. Human remains should be treated as human remains, not medical waste.

mbs on March 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I willingly let “requests [by] patients” determine how my medical care proceeds. I am responsible for myself, and no one else. And no one else is ultimately responsible for me. I know my medical ethics, and woe to the doctor who attempts to treat me while discarding them.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

I totally, 100% agree with you.
Really, I was pointing out that PatriotGal seemed to be misconstruing something, and I wanted to set the record straight.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM

I can’t believe you are playing the devil’s advocate in this if you are pro-life, but you sure are doing a good job for him. Well done.

pannw on March 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I am pointing out that the abortion is the atrocity. The fact that hospitals have to deal with disposal is pretty much irrelevant.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Indeed, but thuja is not considered a troll, or a leftist.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Thuja is something worse in my opinion: A utilitarian. The vast majority of utilitarians are leftists, though not all leftists are utilitarians. How you can reconcile a love of freedom with gross disregard for the most defenseless stage of human life is utterly beyond me.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:32 PM

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Are you the dumbest person on the planet? How do you go from safe disposal of a human fetus to making soap out of it?

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

For the ethically remedial dipstick aka db…

It’s the Utilitarian use of the aborted for FUEL!

That is Bad smothered in Wrong!

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Indeed, but thuja is not considered a troll, or a leftist.

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Seconded.

JetBoy on March 24, 2014 at 12:33 PM

The only difference between fetal homicide as it is prosecuted in a majority of states and abortion is the desire of the mother.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

A trivial difference. /s

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Mens rea generally only makes the difference between murder and manslaughter. The only exception to that as far as I know is fetal homicide. Some states prosecute fetal homicide as vigorously as they do premeditated murder, including my home state. But I should expect an individual such as yourself to put a woman’s wishes above the life of an unborn child. From you, I ought to expect no less (more?).

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Cheapening life and creating situations that lead to a lack of self-respect always end badly. Democrats and liberals in general have destroyed one child after another with their immoral, foolish and dangerous guidance. They still have not learned that social mores exist for a reason and it’s not to be broken. They are for protection.

So here is the follow up to this story;

Report: NYC Public Schools Have Seen 10 Student Suicides In 7 Weeks

Where there is a lack of hope, despair, drugs, uninhibited sexuality, a lack of boundaries, little parental supervision there is no hope.

Congratulations Democrats and liberals of all stripes. You are destroying generations of children. All for your foolish, destructive ideas and politics.

Marcus Traianus on March 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I willingly let “requests [by] patients” determine how my medical care proceeds. I am responsible for myself, and no one else. And no one else is ultimately responsible for me. I know my medical ethics, and woe to the doctor who attempts to treat me while discarding them.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

My attitude exactly, and very well said.

I totally, 100% agree with you.
Really, I was pointing out that PatriotGal seemed to be misconstruing something, and I wanted to set the record straight.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM

See my comment at 12:28

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM

I am pointing out that the abortion is the atrocity. The fact that hospitals have to deal with disposal anything I have to say about ethics is pretty much irrelevant.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Take your green utilitarianism and shove it!

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM

But I guess it goes to show that the best “well-intentioned” ideas can get corrupted fairly easily. The slippery slope is indeed slippery.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Indeed it is – which is why there needs to be scrutiny of health providers, public and private, to ensure they’re not slipping.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM

There is a difference in the process of cremation of human remains as opposed to incineration of medical waste. Human remains should be treated as human remains, not medical waste.

mbs on March 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM

I’m not disagreeing, but there has to be a reasonable alternative. You can’t just say that it has to stop. That’s how the libtards behave. An an example, they want to end many types of energy production (because they harm the planet and are, therefore, immoral) but don’t have reasonable alternatives.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Are you the dumbest person on the planet? How do you go from safe disposal of a human fetus to making soap out of it?

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

For the ethically remedial dipstick aka db…

It’s the Utilitarian use of the aborted for FUEL!

That is Bad smothered in Wrong!

