The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Going to love this one or at least the reaction is gets from this leftist crowd. I've seen this several times today but am posting what appears to be an unbiased report.  They were burning fetal remains with trash to use for heat. Even pro-choice people are upset which is kind of a slippery slope considering they don't consider it a human being.

British hospitals incinerated the bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies as clinical waste, with some used to heat hospitals as part of an energy efficiency programs, the Telegraph reports.

Ten hospitals of the National Health Service, the UK’s prized single-payer system, have admitted to burning fetal bodies with other medical waste. Another two NHS hospitals which housed “waste-to-energy” plants, which generate heat while eliminating so-called medical waste.

Addenbrooke hospital in Cambridge, England hosted a waste-to-energy plant where officials incinerated the bodies of 797 babies, while telling their mothers that the bodies would be “cremated.”


Ipswich Hospital, an NHS facility whose waste-to-energy plant was run by a private contractor, burnt 1,101 fetal bodies between 2011 and 2013, after bringing in bodies from another hospital to provide more energy for the plant. A spokeswoman for the hospital denied that the NHS facility was incinerating fetal remains and was “concerned” that another bodies from another hospital had been incinerated in its waste-to-energy plant.

The investigation by British Channel 4 found that Addenbrooke’s stance was typical of the British health care system as a whole, where parents were typically not informed about how their children’s remains were being disposed.

One woman, Cathryn Hurley, found out in a British hospital her child had died at eight weeks, but the NHS trust refused to release her child’s remains to her.

“I was hysterical, I was crying. I asked one of the nurses what would happen to my baby, and she just said — well, it will be incinerated with the rest of the day’s waste,” Hurley said, according to the Daily Mail. “That was really difficult to hear because to me it wasn’t waste, it was my baby.”

Over the past two years, 27 NHS trusts, public hospital systems run by the British government, have incinerated at least 15,500 bodies of aborted or miscarried babies.


British bureaucrats began scrambling to mitigate the damage Sunday night upon first learning of the investigation. Britain’s Department of Health, which administers the National Health Service, banned the practice and health minister Dan Poulter said the practice is “totally unacceptable.”

“While the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals and the Human Tissue Authority has now been asked to ensure that it acts on this issue without delay,” Poulter said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/british-hospitals-burned-bodies-of-aborted-miscarried-babies-to-heat-buildings/#ixzz2xIbANa8o

As long as the hospital staff didn't huddle around the fire, making s'mores, I have no problem with it. Burned fetus fucks up the taste of the marshmallows...or so I'm told.

So, hospitals were found not to be disposing of medical waste properly? Is that the story here?

No, it's not even that.  Nobody would care if they were burning bandages and old casts.

As best I can tell:

- Hospitals were burning medical waste
- Some hospitals would reclaim the energy from burning medical waste, and use it to heat the hospital
- Either aborted fetal tissue or Unborn British Children (depending on your point of view) were being classified as "medical waste"

The actual story here is the last point.  I can use similar logic to say that American landfills are using decomposed children to generate power:

- several forms of birth control prevent a fertilized embryo (i.e. "an unborn child") from implanting
- this fertilized embryo may then be absorbed in a tampon or maxipad
- these products are thrown in the trash and transported to landfills
- some landfills recapture methane from decomposing garbage and use it to generate power

Well, I'm curious. What do they usually do with medical waste? Are they supposed to bury it or something? I don't see what the problem is here.

The problem, aside from some "people" using abortion as a form of birth control, is that some of the unborn were from miscarriages and the parents of these miscarried babies were not given the option to take their dead babies so that they could properly care to their remains.  Or they were lied to about how the remains would be cared for.

I'm sure the article is written for shock value, as I doubt the remains of the unborn were of enough mass to generate that much heat.  It really was just the most economical way of disposing of a variety of medical wastes.

Really the daily caller is an unbiased report?  Seriously?


Assuming that is true.  And given the source, that is quite questionable, than that is in fact an issue.  The mother of a miscarriage should be the one who decides if the fetus should receive a funeral, be treated as medical waste or something else.  Neither the hospital, the government, nor anyone else should be making that decision for her. 

As for the rest of the story it just right wingers trying to make nothing into their agenda.   

