Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals - Polidicks

[QUOTE=aurum481;44348383]this reminds of the cremating facility (in germany?) which reclaimed heat from the burning to generate some power.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure this is the exact same concept, they have to cool the smoke and fumes coming out of the incinerator before it can be filtered, so they use the heat to generate electricity instead of wasting more with a standard cooling system

[QUOTE=Blazedol;44348395]Use them as food[/QUOTE]soylent green is babies!

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44348407]I feel somewhat wrong in the head for saying this but... Why is it a bad thing?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=wraithcat;44348435]We make damn sure not to consider them human beings. Becase the pychological impact would be pretty bad.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Terminutter;44348536]But it's not a human being, it's a bundle of stem cells. That's why it was allowed to be aborted. Callous as it sounds, it's a simple infection control policy, like most surgical or clinical equipment will be autoclaved or incinerated. The fact the heat from the incineration is used is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] This is my problem with a lot of pro-abortionists. You've simplified the issue to the point where you're confused by anything that doesn't fall into your wordview where "abortion = good". In reality there is no clear, logical distinction between a human and "a bundle of stem cell". Killing a fetus isn't ethically unquestionable. But the consensus in many societies is that the pros sometimes outweigh the cons. That doesn't mean you can't treat it with some dignity. Or do you throw your relatives in a dumpster when they die seeing as they're just decaying organic matter?

Nothing wrong with that, it's an unborn fetus for fuck's sake, not a baby (because you can't abort after X amount of time, forgot exactly how old). It's an efficient way to get rid of them instead of landfill like other medical waste. I personally don't see any problems with this, they're going to be disposed for in one way or another. Just like other waste for example body parts, aborted fetuses should be treated the same, otherwise there's a completely unnecessary waste of money because of some silly ideology.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348606]That doesn't mean you can't treat it with some dignity. Or do you throw your relatives in a dumpster when they die seeing as they're just decaying organic matter?[/QUOTE] I suppose you missed the part in the article where it says that families are allowed to decide what to do with the stillborn or miscarriage or what-have-you-not, and it's only the ones where they're like "Eh, whatevs, we don't need it" that get thrown into medical waste?