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Slightly off-topic:

The use of human remains to make soap was also explored in the Chuck Palahniuk novel “Fight Club” as a vehicle to drive home Tyler Durden’s moral ambiguity. The character didn’t use the remains of dead bodies; he instead robbed medical waste from liposuction clinics, but I have to wonder what kind of person wouldn’t be creeped out by that anyway?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:37 PM

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Are you the dumbest person on the planet? How do you go from safe disposal of a human fetus to making soap out of it?

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Workingclass artist isn’t.

But you apparently don’t understand analogies very well.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Take your green utilitarianism and shove it!

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM

WTF?

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

I don’t know… Burial?

I know, I know… What am I thinking. We only bury people in cemeteries.

turfmann on March 24, 2014 at 11:30 AM

And you, of course, will pick up the cost. Right? I said reasonable alternative.

db on March 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM

When my wife had a miscarriage many years ago, the hospital gave us a choice of taking the remains and having a burial, or they said they could “dispose” of the remains for us. When I asked how they would “dispose” of the remains, I was told that they would put our child in a garbage bag and treat her as medical waste. For us, that was unthinkable.

We took our daughter, a local funeral home provided a small plastic infant casket at no charge, and we buried her in a cemetery plot belonging to the family. We had a small family service and there is a marble plaque with her name on it. She has a name because she is a person, and we believe that one day we will see her again.

For us that was the only “reasonable” option.

The only “reasonable” option for aborted children is not to abort them in the first place.

Ordinary American on March 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

But I should expect an individual such as yourself to put a woman’s wishes above the life of an unborn child. From you, I ought to expect no less (more?).

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Yep, just me.

Well, just me and a majority of you fellow American citizens.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

The only difference between fetal homicide as it is prosecuted in a majority of states and abortion is the desire of the mother.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

A trivial difference. /s

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

This dichotomy MJB wants to underscore is firmly rooted in the precedent of of slave ownership.
It was the strictly the desire of the slave owner whether to manumit a black slave, and thereby make that slave a human (the killing of whom would now be murder), or keep the slave as property, in which case it could be disposed of as any other property.

All pro-abortionists, like MJB, are committed to making certain humans property, in order to kill them legally.

Pless1foEngrish on March 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Unfortunately, what happens in no longer so great Britain usually occurs in the U.S. within a few years. I expect not only to see this but also sharia to begin playing a role in the U.S. legal system.

bw222 on March 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

I am not sure what AP is wanting here. OK, what is the hospital supposed to do? I would imagine it gives parents the options of keeping the body for burial if that is the desire.

If they elect not to keep the body, do you seriously expect the hospital to give the body a funeral and bury it somewhere? Cremation is the standard because it doesn’t take up space and destroys any harmful pathogens.

When I worked in research, everything in the lab was incinerated, even if there was nothing dangerous in it out of precaution. The fact this heat was used to to generate power for the building is just not being wasteful.

The sensationalist headline sure is great to gin up page views though!

antisense on March 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

But you apparently don’t understand analogies very well.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Strawman, not analogy.

You apparently do not have a reasonable alternative.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Unfortunately, what happens in no longer so great Britain usually occurs in the U.S. within a few years. I expect not only to see this but also sharia to begin playing a role in the U.S. legal system.

bw222 on March 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Kind of a foolish statement, because I am pretty sure Muslims do not allow abortion, nor do they allow cremation.

antisense on March 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Indeed it is – which is why there needs to be scrutiny of health providers, public and private, to ensure they’re not slipping.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Such scrutiny had until recently been provided by medical licensing and specialty boards, state legislatures, and in civil matters state courts. “Oversight” by FedGov is going to inevitably lead to rent seeking which will in turn degenerate into a mirror-image of the British NHS. There can be no other logical outcome.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM

The only “reasonable” option for aborted children is not to abort them in the first place.

