Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals

EternalSolace

GetHyped
reply to post by EternalSolace

 

A lot of hospital waste is "incinerate only" because it's considered a bio-hazard.

This proves my point. An aborted fetus/human shouldn't be considered medical waste. That's just an attempt to justify those actions.

No, it's simple health and disease control.

GetHyped

EternalSolace

GetHyped
reply to post by EternalSolace

 

A lot of hospital waste is "incinerate only" because it's considered a bio-hazard.

This proves my point. An aborted fetus/human shouldn't be considered medical waste. That's just an attempt to justify those actions.

No, it's simple health and disease control.

And a good vikin or hindu funeral.

This should heat up the discussion some what

GetHyped

EternalSolace

GetHyped
reply to post by EternalSolace

 

A lot of hospital waste is "incinerate only" because it's considered a bio-hazard.

This proves my point. An aborted fetus/human shouldn't be considered medical waste. That's just an attempt to justify those actions.

No, it's simple health and disease control.

So is burying our dead.

EternalSolace


So is burying our dead.

What are you suggesting, give the mother a plastic bag containing a collection of blood, bodily fluids and tissue? Then what?

reply to post by GetHyped


I'm suggesting a little more respect for human remains. If you want to cremate them, that's fine. However, I don't condone remains being used as an energy source.

reply to post by GetHyped


I think at the very least the mother should be given the option of how she wants the child to be handled. I would think you could understand how a mother who was eagerly awaiting a child and miscarried of a late term baby might want to have a burial instead of having the remains unceremoniously dumped into an incinerator. How would that be any more or less sanitary than holding onto the remains of an adult corpse for burial?

EternalSolace
reply to post by GetHyped

 

I'm suggesting a little more respect for human remains. If you want to cremate them, that's fine. However, I don't condone remains being used as an energy source.

You make it sound as if they're callously tossing aborted fetuses into some boiler unit for the sole purposes of heating the hospital floors.

They're being incinerated. Rather than let that heat go to waste, it is being recycled.

GetHyped

EternalSolace


So is burying our dead.

What are you suggesting, give the mother a plastic bag containing a collection of blood, bodily fluids and tissue? Then what?

That's called the Amniotic sac.

reply to post by GetHyped


Which is a pretty blatant disrespect for the dead. It doesn't matter if there's a reverence to it or if they are callously placed into an incinerator.

Our deceased are not an energy source.

reply to post by EternalSolace


We are an energy source..we have mass therefore we have energy, but if you've seen the price for a burial plot these days in the UK it aint cheap as we don't have the space to spare like across the pond and i'd imagine that if requested then remains would be returned to the parents if requested but if they don't want it then what do they do? spend a fortune of public money to buy a plot for it?

All this is is just using the heat generated already in a better fashion, theres no extra throwing babies into the incinerator etc just to put the lights a bit brighter etc, the same thing probably happens in hospitals across the world including the USA its just not mentioned.

reply to post by Blundo


It doesn't make sense that the bodies/parts were the actual fuel that kept the fires going to heat the place. They had to burn the bodies with some other fuel in an incinerator, that is much different from a heating system. Bodies are not like firewood or coal or natural gas, you don't hold a match to a piece of meat and set it on fire, you need a fire from some other source that can boil off the water then the fat and then the flesh and organs. Bodies are found inside completely burned houses and they don't always get completely consumed nor do they add to the fire.

this story sounds bogus to me

reply to post by Maxatoria


Some parents asked what was being done with the remains and were told their babies were being "cremated." I doubt very much this is what those parents had in mind when they were thinking of cremation - being tossed into the incinerator with all the other bio-hazard waste.

simsumre
"But what's so wrong with socialism"
"We don't need guns in the UK"
"God save the Queen"

And this is what happens.

^ American idiot

Over one billion abortions world wide since Roe vs Wade

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Not really relevant since that was a 1973 case in the US.

reply to post by abe froman


Well, it's just medical waste like an amputated leg or a cut out appendix. Don't see any reason, other than possible clinical research and studies, to treat it any differently. What's all the fuss about anyways?

Violater1
I'm sure someone in D.C. will be reading this. Give it a few months and it will probably be added to ObamaCare.

And before any of you Yanks get all high and mighty about your Health services and our NHS, this happens in hospitals all over the world - at least in those in countries with strict guidelines on the disposal of clinical waste anyway. And yes, it even happens in the good old USA, so dismount your high horse and stop being so sanctimonious (this goes for everybody in this thread getting all uppity, not just you).

The article is also highly misleading - it makes out like there are piles and piles of aborted babies used to heat the hospital when in reality they are just a small part of the wider clinical waste incinerations.

GetHyped

simsumre
"But what's so wrong with socialism"
"We don't need guns in the UK"
"God save the Queen"

And this is what happens.

What does incinerating bio-hazardous hospital waste have to do with socialism, guns and the queen?

Nothing, just another moron displaying for the world his poor education and understanding of anything outside his own blinkered viewpoint.

Besides, like I said, they do this in the US as well and probably charge you for it too.

Under UK law a foetus is not regarded as human remains in the strictest sense. It is naturally an emotive subject but that's life.

Clinical waste is burned. Foetus' are regarded as clinical waste (remember that it is rarely more than an unidentifiable bundle of cells at the moment of abortion, it is not a baby until it is born). Mothers abort a foetus because it is not wanted.

No one is making the conscious decision to 'burn babies'. It is policy to use the heat generated by clinical waste to heat hospitals. Aborted foetuses are regarded as clinical waste. Simple.

Perhapse not a pleasant thought but the world is full of unpleasantness that most people remain ignorant of.

I personally think all dead should be used in energy fuel type practices.

After all, when youre dead, youre dead!! I don't see the hang up!!??

Cemeteries litter the land for no real reason!! IF people could understand, dead is dead, why keep a rotting body around in the ground taking up room. Never understood thing. At least those who cremate have sense unlike the ones who like to bury dead bodies all over the place!! Mental weakness!

so let me get this straight;
a face cord of babies is four by twice by eight?
awkward shapes...must be a beatch to stack against the celler wall