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348606]This is my problem with a lot of pro-abortionists. You've simplified the issue to the point where you're confused by anything that doesn't fall into your wordview where "abortion = good". In reality there is no clear, logical distinction between a human and "a bundle of stem cell". Killing a fetus isn't ethically unquestionable. But the consensus in many societies is that the pros sometimes outweigh the cons. That doesn't mean you can't treat it with some dignity. Or do you throw your relatives in a dumpster when they die seeing as they're just decaying organic matter?[/QUOTE] I am not confused at all. It's simple stages and can be broken down. A foetus is not yet human, and is an infection control risk, thus needs to be disposed of as waste. A neonate or newborn is human, and thus should be treated with the same respect you should treat any other dead body, which is pretty considerable - take a look at the rules required for dissection rooms. From an ethical point of view the parents should be offered the choice of keeping the dead cells if they want to, and they are, but if they don't want to, then I see nothing wrong with incineration - after all, the cells have to be disposed of somehow. The true controversy is the usual abortion one of when you consider the foetus to be a human. I'd probably go for brain activity that's not autonomic there.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348606]This is my problem with a lot of pro-abortionists. You've simplified the issue to the point where you're confused by anything that doesn't fall into your wordview where "abortion = good". In reality there is no clear, logical distinction between a human and "a bundle of stem cell". Killing a fetus isn't ethically unquestionable. But the consensus in many societies is that the pros sometimes outweigh the cons. That doesn't mean you can't treat it with some dignity. Or do you throw your relatives in a dumpster when they die seeing as they're just decaying organic matter?[/QUOTE] Uh-huh.... So let me shoot you a question, if the parents got the abortion because they didn't want the child, and never went about naming it or even creating a history or reason for its existence outside of a broken condom, what ratifies it some form of "dignity"? It was not born, it may of been accidentally created and wasn't wanted. So as such, it deserves no marked funeral, no form of "dignity" because it does not exist yet as a human being. That is why it is cremated, and given purpose for it's accidental existence.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348606]Or do you throw your relatives in a dumpster when they die seeing as they're just decaying organic matter?[/QUOTE] This made me laugh for some reason, I'm going to hell. You're right though, and make a very strong point.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348606]This is my problem with a lot of pro-abortionists. You've simplified the issue to the point where you're confused by anything that doesn't fall into your wordview where "abortion = good". In reality there is no clear, logical distinction between a human and "a bundle of stem cell". Killing a fetus isn't ethically unquestionable. But the consensus in many societies is that the pros sometimes outweigh the cons. That doesn't mean you can't treat it with some dignity. Or do you throw your relatives in a dumpster when they die seeing as they're just decaying organic matter?[/QUOTE] Fine. I'll treat these fetuses the same way I treat everyone else I know. When they're dead and gone, send the remains to a reclaiming facility. Extract every single piece of conceivably useful matter (stem cells here) and do what you will for the rest. Burn it, bury it, put it on display in one of those human body exhibits. All that matters with the dead is that you respect their final wishes and their legacy. If they really wanted some tangible part to be buried somewhere special then by all means bury their body sans organs or something. But to leave some arbitrary part of someone in the ground just so you feel better for a while is not only pointless, but from a utilitarian standpoint, wasteful at best and outright selfish at worst. This, by the way, is coming from someone whose entire family has unanimously agreed, on their own accord, to do exactly what I have just explained. I feel a death is far more meaningful if it is beneficial to others and not just a time to mourn.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;44348646]I am not confused at all. It's simple stages and can be broken down. A foetus is not yet human, and is an infection control risk, thus needs to be disposed of as waste. A neonate or newborn is human, and thus should be treated with the same respect you should treat any other dead body, which is pretty considerable - take a look at the rules required for dissection rooms. From an ethical point of view the parents should be offered the choice of keeping the dead cells if they want to, and they are, but if they don't want to, then I see nothing wrong with incineration - after all, the cells have to be disposed of somehow. The true controversy is the usual abortion one of when you consider the foetus to be a human. I'd probably go for brain activity that's not autonomic there.[/QUOTE] Finally someone who has proper background knowledge. Yeah, in the hospital I work at this the general consensus about it is that it poses a risk to infection control and should be incinerated, and it's probably more 'humane' than shoving a fetus in a bag with other random bits and bobs from other people, including faecal matter, blood, body parts etc waiting to be dumped in landfill somewhere.

[QUOTE=Gustafa;44348425]There is a lot of things wrong with burning a human being, alive or dead, to heat a building.[/QUOTE] honestly its more cruel bringing a child you dont care about and arent ready to take care of into the world that being said man this thread is edgy as fuck

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348606]Or do you throw your relatives in a dumpster when they die seeing as they're just decaying organic matter?[/QUOTE] Hell, throw me in a dumpster. I don't see why people should bother with elaborate rituals, considering I'm dead and won't be able to appreciate my dead body anymore. Render it down for explosives and oil, and grind up the rest for fertilizer.

Well I am conflicted by this thread. I don't know if I can say anything more about it. On one hand it's good that they're being used for something that will somewhat assist others while on the other hand it just seems weird to be burning the shit out of what would most likely have become a child...