Well they give the woman's name and quote her, so I wouldn't think it was that questionable since the source can be verified.  I mean after all people on this site take unnamed sources reporting rumors as gospel.

Personally I don't think its nothing, and I'm far from a right winger.

I think it's funny that folks are lobbing "left-wing this" and "right-wing that" volleys at each other...over an issue going on in England.

Our lefts and rights have no bearing on things done by other countries.

WTF does that even have to do with this discussion? In England abortion is a legal MEDICAL PROCEDURE. No matter why women are doing it.

I'm calling bullshit on your entire stance since you're obviously a  forced birther.

Also, if a pregnancy is far enough along not to be medical waste, the parents are given the body as they would under any other circumstance so they can have a funeral.

This is a non story being propped up by the forced birthers to try to blurry the lines of viable babies and medical waste. NOPE. Not falling for it.

I agree that this is a tragic story.  There are people starving in third world countries and this medical waste is just being burned up to create energy.  Terrible waste.  Feed the world first, then heat your buildings! 

Follow up question.  Which would be a more horrible scenario to the god squad, a fetus being aborted or being born and subsequently adopted by a gay couple?   ;D    Also LOL'ing at the "left versus right" aspect of all of this.  There are plenty of pro choice Republicans.  In fact, I'm one of them. 

I guess its not an issue in here but in the real world many "pro-choice" people see it as an issue. That's exactly why I asked your opinion. .  Its been on CBS, NBC, national papers etc but in here its reduced to right wing agenda. I should have known better than to ask

CF, do you think aborted fetuses should properly be classified as medical waste?

If they should be classified as such, is it wrong to dispose of them in a manner consistent with other medical waste?  (I presume you don't object to the incineration of tumors, appendices, amputated limbs, etc.)

If they should not be classified as such, what should they be classified as, and why?  Is it possible to square this new classification with the established legal determination that this tissue is NOT a person?

 Only two...TWO hospitals in the whole country were using fetuses, along with other medical waste to heat and run the building.
Should the parents of miscarriages be offered the ability to conduct a funeral for their undeveloped fetus? Sure. But that  is not what this story is about. This headline and story were created to create fear and rally anti abortion forces. It has worked, as I have seen this story posted multiple times by Christians, who think abortion is reprehensible, and that lefties just want to murder babies to heat their childless, heathen homes.

To those who are against this, I ask you what should be done with aborted fetuses, and unclaimed miscarriages?

Taxidermy?

An aborted fetus, IMO, should be cremated. Its a person in my view but I don't think that is any revelation. Personally for me the biggest atrocity is that the child was killed in the first place. I just find it rather refreshing, or even contradictory I guess, is that people who are actually for abortion have issue with the way they are discarded.

In other news kind of along this line as far as those of us wanting the kids to be adopted instead of killed ... on Thursday of last week I was contacted by a first cousin I never knew. He was given up for adoption in 1961 and never knew anything about his family except he was adopted from DeLand and his mother's name. He also knew he had an older brother.  Although he had great parents he always wanted to know more about who he was. He had been looking for many years and had spent thousands of dollars to only hit multiple dead ends. My dad passed away in February and for whatever reason, I took a DNA test at Ancestry.com and so did he. We matched up 99% as first cousins and he contacted me. Long story short everything fell into place so now he has a whole new family including two brothers and I have a cousin in Texas.  Who'd have thought?

For breakfast this morning I had scrambled "killed chicken babies".   They aren't eggs.  They are innocent little chicken babies! 

Well that is what happened. 

I doubt you will find anyone who is pro-choice, who doesn't agree that in the case of a miscarriage the parents should have the choice of having the hospital treat the fetus as medical waste or treating the fetus as a child and having a funeral that involves cremation or burial in accordance with the parents wishes and/or religious beliefs.  Pro-choice is just that, pro-allowing the individual to make a choice.  I am pro-choice but just as disgusted by China's mandatory abortions as any pro-lifer.   



I am all for adoption as better choice.  As Bill Clinton put it, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."  I support easing the barriers to adoption children.  But the same pro-lifers are also the sames ones who often oppose easing our adoption laws.  For example see the Miami organization Save Our Children. 