Ordinary American on March 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Precisely. But until that happens, hospitals have to deal with the problem at hand, whether you like it or not.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Kind of a foolish statement, because I am pretty sure Muslims do not allow abortion, nor do they allow cremation.

antisense on March 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

They encourage honor killing and suicide bombings. That’s so much more morally sound, isn’t it?/

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Well, just me and a majority of you fellow American citizens.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Like I said, absolutely chilling. I simply can not reconcile the morality of fetal homicide laws with the alleged morality of legal abortion. I’m not utilitarian that way.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Seems to me all the objections are to the incinerators being tied in to the heating systems. So is everyone good if they build a special incinerator that isn’t tied to the heating just for the aborted fetuses. And only use the “green” incinerator just for gauze, sponges, tumors, tonsils, arms and legs?

Gee, you mean some sort of, oh, I don’t know, oven maybe? For disposing of unwanted humans?

I think that’s been done.

Hucklebuck on March 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Your never ending desire to have Republicans be above it is silly. The comparison of Nazis isn’t totally off base, they felt that the people they experimented on and then bodies burned en mass was a help to humanity.

Cindy Munford on March 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM

(Pssst: Perhaps not shrieking Nazi, as seems so popular among the anti’s, might help with your PR a little too.)

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM

What language is appropriate for the burning of human beings to heat a building? Tell us.

bmmg39 on March 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Burning unwanted babies is not unprecedented. Many ancient societies, including apostate Israelites, sacrificed their children to the idol Moloch by heating the idol with fire until it was glowing, putting live newborns on its outstretched arms, and watching them burn to death. Food and resources were scarce in the Bronze Age, and people didn’t have access to modern birth control, so worshiping Moloch had the added advantage of aborting unwanted children “after the fact.”

Now abortion is safe, sanitized, and legal, and society sees nothing wrong with treating unwanted fetuses as just so much waste. And it’s not a big step from there to incinerating human remains for energy purposes. Hey, energy is expensive, right?

This is what happens when the sanctity and dignity of human life has been rendered subjective.

entropent on March 24, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I’m pretty sure our guys just flush them through the sewer system so I don’t think they get any brownie points.

Cindy Munford on March 24, 2014 at 12:45 PM

The only consistent position is the “Who cares?” If it is not life, then it is the equivalent of a tumor. Or as a fictional doctor once referred to it, “A complex clump of cells”. and, of course, among themselves they will proudly take this position. Let’s make them take it in public.

Hucklebuck on March 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM

antisense on March 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

The use of these procedures to reduce the bottom line, i.e. heating costs, it more than a little unseemly.

Cindy Munford on March 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Cindy Munford on March 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM
bmmg39 on March 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Well by all means then. Keep garnering support for your cause by using the most language most offensive to people of conscience as possible.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’…
 
… The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

 
And there’s the problem. Does the hospital tell patients what is done with the tumor that was removed? Skin tags? Parasites?
 
What’s different then, (D)s?

rogerb on March 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM

The only consistent position is the “Who cares?” If it is not life, then it is the equivalent of a tumor. Or as a fictional doctor once referred to it, “A complex clump of cells”. and, of course, among themselves they will proudly take this position. Let’s make them take it in public.

Hucklebuck on March 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Some already have, Huck. The election of Barack Obama has allowed leftists and utilitarians of all stripes to come out of hiding and tell the world what they really think. It saddens me deeply.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Precisely. But until that happens, hospitals have to deal with the problem at hand, whether you like it or not.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Right now, this minute, those hospitals could call any of a number of pro-life or Catholic groups- Knights of Columbus comes to mind- and ask if they would underwrite the costs of respectful burial or cremation of these tiny babies and you would get a not just yes, but HELL YES response.

I disbelieve you when you imply you are prolife, because you appear to have so little understanding of how the movement and belief system operates.

Pless1foEngrish on March 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM

They encourage honor killing and suicide bombings. That’s so much more morally sound, isn’t it?/

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:42 PM

And? This thread is about abortion and incineration/cremation. Allow Muslims to control your society and you will have neither.

antisense on March 24, 2014 at 12:49 PM

WTF?

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

You are hear defending the indefensible…the use of human remains for fuel.

Link to the International Cremation Federation Code of Ethics.

http://www.int-crem-fed.org/code-of-ethics

Burning human remains for Fuel isn’t mentioned.