[QUOTE=Terminutter;44348646]I am not confused at all. It's simple stages and can be broken down. A foetus is not yet human, and is an infection control risk, thus needs to be disposed of as waste. A neonate or newborn is human, and thus should be treated with the same respect you should treat any other dead body, which is pretty considerable - take a look at the rules required for dissection rooms. From an ethical point of view the parents should be offered the choice of keeping the dead cells if they want to, and they are, but if they don't want to, then I see nothing wrong with incineration - after all, the cells have to be disposed of somehow. The true controversy is the usual abortion one of when you consider the foetus to be a human. I'd probably go for brain activity that's not autonomic there.[/QUOTE] You can break it down in whatever stages you want. It will still be human, made-up classification. There is no scientific answer to this question. Personally I consider self-awareness and developed thinking to be the most defining human characteristics. Would it then be ethical to quickly and painlessly kill an unwanted 1 year old? Maybe, but most people wouldn't be confortable with it. In the end that will be the deciding factor (what people are confortable with), not some arbitrary definitions of life. [QUOTE=Pilotguy97;44348662]Fine. I'll treat these fetuses the same way I treat everyone else I know. When they're dead and gone, send the remains to a reclaiming facility. Extract every single piece of conceivably useful matter (stem cells here) and do what you will for the rest. Burn it, bury it, put it on display in one of those human body exhibits. All that matters with the dead is that you respect their final wishes and their legacy. If they really wanted some tangible part to be buried somewhere special then by all means bury their body sans organs or something. But to leave some arbitrary part of someone in the ground just so you feel better for a while is not only pointless, but from a utilitarian standpoint, wasteful at best and outright selfish at worst. This, by the way, is coming from someone whose entire family has unanimously agreed, on their own accord, to do exactly what I have just explained. I feel a death is far more meaningful if it is beneficial to others and not just a time to mourn.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44348676]Hell, throw me in a dumpster. I don't see why people should bother with elaborate rituals, considering I'm dead and won't be able to appreciate my dead body anymore. Render it down for explosives and oil, and grind up the rest for fertilizer.[/QUOTE] If you truly believe this you have a consistent standpoint and my argument doesn't apply to you specifically.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348707]You can break it down in whatever stages you want. It will still be human, made-up classification. There is no scientific answer to this question. Personally [B]I consider self-awareness and developed thinking to be the most defining human characteristics. Would it then be ethical to quickly and painlessly kill an unwanted 1 year old?[/B] Maybe, but most people wouldn't be confortable with it. In the end that will be the deciding factor (what people are confortable with), not some arbitrary definitions of life. If you truly believe this you have a consistent standpoint and my argument doesn't apply to you specifically.[/QUOTE] What a straw man argument, babies and toddlers CAN recognize themselves in the mirror, this is higher level intelligence very few DEVELOPED animals share and shows a clear case of self awareness

Incoming 10 page abortion argument

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;44348733]What a straw man argument, babies and toddlers CAN recognize themselves in the mirror, this is higher level intelligence very few DEVELOPED animals share and shows a clear case of self awareness[/QUOTE] Fetuses can't.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348707]You can break it down in whatever stages you want. It will still be human, made-up classification. There is no scientific answer to this question. Personally I consider self-awareness and developed thinking to be the most defining human characteristics. Would it then be ethical to quickly and painlessly kill an unwanted 1 year old? Maybe, but most people wouldn't be confortable with it. In the end that will be the deciding factor (what people are confortable with), not some arbitrary definitions of life.[/QUOTE] Of course it is a human, made up classification. Autism and other such conditions are based solely on a sliding scale determined by an expert and certain criteria, as is the severity of asthma. Obesity is done on a scale comparing mass against height, or waist width against hip width. The recommended doses of medicine are done based on observed and measured characteristics, based on the presentation of the patient. The dose of x-rays given in an examination is broken down based on the area being examined, the type of examination and the structure of the individual being imaged, and ultimately you have to decide if you need to up the kvp or mas, there's no set value, it's a judgement call on the operator. When you get to medicine, most things are classified along seemingly arbitrary scales, it's the main consensus that needs to be met instead for such things. Which is what brings us down to the question. If it is an aborted foetus - (let's accept that it's been categorised as a foetus for the abortion to be carried out), broken up and vacuumed out (seriously, abortions are pretty grim - I'd sooner have a barium enema than one if I was female) and the parents don't want it, then what else does the hospital do with it?