In my view, this is not dissimilar to the same-sex marriage issue; social conservatives are really against homosexuality, but that battle is so completely lost that they can't even freely come out against The Gays anymore without facing a backlash.  So instead, they invent some stuff about "protecting marriage" and try to attack homosexuality that way (as if two homosexuals living together unmarried is somehow better).  In this case, social conservatives really want to attack abortion, but "Thousands of unborn babies are being killed every day!" is not going to get any traction in mainstream media, so instead this Soylent Green-style story about babies being turned into firewood is trumped up.

Now, I don't have a problem with your personal belief that abortion is wrong, in the same sense and to the extent that I don't have a problem with someone's belief that Jesus is Lord or Mohammed is the prophet: as long as you don't try to force that belief on others, live your life how you want.  But why the fury over the bodies of aborted fetuses when you believe the abortion itself is the great sin?  It's like if I were to complain about which version of the Ten Commandments they installed in some Alabama courthouse; it's totally disingenuous.

Congratulations!  What's the price of the DNA test, and what do they tell you?

Personally, I don't think that aborted fetal remains (or miscarried fetal remains, etc) should be burnt as medical waste.

More importantly than my feelings, I think I can identify two problems with this practice:

A. the story seems to indicate that the hospitals employed the euphemism of "cremation" when explaining to mothers what would happen to to the deceased unborn children.

Cremation is fine. It's not an means to an end, but an end in and of itself, (i.e. the bodies aren't used for something undignified) and it is a nice, respectful way to deal with the remains of a person who passes.

But of course, these bodies weren't cremated. They were merely burnt to create energy. To call that cremation is a lie. The hospitals that did this should've simply been honest. They should've said: "The remains of the [aborted/miscarried/whatever] child will be re-purposed to create energy for other patients/employees/people." Had they done that, w/ the exception of those people who objected (and were overruled by the NHS trust) no big deal. May not have even made the papers.

B. The greater problem with this practice, as it is with a lot of end-of-life issues and abortion issues (and of course, here too, where those issues intersect) is simply the lack of dignity shown to a human being, the lack of respect for human life and remains as ends-unto-themselves, rather than means-to-an-end, and the like.

Since I know that sentence will generate questions, what I mean is this:

Simply, people's lives and bodies (and remains) are intrinsically valuable. If remains are treated as nothing more than fuel, then, the question becomes, why not treat just anybody as a means-to-an-end?

Think about it with a little context: A guy is terminal and will die by the end of the week. His organs, if harvested *NOW* (consider that the organs could be compromised by leaving them in him until he dies on Friday) could save two people. Knowing this, is a doctor in the wrong for going ahead and removing the good organs from him despite the fact he is still alive?

I know what you're saying: he's alive, and living people have rights to life, right? Ah yes, but, rights come from the state through the people's will, and so, if the state has a compelling interest to save a number of people by killing this terminal dude a few days early; why shouldn't it do that, assuming it has the democratic support to do so?

So, a person could have a problem with this practice (burning fetal remains for fuel) because it smacks of treating humans as nothing more than means-to-ends. I am not making a slippery slope argument here. Arguably, if human beings are nothing special and only treated in a certain way because of a social contract, then, the contract can be amended by the majority to make sure that certain people who don't fit the bill (or who would benefit other people by their early death) can be treated differently...

Personally, this strikes me as wrong in the more liberal part of my personality. Think of it this way, if it suits you:

I don't really like the fact that corporations take horrible advantage of individuals in foreign countries. They put them in sweatshops, they work them ungodly hours, they take them from their ancestral homes and families for long periods of time, all in the pursuit of greater profit. That's bad. And why is it bad? Because humans are not economic cogs. (It would still be bad if a man died on the job site, and, because of a contract he'd signed with the corporation, they took his body and dumped it into whatever container they wanted to to create fuel for their job site.)

And why is it bad to treat humans as economic cogs? Because humans have dignity.

So, that's what I think it comes down to. That's what's in the background here, I think.

Cremation is not a euphemism, it is the most accurate and correct term. 



Bullshit, medical waste is not burnt to create energy, medical wasted in burnt because it is the safest way of disposing it to avoid others from being infected by any blood borne or other diseases. 

As part of this process of disposal heat is generated, fuel is consumed, greenhouse gases are emitted, etc. Keep in mind the majority of the heat generated is not from the waste but from the natural gas or other petroleum product used to ignite the waste. 

