Video: Oregon commission orders stop on using dead babies to generate power

posted at 10:21 am on April 24, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Last month, we thought the use of aborted children to generate heat and power was limited to the UK. Instead, we discovered this week that the ghastly practice took place in Oregon, perhaps unwittingly. A waste-to-energy plant contracted with the British Columbia Health Ministry to incinerate medical waste — including aborted babies.

For now, the practice has stopped (via Katie Pavlich):

An Oregon county commission has ordered an incinerator to stop accepting boxed medical waste to generate electricity after learning the waste it’s been burning may include tissue from aborted fetuses from British Columbia.

Sam Brentano, chairman of the Marion County board of commissioners, said late Wednesday the board is taking immediate action to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries at the plant that has been turning waste into energy since 1987.

“We provide an important service to the people of this state and it would be a travesty if this program is jeopardized due to this finding,” he said in a statement. “We thought our ordinance excluded this type of material at the waste-to-energy facility. We will take immediate action to ensure a process is developed to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries.”

Did the managers and the county commissioners know about this? They claim no, but one of the workers said “they had to know“:

Bud Waterman, a former temp worker at Covanta Marion, Inc., said two to three times a week, 53-foot tractor trailers carrying biohazards dropped off loads at the facility in Brooks.

On more than one occasion, Waterman said the contents of the truck spilled out of their containers.

“It would make you sick, especially if you had to clean it up or have to pull a box off the trailer,” said Waterman. …

“They knew it, they had to. I don’t see how they could not know it,” said Waterman.

The kicker? Waterman told KOIN that the facility had incinerated dead babies for years, in part because the Canadian government won’t dispose of fetal remains in this manner. That’s presumably why the BCHM sent the medical waste to Oregon in the first place.

KOIN says it will continue investigating this story. Good for them. Perhaps other news outlets in the US might want to start looking at their local waste-to-energy facilities, too, to see what trucks are dumping into the boilers and burners.


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

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:14 PM

I don’t disagree with you, and you don’t seem to be disagreeing with me either. Just making a different point, worded in a way to make it sound like you disagree with me. I’m not sure what I can say to make it more clear …so I guess I won’t say more :)

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I don’t know why Oregon isn’t using older children. They have a lot more fat on them and can produce much more energy.

Soylent Green Energy: Saving the planet, saving the children… for peak power generation.

theCork on April 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Dadgum it, Bishop. You’re not the only one on this pier. Tend your dang lines.
 
rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM

 
Well, if I didn’t ‘get it’, I’m sorry, but, I don’t spend a lot of time studying a person’s entire comment history in order to know where they stand on every issue and to determine if a comment is sarcasm or sincere. I guess I don’t play the ‘game’ very well.
 
Pork-Chop on April 24, 2014 at 11:59 AM

 
No game and I didn’t mean anything against you, so please accept my apologies if it seemed I was after you. That was more a joke about folks constantly trying to snag other posters.
 
We’ve got a lot of posters who spend most of their time fishing, and others who spend the majority of their time fleeing threads after they realize what they’ve written.
 
I was asking a serious question, but it will never be answered because it admits something that he knows already.

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I find it is a comment on Christianity, particularly how so many Christians actively promote the culture of death. YMMV.

gryphon202 on April 24, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Culture of death? So, what, do these Christians actually like abortion because it spares the little ones from all the suffering in the world?

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

My guess is that they would be just fine with this story. It is a pretty sensible way to dispose of fetus corpses. I mentioned this story to a friend who is anti-abortion and asked her to explain the objection to this story. She tried to explain and finally ended up agreeing with me. As much as you can get people past the yuck factor into being rational, the “pro-life” movement is going find this is a losing issue for them.

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Actually it’s no different than grave robbing (which is illegal), corpse mutilation (which is illegal) or necrophilia (which is illegal). What someone does to a human corpse after that human dies is still morally and legally relevant. According to our laws, the corpse of a human being is not just a bunch of cells.

dominigan on April 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Culture of death? So, what, do these Christians actually like abortion because it spares the little ones from all the suffering in the world?