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;44348733]What a straw man argument, babies and toddlers CAN recognize themselves in the mirror, this is higher level intelligence very few DEVELOPED animals share and shows a clear case of self awareness[/QUOTE] The terms "self-awareness" and "developed thinking" leave some room for interpretation. How about actual introspection? Let's not get sidetracked. My point was that "human life" can be defined in a number of ways and that you can't avoid the debate by picking a definition that suits you. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_personhood[/url]

We have a [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9101874/Minister-praises-plan-to-heat-swimming-pool-from-fires-of-crematorium.html"]crematorium that heats a swimming pool[/URL] and I think the idea's great. I'd love the fact the even when I'm dead, I'm doing something useful.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348781]The terms "self-awareness" and "developed thinking" leave some room for interpretation. How about actual introspection? Let's not get sidetracked. My point was that "human life" can be defined in a number of ways and that you can't avoid the debate by picking a definition that suits you. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_personhood[/url][/QUOTE] That means your argument is one against abortion, rather than the topic of disposing of aborted remains. By aborting, the foetus has been accepted as not yet a human. I'd say my classification of non-autonomic is fairly reasonable in that it basically means no conscious thought or frontal brain activity, it's pretty much limited to the brain stem, medulla and such until somewhere like 20 weeks, after which it is [I]possible[/I] it can consciously think, but in the end it's something that we'd gnash teeth at each other for a long, long time as there is no concrete definition, and it's unlikely there ever will be based on the polarity of it.

How about just reasoning that if the parents both decide they don't want a god damn kid and probably won't be suited to care for the thing very well and/or outright can't provide for the baby so having a baby would ruin the life of the parents and give a shitty life for the kids, you have an abortion? No sane person in the history of ever has ever gone "I [B]want[/B] to have an abortion!", they've always gone "I don't want to have a baby" and the only solution to that once the on-board 3D printer is fired up is to pull the plug. Simple as that.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;44348769]Which is what brings us down to the question. If it is an aborted foetus - (let's accept that it's been categorised as a foetus for the abortion to be carried out), broken up and vacuumed out (seriously, abortions are pretty grim - I'd sooner have a barium enema than one if I was female) and the parents don't want it, then what else does the hospital do with it?[/QUOTE] The article clearly states: [quote]...parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.[/quote] But I wasn't really commentating on the article, more on a percieved inability of some posters to comprehend why people would care about these things.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44348813]The article clearly states: But I wasn't really commentating on the article, more on a percieved inability of some posters to comprehend why people would care about these things.[/QUOTE] The article also clearly states [quote]A spokesman for the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said that trained health professionals discuss the options with parents ‘both verbally and in writing.’ "The parents are given exactly the same choice on the disposal of foetal remains as for a stillborn child and their personal wishes are respected,” they added.[/quote] It strikes me as misconduct on the parts of the staff who did not ask the questions as they should, rather than a policy issue.

Time to tell everyone even expecting mother's what keeps em warm at night in the hospital....anguish cries of souls that never were.

Incineration is the cleanest and most dignified way to dispose of a body. Why would anyone oppose this in favour of dumping the body along with other waste, or letting it slowly decompose in a hole somewhere?

Hot.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;44348880]Incineration is the cleanest and most dignified way to dispose of a body. Why would anyone oppose this in favour of dumping the body along with other waste, or letting it slowly decompose in a hole somewhere?[/QUOTE] The problem is they're using them to heat the building. It's pretty distasteful in my opinion.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;44348950]The problem is they're using them to heat the building. It's pretty distasteful in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Why, though? You got some heat that you're putting to use, as opposed to just venting it outside. Why is it wrong to use a byproduct of a procedure like that? [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] It's not like they're going "Cancer ward is getting cold, toss some more babies on the bonfire!". They're running an incinerator for organic medical waste, and that includes some baby-bits and proto-babies. That incinerator takes a lot of energy to run, and that energy is then getting reused in the form of thermal to heat the hospital.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;44348880]Incineration is the cleanest and most dignified way to dispose of a body. Why would anyone oppose this in favour of dumping the body along with other waste, or letting it slowly decompose in a hole somewhere?[/QUOTE] Nobody does that, incineration is the standard for biohazardous waste disposal. Incineration isn't the issue, the issue is not consulting the parents on how to disposition the remains.