The hospital has two choices: have all of this heat energy simply go up the smoke stack or use the heat for a second purpose as well, such as heating the building or generating electric.  More and more hospitals are taking the environmentally responsible approach of using the process for duel purposes.

The responsible way for the hospitals to address this with miscarriages is to ask the mother if she would like to have the fetus sent to a funeral home and if so which one, and the family can make what ever arraignments the family so chooses.  Or if she would prefer to have the hospital dispose of the fetus. 

Saying that the hospital will cremate the fetus is not in anyway misleading, it is exactly what is happening. 

just to address this part.

This is exactly what we're doing to women in this country. We impose restrictions on abortion because we want to treat women differently than any other patient faced with a state mandated medical decision.

By restricting abortion of inviable fetuses, states are forcing a women to donate nutrients, bodily fluids, and energy. A state cannot force Person A to do the same thing for Person B . Even if person A bears verifiable responsibility for the medical condition of person B. Say i run dave over with my car, on purpose and then go back and forth over him a few times.. The state can still not mandate that i must donate blood to save dave's life. However, we allow a fetus a super-human level of rights that directly violate the freedoms of the woman carrying the fetus.

No. The definition of cremation is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cremation?s=t

Nowhere does it state that the burned bodies are used for fuel. To use something for fuel, that is traditionally not fuel, is to re-purpose it. To consume fuel is generally called "burning" or "consuming" it. If this were not true, there wouldn't be two different words. Does any person you know say their car is "cremating" fuel? No? Probably because the word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.


Did you read the article?

From the Telegraph:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.


No, this is incorrect.

1. It's not a state-mandated medical decision. I don't even know what you mean by that term.

2. The state doesn't force A to save B's life, or to provide for B, unless A is the cause for B's predicament. I think we can all agree that, but for rape situations, the mother (and father, for that matter) are the cause of the child's life. They "make the child's predicament" if that's how you want to think about the conception of a child.

Now, as for your example of what you have to do when you've caused someone's predicament, I think it rests on a clear misunderstanding of the doctrine of duty of care.

You have to look at the standard of care in a given situation. If you cause someone to pass out and stop breathing, the state may look into the standard of care for what you did subsequently and find that your failure to provide CPR and a ride to the hospital constituted a breach of your duty to that person. (Like for example, if a lifeguard gets someone out of the pool who's unconscious - but then just waits for the ambulance to arrive, then, yeah the county or city or whoever the lifeguard is employed by is probably on the hook. But should we force someone to provide someone else with their breath? In my situation - yes.)

So, in looking at standard of care in the situation you mention, if you cause someone to begin to bleed out, is it the standard of care for you to immediately give your blood to that person? No. Clearly, your blood may have issues that disallow it from being commingled with the victim's blood, etc, etc. Doctor's have to look into all of that. But, in the situation with an unborn baby, it can't be transferred to a new womb or a womb-like device (at least not yet) and therefore, the standard of care is for a woman to continue to maintain the child.

Admittedly, a unique situation, but, one that's not that hard to grasp. Not super-human rights, just a standard of care issue.

Even so, all of this discussion is a sidestep from the initial post, and moreover, a sidestep even if you want to talk about abortion. To date, the only exceptions for the intentional slaying of another human being with malice aforethought are:

1. self-defense
2. necessity (think of people starving on a boat, and one plucks the unlucky straw)
3. extreme duress (kill so and so or I will murder your whole family)
4. abortion

Talking about duty of care assumes a civil situation, what to do when someone is injured and, even though you didn't mean it, it's your fault. But this is a situation where one is intentionally ending the life of another. We're just discussing whether or not that "other" deserves the typical rights anyone else has.

it says "to consume by fire; burn."

that pretty much covers it.



Yes it was the heat was used to heat the building, but that was not the reason behind the inciniration. 


Actually you missed a few and you have two that don't belong.

You missed "defense of others", war, and capital punishment. 

Necessity is not a defense for murder.  See Regina v. Dudley and Stephens.  (It is a famous boat case.)

Nor is duress a defense for murder, but can be raised as defense for other crimes such as theft. 

Fetuses are not human beings. They are not even viable until the 24th week minimum, usually it is 26 or more.