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

That’s exactly the argument that some professing “Christians” make in favor of abortion.

gryphon202 on April 24, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Actually it’s no different than grave robbing (which is illegal), corpse mutilation (which is illegal) or necrophilia (which is illegal). What someone does to a human corpse after that human dies is still morally and legally relevant. According to our laws, the corpse of a human being is not just a bunch of cells.

dominigan on April 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

So the disposal of “products of abortion” is dehumanization of a human life whether it occurs in a landfill or in a power plant.

…………………

gryphon202 on April 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

FWIW
 

Imagine feeling obligated to defend a position even after acknowledging there’s clearly a difference between a dead fetus and a toenail.
 

People should have been made aware…and it they weren’t.
Or even misled, with the ‘cremated’ line…
 
verbaluce on March 24, 2014 at 2:04 PM

 
Been made aware of what?
 
Should they also be made aware of how they dispose of skin tags or ingrown toenails?
 
What’s different?
 
Go on. Tell us.
 
rogerb on March 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM

 
Understand what was accidentally admitted in the bold.
 
That’s why the ideologue can’t answer.
 
The father answered every time he refused. And we’re at what, four? Five times now?
 
rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:27 PM

 
Six or seven now, I suppose.

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 12:30 PM

So the disposal of “products of abortion” is dehumanization of a human life whether it occurs in a landfill or in a power plant.

…………………

gryphon202 on April 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Yes.

dominigan on April 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Then why stop there? Any adult corpse is going to generate way more energy than a baby. Isn’t this the rational way of dealing with all the dead?

Happy Nomad on April 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Cremation is a popular way of dealing with corpses now. If we were able to generate energy when the cremation is done, I am not aware of any sane objection (much less a moral objection) to doing so. I don’t even think it would create an yuck factor in most pro-lifers–unless they thought it would be politically useful.

Seriously, if you have a rational argument against a facility that does cremation making energy, please tell me.

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

The time to worry about aborted babies was BEFORE they were killed and their bodies shredded. After that, this is just about OPTICS.

You can’t believe in abortion and then want the waste material handled with care…..

originalpechanga on April 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Culture of death? So, what, do these Christians actually like abortion because it spares the little ones from all the suffering in the world?

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Pre-emptive murder because those little ones might not experience the love of God… yet profess to be vessels of that love themselves. They profess with their tongues, but do not follow the desires of God.

Those “Christians” place their desires above God, and in the end will reap God’s judgement. Read Matt 25 to see how Jesus describes how those “Christians” will be judged. They still profess God as “Lord”, but they will still be sent to Hell because their actions do not match their words. They are a fruit tree that bears no fruit. And those trees shall be cut down and thrown into the Fire because they are good for nothing and bear no fruit.

dominigan on April 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM

No. That the outrage is long-overdue. Did you miss that part from my earlier post?

gryphon202 on April 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

No, nor have a missed the marches or the demonstrations. The outrage is beside the point.

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Seriously, if you have a rational argument against a facility that does cremation making energy, please tell me.

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Heh. I’m surprised you aren’t presenting the argument that this could be a threat to people. You know, capitalism being evil and all that…and disposing of people’s bodies in a way to generate profits for their business.

lineholder on April 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Seriously, if you have a rational argument against a facility that does cremation making energy, please tell me.

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Name those facilities, or is this just wishful thinking to justify the further dehumanization of human beings? Wait, don’t answer; I already know the answer.

Those facilities don’t exist because there are not enough continuous cremations to make it work. Thus your premise fails any rational examination.

dominigan on April 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Actually it’s no different than grave robbing (which is illegal), corpse mutilation (which is illegal) or necrophilia (which is illegal). What someone does to a human corpse after that human dies is still morally and legally relevant. According to our laws, the corpse of a human being is not just a bunch of cells.

dominigan on April 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

An actual argument against this! But saying it is no different than corpse mutilation or necrophilia is ridiculous, but we all get carried away with rhetorical excess. So let’s concentrate on the more plausible claim that this is no different than grave robbing. Since the corpse is going to be cremated or disposed of anyway, I don’t see how making energy from it is robbing.

