Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat UK Hospitals" - The Telegraph

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christianbookworm
    replied
    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
    To answer another question, we also have to give sex ed classes in nursing homes and give out condoms because the dementia folks like each other. A LOT. And they really can't control themselves.
    Guess that disproves a stereotype...

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    To answer another question, we also have to give sex ed classes in nursing homes and give out condoms because the dementia folks like each other. A LOT. And they really can't control themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Really Carrikature? You want me to read through 11 pages before you give me a straight answer? What am I missing? Were not aborted babies incinerated to help heat hospitals? Where was the title so off Carrikature?
    I want you to read through 11 pages so we can avoid rehashing all of it here, and so that the discussion can be held to a single location. I've already given you a straight answer in this thread. That you hand-waved does not change that fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No Carrikature you said the title "Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat UK Hospitals" was a gross misrepresentation when that was exactly what did take place. So what if it was only 2,000 dead babies...
    The cremation without consent is rightfully condemned, yes. However, so should the fact that the article (and similar ones) was hyping the issue should also be noted and likewise condemned. It's not right to condemn such techniques sometimes but tacitly condone it when it suits one.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I'd suggest you go read the thread in civics.
    Really Carrikature? You want me to read through 11 pages before you give me a straight answer? What am I missing? Were not aborted babies incinerated to help heat hospitals? Where was the title so off Carrikature?

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No Carrikature you said the title "Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat UK Hospitals" was a gross misrepresentation when that was exactly what did take place. So what if it was only 2,000 dead babies...
    I'd suggest you go read the thread in civics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    wrt= with respect to. At least I think so anyway.
    Thanks.

    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    WRT = with regards to

    It doesn't sound like we're really disagreeing at this point, though.




    Ok.




    Oh sure. I expect that to be the case for some time to come, but there are trends that make me wonder.
    Fair enough. :)

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    As I've mentioned in the civics thread, the author has portrayed the exception as the rule. Yes, there were ~2,000 unborn babies incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Compare that to the ~15,500 total unborn babies incinerated.
    No Carrikature you said the title "Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat UK Hospitals" was a gross misrepresentation when that was exactly what did take place. So what if it was only 2,000 dead babies...

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Hmm, didn't seem like it in your last response but it wouldn't be my first time making a mistake.

    However, before I concede to such, just what exactly is a 'wrt'?

    FYI: I was referring to the legitimate criticism of the opponents, not the article itself.
    WRT = with regards to

    It doesn't sound like we're really disagreeing at this point, though.


    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Didn't say you did - just pointing out the obvious since a fetus can be aborted based on its 'non-human' status (non-person being the Roe workaround).
    Ok.


    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Anecdotally, I've seen incredibly few married couples in my career - and only a handful of those were actually living together.
    Oh sure. I expect that to be the case for some time to come, but there are trends that make me wonder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    wrt= with respect to. At least I think so anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    If only marriage had the sexual restrictions it once did (assuming it ever did).
    Anecdotally, I've seen incredibly few married couples in my career - and only a handful of those were actually living together.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post


    I certainly read the article. I've done so a few times now. The legitimate criticism is wrt disposing of the remains as clinical waste. What happens to that waste is unrelated. The rest of this I agree with.
    Hmm, didn't seem like it in your last response but it wouldn't be my first time making a mistake.

    However, before I concede to such, just what exactly is a 'wrt'?

    FYI: I was referring to the legitimate criticism of the opponents, not the article itself.

    Originally posted by Carry

    I never said otherwise. All I've done is mention that 'human remains' are a subset of 'biological waste'. I haven't claimed that the fetus switches categories at any point.
    Didn't say you did - just pointing out the obvious since a fetus can be aborted based on its 'non-human' status (non-person being the Roe workaround).
    Last edited by Teallaura; 03-26-2014, 11:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    Aren't some of those diseases transmitted other ways too? Why would there still be people practicing unsafe sex?!
    1) Sarcasm - I'm perfectly fine with being put out of work - that's the goal of my job.

    2) Yes, some are transmitted in other ways but the majority of transmissions of the four major (Syphilis, HIV, GC and CT) are sexual. I haven't heard of a confirmed case of transfusion-caused syphilis infection in my entire 18 year career. Needle-sharing as an actual risk factor is mostly confined to those who are already high risk (drug abusers aren't exactly known for celibacy) - so if you saw a true decline in sexual transmission, we'd expect to see a needle-sharing decline following it. I suppose the toilet seat thing is also a possibility if the idiot is high enough to not notice the really icky stuff he/she is sitting in - but that would be the only way (Can it happen innocently? Only if you literally are blind or too intoxicated to care).

    The reality is that STD's follow promiscuity so if you reduce promiscuity you reduce STD. As a side effect, you also reduce the number of non-sexual transmissions because the pool of infected people is much smaller (Bob might have gotten it sharing a needle with Tom but Tom got it having sex with Dave - so even 'non-sexual' trace back eventually to sexual infections).

    3) Because people is stoopid. Human stupidity plays an incredible role in most disease transmission from STD to staph (hey, Doc! Wash your hands already!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    Or better yet, find something else to do entirely or get married!
    If only marriage had the sexual restrictions it once did (assuming it ever did).

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    And too bad you didn't read it, huh? The legit criticism is that they put an immediate halt to it as 'inappropriate'.

    But the obvious issue remains - if the fetus is not human for legal and ethical purposes then why is anyone surprised when 'non-human' remains are mistreated? The problem is the contradictory view that uses varying definitions dependent on political whim.


    I certainly read the article. I've done so a few times now. The legitimate criticism is wrt disposing of the remains as clinical waste. What happens to that waste is unrelated. The rest of this I agree with.


    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Can't be both - the fetus is either human while alive or it's not. Its remains don't magically become 'human' after death.
    I never said otherwise. All I've done is mention that 'human remains' are a subset of 'biological waste'. I haven't claimed that the fetus switches categories at any point.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Teallaura, 06-25-2022, 05:11 PM
5 responses
40 views
2 likes
Last Post Teallaura  
Started by rogue06, 12-06-2021, 08:03 AM
12 responses
141 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X