Because the state should not authorize the killing of a person to save another's life.  This squares perfectly with legal abortion, as a zygote or fetus is not a person.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't say "to consume by fire; burn, insofar as one uses the burned object for fuel." The purpose of what you are burning it for matters, as it colors the whole act. Again, your car doesn't cremate fuel, because cremation implies no further use for the thing burned. When you burn a flag for a political purpose, you don't cremate it. You burn or incinerate it, but you don't cremate it.


Again, you need to read the article. In the 6th paragraph:

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.

Clearly, they were burning the children for energy to heat the building. It wasn't as if the heat just accidentally flew into the hospital as a lucky consequence.


I appreciate your statement of faith about this matter, but without more, it's merely a statement of faith.


I appreciate your statement of faith about this matter, but without more, it's merely a statement of faith.

Also, we live in a pluralistic society. So do the brits. Not everyone agrees with the statement of faith you made, so, why shove it down everyone's throats?

Finally, there's no Roe v. Wade in Britain, so, there's nothing to say their constitution doesn't consider fetuses people. There's merely an act which exempts a person who procures an abortion from criminal prosecution if the correct criteria are reached.

LOL at fetuses being human.

See, here's the thing:  if we accept your premise that fetuses are persons, then this story is not "British hospitals burning aborted fetuses for fuel," but rather "British hospitals murdering thousands of children."  And given that we have also been murdering thousands of children in the U.S. every year for decades, this isn't exactly news.

That's my point.  This story only has gravity if you consider a fetus to be a person, but if that's true, the disposal of the bodies is a far distant second to their state-sanctioned murder.

Furthermore:

If you don't like abortions, then don't have one?  I think you have the roles reversed on that shoving down others' throats part.

even if they are human .. they have no inherit right to the mother's body .. they are there purely through consent.

Agreed 100%. This isn't the Handmaid's Tale or some shit.

If the mother didn't want to have a child, then she shouldn't have had sex, or she should have used protection.  Isn't that what is said to the men that become reluctant fathers???

This sounds like some straight up MRA (Men's Rights Activist) bullshit. Do carry on!

^^^ He is right. If you don't want a child then either don't have sex or make sure everyone uses protection. It's not 100% protection but at least you could say you tried.  :-X But, this is off topic anyway.

It's not really off topic .. the topic is that somehow an an aborted fetus carries more inherent rights than a piece of medical waste.

I don't know what is more on topic than the underlying cause of that belief.

If you don't want a pregnancy, then terminate the pregnancy. It's very very simple.  I don't have the right to tell a woman she must carry to term. Even were the fetus recognized as a human being and legally represented. A human being doesn't have the right to be a parasite off of another human being without consent. A human being cannot be forced into being an organ donor .. or a blood donor. We are forcing women to be a uterus donors when they are prevented from terminating a pregnancy when they want to.

This brings me to the hypocrisy of the libertarian wing of the republican party. if you are a libertarian .. you by definition MUST support the freedom of the mothers to not have the government dictate their forced continued medical state. Those of us who value freedom can no more force a woman to remain pregnant than we can prevent a person from having elective plastic surgery or from having a wisdom tooth removed.

::slowclap::

Actual its about Human Rights, sorry but a large percentage of the worldwide population disagrees with you about when life begins.

right and wrong isn't a popularity contest

Buddha, it's not quite MRA.

MRA advocates say since women can opt out, let men opt out too.
Pro-lifers say since men can't opt out, don't let women opt out either.

There is a difference.

First off I'm not a Republican or right winger, far from it, I'm a middle of the road Democrat.  Secondly, I am a pro life person, not a zealot about the topic, but I believe abortion is wrong except in certain situations such as the health of the mother.

I'd agree the article that is the source of this topic was written for shock value and to inflame the discussion.  I'm sure the hospitals were just using the most cost effective method of disposing of medical waste, I think its sad that aborted or miscarried babies fall into this category.

However, I strongly disagree with your comments about an unborn child being a parasite, and that we are forcing women to be uterus donors.  Unless its a case of rape, or the woman was not mentally right, then she knew that having unprotected sex could lead to a pregnancy.  There are consequences to actions.

I'm not female so it doesn't affect me either way. I do agree with you though. The child isn't being forced upon the mother. The mother made a choice to have sex. The mother should be held accountable for her actions. Not doing so teaches people that they can do things and not be held accountable. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. While I'm not strictly against abortion, I feel that women that use it as a form of birth control should be sterilized upon using that option. If you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, make sure those actions aren't an option in the future.