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I don’t disagree with you, and you don’t seem to be disagreeing with me either. Just making a different point, worded in a way to make it sound like you disagree with me. I’m not sure what I can say to make it more clear …so I guess I won’t say more :)

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Fair enough. I just don’t have a problem with a pro-lifer not being able to explain why this is wrong, because personally, I think treating intentional (rather than miscarriages) abortions as anything other than medical waste to be bipolar.

In fact, I look at it the way I would if I were vegan. Would I care that the animals are killed humanely, or would I prefer that man had to kill its own food and see the brutality firsthand?

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

We already have laws in place that address the disposal of fetal remains.

Trust me, burning that a local energy facility is not included in the scope of what is legal.

lineholder on April 24, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Fair enough. I just don’t have a problem with a pro-lifer not being able to explain why this is wrong, because personally, I think treating intentional (rather than miscarriages) abortions as anything other than medical waste to be bipolar.

In fact, I look at it the way I would if I were vegan. Would I care that the animals are killed humanely, or would I prefer that man had to kill its own food and see the brutality firsthand?

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Ah, now I see. You’re not a Christian and don’t believe that the baby has a soul all of its own, regardless of what the parents think. You’re right; we do disagree.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

dominigan on April 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Very likely so, but there is something appealing to the idea of a baby never knowing (embodying) evil and thus never knowing anything but heaven. I can easily see that influencing a serial killer who targeted young children.

Some “Christians” did the whole “convert or die” by gun sort of thing when they met new tribes. I sometimes wonder if some of them truly thought they were giving these new people heaven without realizing that they were embodying hell.

But that’s the thing many “Christians” and atheists don’t get, just how complex Christianity is. It’s not about hell. It’s about life, and life more abundantly.

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Ah, now I see. You’re not a Christian and don’t believe that the baby has a soul all of its own, regardless of what the parents think. You’re right; we do disagree.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Ah, speaking for me. That’s always fun.

Well, you certainly don’t need me for that!

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Human spirit/soul is a fascinating subject that gets very little notices these days!

I daresay if a survey was conducted asking people for the four elements of being human, most of them would get physical, mental, and probably emotional…but not that many would mention the spirit or soul.

lineholder on April 24, 2014 at 12:59 PM

The left stopped the nuclear power industry using this tactic. Our side is too stupid to do this.

faraway on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Good point.

slickwillie2001 on April 24, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Ah, now I see. You’re not a Christian and don’t believe that the baby has a soul all of its own, regardless of what the parents think. You’re right; we do disagree.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Ah, speaking for me. That’s always fun.

Well, you certainly don’t need me for that!

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:57 PM

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. You said a pro-lifer couldn’t explain why this is wrong. Therefore you must be an atheist pro-lifer, who does not believe that a baby has a soul. Or aren’t thinking very clearly, I guess. If you had said that a pro-lifer can’t explain why it wouldn’t seem wrong to the person getting the abortion, that would be another thing entirely.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Video: Oregon commission orders stop on using dead babies to generate power

…can they write in an exception…and use Democrats?

KOOLAID2 on April 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. You said a pro-lifer couldn’t explain why this is wrong. Therefore you must be an atheist pro-lifer, who does not believe that a baby has a soul. Or aren’t thinking very clearly, I guess. If you had said that a pro-lifer can’t explain why it wouldn’t seem wrong to the person getting the abortion, that would be another thing entirely.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Did you read my other comment where I carry the whole idea of having a soul at conception to a very logical and Christian conclusion?

The soul leaves the body when it dies.

What we do to a body when it no longer has a soul is completely insignificant to what we do to the body while it still has one. This is the epitome of rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.

