British hospitals burned bodies of aborted, miscarried babies to heat buildings

[Sunstroke]

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

Taxidermy?

[CF DolFan]

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?

[Dolphster]

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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

An aborted fetus, IMO, should be cremated.

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.   

In other news kind of along this line as far as those of us wanting the kids to be adopted instead of killed

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. 

[Spider-Dan]

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 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.

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.

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

[SCFinfan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

But of course, these bodies weren't cremated. They were merely burnt to create energy.

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. 

[Fau Teixeira]

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...

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.

[SCFinfan]

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

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.

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. 

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.

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, 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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

it says "to consume by fire; burn."

that pretty much covers it.

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.

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

 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

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. 

[bsmooth]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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?

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.

[SCFinfan]

it says "to consume by fire; burn."

that pretty much covers it.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[Buddhagirl]

LOL at fetuses being human.

[Spider-Dan]

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

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.

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:

Not everyone agrees with the statement of faith you made, so, why shove it down everyone's throats?

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.