I'm not even taking a stance on this issue, but a fetus is quite literally a parasite.

Uhm...hold the fuck up. Isn't having an abortion taking responsibility for your actions? Let's work through this.Shit went down. Woman gets pregnant. Woman can't be pregnant now for whatever reason. Woman has abortion. She took responsibility for her actions. Done and done.



Actually, I agree with you on this one. Either way, they're all assholes.

And, masterfins, a fetus is EXACTLY what a parasite is. You must have been asleep on that day in science class. Or maybe you just like to punish those dirty, filthy whores for all that sexing!

As stated above, isn't having an abortion taking responsibility for your actions? Please explain.

i never said you were a republican .. i didn't even mean to imply it. It was more of a comment on the hypocrisy of the R. Paul wing of the party.

I believe smoking cigarettes is wrong. I don't try to force my views on other people. I believe not vaccinating your children is wrong and selfishly evil. I don't want the government to arrest parents that refuse to vaccinate their children.

If you believe that abortion is wrong, then by all means .. don't have one. I would never think of asking you to.

You can disagree with my characterization of parasite, as long as you tell me what one being feeding off of and at the detriment of another being against their consent is called.

I'm trying to understand your views, truly. What is your basis for prohibiting women from terminating pregnancies?

Why would you chose to interfere with free market transactions?

A woman pays a doctor to terminate a pregnancy. A doctor performs a service. What is your basis for government interference in a private transaction?

Uhm...no, you hold the fuck up.

The bolded part above it the part that you're glossing over. If woman gets pregnant, why can't woman be pregnant right now, barring a medical reason or rape? An abortion for only birth control and/or convenience reasons is not being responsible. Being responsible would be not getting pregnant in the first place and taking care of your kid when you do.

If a fetus is a parasite, then why on earth would a person have a parasite inserted deep inside their body for no reason to begin with? Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

There is no need to pay a doctor to terminate a parasite unless there is a risk to the mother. The parasite will terminate automatically in approximately 9 months.  ;)

There are a million and one reasons a woman can't be pregnant right now. Maybe she's unemployed, too young, in school, 50 years old and thought her baby making days were over. The list goes on and on. But...the biggest reason is she does not want to have a baby or be pregnant.

Having an abortion IS being responsible. I don't quite understand how it's not unless you're one of those that believes a clump of cells is a person and if that's the case then nothing I say is going to change your mind. I just hope that you were ok being a father to every woman you've ever slept with rather it was casual or not. Because once she's knocked up you're on the hook, too. No abortions allowed.

No abortions needed. As easy as it would be to do, I don't go around knocking people up all the time. Ah, yes, fatherless children. Go look that demographic up and see who's getting all of the abortions. That may have something to do with it. But then again, a new thread may be needed for that one.

pondwater would rather women put their kids on welfare than be responsible and terminate the pregnancy.

it's a matter of intent .. if a woman intends to carry full term .. it's not a parasite .. if a woman is forced to carry it to term against her will by the government .. then it's a parasite ..  .. it's the difference between a volunteer army and the draft . .between charity and taxes .. you should recognize the difference

That's what it sounds like. I guess he's ok with paying those tax dollars.

No, he'd likely bitch about that too...

Of course he would. So precious.

Protected sex can lead to pregnancies.  So can using the pill.  So can "pulling out."  So is it abstinence or nothing, then?

That's not a very meaningful statement if you're the one enforcing unnecessary consequences.  This is the 21st century, not the 12th; sex does not have to lead to a full-term pregnancy any more than a baby that cannot safely fit through the birth canal has to result in the death of the baby, mother, or both.

Your argument is no different than saying, "My wife chose to backtalk me, and so she got punched in the face.  Actions have consequences."  The consequence only follows the action because you are forcing it to do so.

Why would they have to put their kids on welfare? Responsibility would be to get a job and support your kids. Not really hard to do for most of us. But I guess some people are lazy and would rather game the system. As I said, go look up the demographics of who's getting all the abortions and welfare. Now that's something to bitch about.

So "responsibility" means not having sex unless you can afford kids.
Even though medical technology removed that as a necessary consequence 50 years ago.
Right.