And as has been said repeatedly, they were included as “medical waste” which is how they’re currently disposed. How is that any better?

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM

You’re making this too complicated. I haven’t made an argument about relative wrongness, or what is or is not trivial. If you think abortion is evil, then disposing of their bodies disrespectfully is also evil.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Human spirit/soul is a fascinating subject that gets very little notices these days!

I daresay if a survey was conducted asking people for the four elements of being human, most of them would get physical, mental, and probably emotional…but not that many would mention the spirit or soul.

lineholder on April 24, 2014 at 12:59 PM

I’ve never heard four, though I suppose secularly you hear things like “heart and soul”. Body, brain and soul. Human’s aren’t usually rational; most of our decisions are emotional. There’s a reason ‘rationalize’ is its own antonym.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Since the corpse is going to be cremated or disposed of anyway, I don’t see how making energy from it is robbing.

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

If burning coal or wood is bad for the environment wouldn’t bodies with all those years of toxic chemicals ingested also be bad for the enviromnent, think of the carbon!

MontanaMmmm on April 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM

You see when a adult has a right to something, they are not required to explain.

Observation on April 24, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Bless the KOIN reporter for referring to “mothers” and “their unborn children.”

Would that everyone could state the facts.

Cricket624 on April 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM

This is a consequence of the Utilitarian Evil…The Culture of Death.

workingclass artist on April 24, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Wonder if those who see no problem with this would also support throwing their dead parent or themselvesinto the fuel plant. Imagine if a unborn baby can produce energy mom or granddad could fuel much more.

katiejane on April 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM

“Smoke? What smoke?” Nearly every German during WWII.

vityas on April 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM

But that’s the thing many “Christians” and atheists don’t get, just how complex Christianity is. It’s not about hell. It’s about life, and life more abundantly.

Esthier on April 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Funny thing about Christianity and Hell: Christ talked more about hell that all the other biblical prophets put together, and He was pretty clear about its purpose. Yet modern Christians want act as though it doesn’t exist – a “loving” God would never create anything so awful,… would He?

The problem here is not how we “dispose” of the bodies, it is the fact that the manne of disposal is so callous – we’re using humans we have deliberately killed as fuel products – that it exposes the brutality of the killing.

There is a Hell, it has a purpose and remaking God in your image will not make Hell go away.

Cricket624 on April 24, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Sorry, but this is too sick for words…those of
you who want to discuss this, God Bless.

ToddPA on April 24, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Seems like unborn babies should deserve more respect than dead animals. When my cat died the vet gave me the choice of individual or bulk cremation. She didn’t suggest I just drag the pet over to the town recycling center and toss him into wet waste.

The difference is – most pro-life people see the aborted child as something more than skin scrapings.

katiejane on April 24, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Wonder if those who see no problem with this would also support throwing their dead parent or themselvesinto the fuel plant. Imagine if a unborn baby can produce energy mom or granddad could fuel much more.

katiejane on April 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM

My mother wants to be cremated, and has always thought thriftiness to be a great virtue. I would be happy to give her corpse to a fuel plant and she would be also. My first preference in how to dispose of my body would be to compost it, but sadly it isn’t legal now. Many people who have compost piles feel as I do, and perhaps we will get the law changed.

thuja on April 24, 2014 at 1:57 PM

I’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

I’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

I have heard atheists say that it is perfectly possible to derive ethics in the absence of God, however I have never heard them actually do it convincingly; certainly not consistently. Instead, frequently you’ll hear that Christianity was an impediment to the development of civilization, rather than an instrumental and necessary part of it. So, if you’re looking for a “meaningful objection” that doesn’t involve invoking religion then I don’t think you’ll get one.

But here’s mine: God loves you. Even if you haven’t met him. God loves the unborn baby too, just because you and I haven’t met a particular baby, doesn’t mean he isn’t worthy of love and caring. If it’s good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me. Now, would you think it a tad bit rude if somebody yanked you off the street this afternoon, and used your body to heat their wood burning stove and make their evening meal? Would it be okay if they said it was because they didn’t feel like spending money for conventional means of producing electricity? Are you of more worth than that baby?