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Indeed it is – which is why there needs to be scrutiny of health providers, public and private, to ensure they’re not slipping.

Ramadahl on March 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Absolutely agree.

There might be less of a chance of needing a watchdog if the entire health care delivery system is turned over to private enterprise, where a patient can see firsthand what a procedure or drug or hospital stay costs. But I realize full well that what I am describing is my own “Conservative Utopia” vision of what the health care system should be.

And I also realize full well that the totalitarians in our own government won’t allow it — they are thwarting it any way they can — because the name of the game was never about health care in the first place.

PatriotGal2257 on March 24, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Well by all means then. Keep garnering support for your cause by using the most language most offensive to people of conscience as possible.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Um, I don’t think “people of conscience” would be in favor of incinerating aborted fetuses. But maybe I have a different understanding of conscience than you do.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:50 PM

We’re losing our humanity.

Pro-aborts would go nuts if hospitals were incinerating the remains of dogs or turtle eggs.

Resist We Much on March 24, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Imagine how proponents of abortion at any stage of pregnancy and partial birth abortion would react if the practice were performed on animals.

justltl on March 24, 2014 at 12:50 PM

In case no one else has already said this:

HOT IN HELL!!!!

avagreen on March 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I disbelieve you when you imply you are prolife, because you appear to have so little understanding of how the movement and belief system operates.

Pless1foEngrish on March 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM

It apparently is run by folks with the Obama voter mentality that if we want it bad enough, everything will be unicorns and rainbows. I live in the real world. Don’t you dare tell me what I do and don’t believe.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Great post AP.

This just makes my stomach turn. It’s evil.

gophergirl on March 24, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Pro-aborts would go nuts if hospitals were incinerating the remains of dogs or turtle eggs.

Resist We Much on March 24, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Really?

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:55 PM

A trivial difference. /s

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Not for the child.

hawkdriver on March 24, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Imagine how proponents of abortion at any stage of pregnancy and partial birth abortion would react if the practice were performed on animals.

justltl on March 24, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Pregnancy termination is done pretty routinely in veterinary practices.

butch on March 24, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Pro-aborts would go nuts if hospitals were incinerating the remains of dogs or turtle eggs.

Resist We Much on March 24, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Really?

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Somewhat OT:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com

When that website went public, Ingrid Newkirk responded like someone who got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Chilling. The only difference between fetal homicide as it is prosecuted in a majority of states and abortion is the desire of the mother.

Here’s a thought exercise for the utilitarians out there: If a mother intended to have an abortion, but lost the baby due to an injury sustained in an attack, should the attacker still be tried for fetal homicide?

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

good question.

A trivial difference. /s

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

the mother’s wishes ARE a trivial difference. why should it matter if the mother wants to pretend her unborn child is not actually a person? a person is a person. it is what it is. someone can’t simply decide that someone else does not count as a person. that makes no logical sense at all. it’s a very lame excuse to justify killing a person. “well who cares what the facts are, who cares about reality? i am going to say it’s not really a person! therefore, totally okay to kill it! yay!”

Sachiko on March 24, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Precisely. But until that happens, hospitals have to deal with the problem at hand, whether you like it or not.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Right now, this minute, those hospitals could call any of a number of pro-life or Catholic groups- Knights of Columbus comes to mind- and ask if they would underwrite the costs of respectful burial or cremation of these tiny babies and you would get a not just yes, but HELL YES response.

I disbelieve you when you imply you are prolife, because you appear to have so little understanding of how the movement and belief system operates.

Pless1foEngrish on March 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Well said…that is true.

Priests for Life petitioned a judge to be allowed to retrieve the corpses that Gosnell kept in his abortion mill and those babies were treated with a respectful burial.

Link to their site
http://www.priestsforlife.org

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM

The moral “slippery slope” is not a fallacy, it is a reality. And down that slippery slope slide the bodies of innocent, defenseless human beings deliberately killed, and consigned to the furnace, as trash.