You are trying to enforce pregnancy as a moral punishment for having sex.  And for the children of those who fail the morality test of being too poor to have sex?  Well, they certainly don't deserve welfare, so I guess they should starve.

That will teach those children to be born to poor people that like to have sex.

So, as I stated before, pregnancy is a way to show those dirty, poor sluts.

Oh please.  I know many couples that have traveled around the globe just to adopt.  Any woman in the US that wanted to give their baby up for adoption would have a line around the block with people wanting to take the baby.

Yeah I definitely missed that day in science class.  I just hope you and Buddhagirl don't go around to friends and family who are pregnant and call their unborn children parasites.

I guess I'm the poster-sperm for this situation, as I've impregnated women five times in my life, and on at least two of those occasions, I was wearing a condom. Some tadpoles will just not be denied...

Are you really intimating that any relevant percentage of unwanted pregnancies are the result of the failure of the proper use of proven birth control methods (excluding the 'pulling out" method because that method is just dumb).  I grant you there are instances of pregnancies occurring even while using birth control, but this is very minor.

You are exceptional, but I'm sure you already know that.   :D

It's pretty basic, I believe that life begins once the egg becomes fertilized.  Therefore purposefully terminating a pregnancy is snuffing out a life, and is morally wrong.  Life is the utmost, it can't be compared or put on the same level of anything else.

If you want to look at it from the legal perspective, late term pregnancies are illegal because the fetus can survive outside the womb.  Well medical advancements are constantly pushing back the time in which a baby can survive.  It wouldn't surprise me if 50 years from now a baby could be grown completely outside the womb.  Then what???  Does advanced technology somehow change the value of that life??  Does abortion then become illegal again?

I'm not anti abortion as some sort of punishment, quite the contrary I'd rather see women in this situation receive help and support, and I would donate or pay taxes to help.  However, preferably I would rather not see them get into a situation that they are not ready for, or are unable to handle.  I don't think you can deny that the availability of abortions allows people (men and women) to act with a lack of responsibility.

Do you see the termination of the pregnancy as the direct killing of the fetus or do you see the death of the fetus as a side-effect of the pregnancy termination ?

Do you believe in abortion in cases of rape ?

I don't want to make assumptions or put words in your mouth so I'd like to know what exactly you believe and why you believe it.

RESPONSIBILITY IS GETTING AN ABORTION. FULL STOP.

Of course, you think a clump of cells is a person. What next? You're going to tell me you're a creationist and believe the sun orbits the earth?

And yeah...forcing women to carry pregnancies to birth is a punishment if she does not choose to do so. You're taking away the woman's autonomy.

I hope you're busy adopting all the babies right now and sponsoring mothers that didn't want to be pregnant, but decided to keep their kids. Otherwise, you need to step to the left.

Did they break?

If they did, do you have some recourse against the condom company?

No idea...and no idea. The last time it happened was over 20 years ago.

Question:

If I was a woman and I got pregnant by a rich person, should I celebrate?

Just when I thought I had completed the final edits of my groundbreaking psychological research paper:

The Unabridged Catalog of Dolphins4life's Bizarre Mental Issues and Personality Quirks

...BOOM, you hit me with a whole new chapter.  ;)

I was actually trying to make a point with this post.

It seems the path we are headed on in society is that we are teaching people that the way to easy street is to get yourself pregnant.

This is not a good path to head down, in my opinion.

I am all for helping the poor, but I am not for rewarding irresponsibility.

Simple: a pregnant woman says, "I no longer wish to be pregnant" and drops her fertilized embryo off at the prenatal adoption clinic, where it is incubated until it's ready for new adoptive parents to take it home.  (Though the question of who pays for this is sure to elicit lots of hilarious rhetorical backpedaling from conservatives.)

The issue is whether the government should force a person to be an unwilling host to a fetus for 9 months.  In the current state of medicine, deciding that you want to have sex is NOT the same thing as deciding that you want to have a child (in both respects: you can have sex without becoming a parent, and you can become a parent without having sex).  The only reason sex may be considered implicit parental responsibility is because some choose to enforce their morality about sexual activity on others.

That would be a perfect world. The mother could get rid of the fetus, the baby could be born on a test tube, then it would be adopted by all those people lined up around the block.

Sounds like a win-win. Let's get to work on this!