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM

I’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.
 
Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

 
You approve of animal shelters feeding unwanted cats to on-site dogs to save on food costs, correct?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM

I’ll bet Tom Steyer has invested LARGE in this technology.
Clean burning Baby Fat.
Save the Planet TOM!

Missilengr on April 24, 2014 at 2:57 PM

But here’s mine: God loves you. Even if you haven’t met him. God loves the unborn baby too, just because you and I haven’t met a particular baby, doesn’t mean he isn’t worthy of love and caring… Now, would you think it a tad bit rude if somebody yanked you off the street this afternoon, and used your body to heat their wood burning stove and make their evening meal?

Psst: “he” is already dead. And considering Christian eschatology promises that this entire world will be destroyed someday, corpses and all, you aren’t making a very convincing argument that God is terribly concerned with the final disposition of bodies, fetal or otherwise.

As regards your question, why would I be dead on the street? And if I was, why would I care what they do with my body? Is rotting in the ground really a more pleasant way to dispose of earthly remains than incinerating them?

You approve of animal shelters feeding unwanted cats to on-site dogs to save on food costs, correct?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM

You should be asking the dogs, not me. I doubt they’d have many objections. What do you think dog food is made of anyway?

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Psst: “he” is already dead…

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:57 PM

You’re making my point.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.
 
Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

 
You approve of animal shelters feeding unwanted cats to on-site dogs to save on food costs, correct?
 
rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM

 
You should be asking the dogs, not me. I doubt they’d have many objections. What do you think dog food is made of anyway?
 
Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:57 PM

 
Nicely done. Let’s try again.
 
You approve of animal shelters feeding unwanted cats to on-site dogs to save on food costs, correct?
 
Give us a budgetary amount. What percent should cat bodies supplement a local shelter’s dog food budget?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM

One detail is missing in this article. If this follows the same pattern as the case in the UK, it means not just aborted babies, but also miscarried babies were burned for energy.

I don’t think it changes the morality of the gruesome practice, but it surely makes the publicity all that much worse.

julia marie on April 24, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Nicely done. Let’s try again.

You approve of animal shelters feeding unwanted cats to on-site dogs to save on food costs, correct?

Give us a budgetary amount. What percent should cat bodies supplement a local shelter’s dog food budget?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM

I have no experience operating an animal shelter and I don’t especially care what they feed their dogs. Is that clear enough an answer for you?

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM

So you don’t care if an animal shelter doesn’t actually shelter animals? Again, making my point about the foundation of ethics.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM

So you don’t care if an animal shelter doesn’t actually shelter animals? Again, making my point about the foundation of ethics.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I don’t reasonably expect an animal shelter to be able to save every single animal that it takes in, not that it matters, as a hypothetical animal shelter supposedly shirking its responsibility to save animals has nothing whatsoever to do with a waste-to-energy plant doing exactly what it’s supposed to be doing by incinerating the medical waste it has contracted to destroy.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:33 PM

A society that thinks it’s OK to kill children as a matter of discretion can not get squeamish about how the bodies are handled without rendering itself a bit ridiculous.

morganfrost on April 24, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Nicely done. Let’s try again.
 
You approve of animal shelters feeding unwanted cats to on-site dogs to save on food costs, correct?
 
Give us a budgetary amount. What percent should cat bodies supplement a local shelter’s dog food budget?
 
rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM

 
I have no experience operating an animal shelter

 
And yet you posted on a thread regarding incinerators and generating electricity.
 
Lots of experience there, Armin?
 

and I don’t especially care what they feed their dogs. Is that clear enough an answer for you?
 
Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM

 
It’s weird how difficult you’re making this. This is what, the third time now? It’s almost like you’ve realized what happened.
 