David Blue on March 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 12:56 PM

So:

animal rights activist == choice advocate

Fascinating.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM

So:

animal rights activist == choice advocate

Fascinating.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Did you miss the “somewhat off-topic” bit? I’m chasing rabbit trails here, but find it interesting that those who put more lip service towards animal life than they do human life are just as disrespectful of animal life as they are human life in the end. We have a responsibility to animals to ensure their welfare, but it is fundamentally different than the obligation we have to each other as human beings, including defense of the defenseless.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Yeah, the Left is scouring the comments of Hot Air to prove we’re all crazy and your garnering converts for conservatism Republicans daily by avoiding any obvious deterioration in humanity. I bet you hear all the racist dog whistles also.

Cindy Munford on March 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

workingclass artist on March 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, you want to dictate what respect for the dead is, and force those beliefs on everyone else. That is the definition of a liberal.

db on March 24, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Yep, just me.

Well, just me and a majority of you fellow American citizens.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

The majority opposes abortion. Ghouls are in the minority.

NotCoach on March 24, 2014 at 1:04 PM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

I didn’t miss it. Your post was in support of the OT post that made that argument originally. Follow?

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I’m not sure why you quoted me. Are you somehow saying that a crematorium is different from an incinerator? The laws you are referring to are simply health safety laws that require the deceased animals be cremated by an authorized facility. No idea what this has to do with the topic at hand.

db on March 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM

The point is that we treat animals in a more dignified manner than aborted children.

Resist We Much on March 24, 2014 at 1:04 PM

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, you want to dictate what respect for the dead is, and force those beliefs on everyone else. That is the definition of a liberal.

db on March 24, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Respect for the dead, though defined differently in different cultures, almost certainly entails not using dead bodies for fuel without the express knowledge and consent of the next-of-kin. You want to trot out that old “forcing your beliefs on others” canard, that’s fine, but I will remain free to question the state or existence of your conscience.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM

I didn’t miss it. Your post was in support of the OT post that made that argument originally. Follow?

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 1:04 PM

After which you proceeded to joyfully flog a straw man. Carry on, douchebag.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 1:06 PM

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Yeah, the Left is scouring the comments of Hot Air to prove we’re all crazy and your garnering converts for conservatism Republicans daily by avoiding any obvious deterioration in humanity. I bet you hear all the racist dog whistles also.

Cindy Munford on March 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Once again, Cindy nails it the horse’s Azz to the wall.

ToddPA on March 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM

What next, Soylent Green?

mr. b on March 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM

db on March 24, 2014 at 1:03 PM

We don’t use dead bodies for energy production, period. And families can decide what to do with the remains of loved ones.

NotCoach on March 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Sharia in Britain now

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM

This is what totally mystifies me about the leftist in Britain, America or anywhere for that matter. How can you be for abortion but also support Islamic law. Do they not realize that Islamic Law would eliminate all abortion?

Leftist must lack certain genetic material that prevents them from understand self-preservation.

William Eaton on March 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Cindy Munford on March 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Fair enough. Be obnoxious in the cozy, obscure realm of blog comment sections. And then complain when decent people call you obnoxious on those same blogs.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2014 at 1:08 PM

This is what totally mystifies me about the leftist in Britain, America or anywhere for that matter. How can you be for abortion but also support Islamic law. Do they not realize that Islamic Law would eliminate all abortion?

Leftist must lack certain genetic material that prevents them from understand self-preservation.

William Eaton on March 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM

What’s worse? Abortion, or honor killing? What’s worse? Incinerating dead fetuses, or using developmentally disabled children for suicide bombing? Six one way, half a dozen the other if you ask me.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2014 at 1:09 PM

The point is that we treat animals in a more dignified manner than aborted children.

Resist We Much on March 24, 2014 at 1:04 PM

You need to visit the kill floor at a packing house. Did you mean our pet animals?

butch on March 24, 2014 at 1:09 PM

We don’t use dead bodies for energy production, period. And families can decide what to do with the remains of loved ones.

NotCoach on March 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Pretty sure the hospitals offer a choice to the families as to what to do with the body, as stated in a post above.

antisense on March 24, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5