We’re only asking your opinion on a budget matter. Here, let’s try this:
 
Should 100% of unwanted local cats be used to reduce the dog food budget by 25% at the local shelter?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 3:37 PM

I think the former mother to be or not to be should have to take the baby to be or not to be home for proper burial or disposal. How is it we can take solid waste and medical tissue from Canada but can’t build the damn pipeline?

Kissmygrits on April 24, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Yes, I can see that’s what you think. Whatever works, or at least seems to work for today.

Fenris on April 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Someday, we will be described to future denizens of this planet, and we will be called “barbaric”.

No arguments here.

EvilMonk on April 24, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Well, this ought to make my local elections this year more interesting…

oryguncon on April 24, 2014 at 3:59 PM

I’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.
 
Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

 

 
Should 100% of unwanted local cats be used to reduce the dog food budget by 25% at the local shelter?
 
rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 3:37 PM

 
So all done, Armin?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM

’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

If you had been around in the 1940s, you probably would have said the same thing about the Nazi death camps. You are, in short, a barbaric beast.

zoyclem on April 24, 2014 at 4:37 PM

I’d like to know how medical waste from Canada gets across the border in the first place.

What does the truck manifest say? “8.9 tons; babies; dead”

BobMbx on April 24, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.
 
Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

 

 
Should 100% of unwanted local cats be used to reduce the dog food budget by 25% at the local shelter?
 
rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 3:37 PM

 
So all done, Armin?
 
rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM

 
Looks like it will be on the front page a bit longer.

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Hideous.

Bmore on April 24, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Perhaps other news outlets in the US might want to start looking at their local waste-to-energy facilities, too, to see what trucks are dumping into the boilers and burners.

Not a chance. It’ll get the coverage that Gosnell got. The prog media don’t want anything to change minds about their holiest sacrament.

ddrintn on April 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM

It’s absolutely despicable that they would use murdered babies as fuel, it’s revolting and disgusting. And they only stopped because they were caught at it, It’s just horrible what they id and I feel ill over this whole mess.

Duna on April 24, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Soylent Electricity.

What next?

Sheesh.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 25, 2014 at 5:50 AM

Armin?

rogerb on April 25, 2014 at 6:16 AM

I guess I should quote. It always more visually effective.

rogerb on April 25, 2014 at 6:18 AM

I’d sure like to hear a meaningful objection to this instead of the standard “it’s wrong!” or “it’s icky!” bullsh*t.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Should 100% of unwanted local cats be used to reduce the dog food budget by 25% at the local shelter?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 3:37 PM

So all done, Armin?

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Looks like it will be on the front page a bit longer.

rogerb on April 24, 2014 at 6:35 PM

 
Armin?

rogerb on April 25, 2014 at 6:18 AM

All done then, Armin?
 
Did it get “icky”?
 
Did it feel “wrong”?
 
Tell us again how you believe the earth is only 6000 years old and how man coexisted with dinosaurs.

rogerb on April 25, 2014 at 12:32 PM

I have seen this headline all over and have been asking google (who apparently doesn’t know) how one gets energy from burning human tissue. Creamation TAKES energy, and burning a leg or a baby is the same tissue, if smaller.

It sounds like the arguement is skewed. The babies aren’t being burned for energy, they are being incinerated with medical waste. It’s still an arguement worth having (if they should be separated and treated more respectfully). But my science background is telling me that unless the tissue is somehow dehydrated they aren’t getting any energy out of it. They are simply making money off charging the medical facilities to dispose of it in a sanitary manner.

MC88 on April 25, 2014 at 1:23 PM

As with Gosnell, who authorities say is the most prolific serial killer in American history, this will be swept under the rug because the abortion industry is a multi billion dollar business and abortion is the religion of the democrats and the left. More people care that Bundy used the words negro, slavery and cotton in a sentence than care about human lives being snuffed out and used for fuel. If that doesn’t say something about what we have become, nothing does.

fight like a girl on April 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM

I don’t see the problem? What’s the difference in being cremated? No funeral?

Kaptain Amerika on April 25, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2