How Many Fetuses Equal A Cord of Wood?

[Tiberius]

The issue in the case is straightforward. The Affordable Care Act requires employers who provide health insurance to their employees to include coverage for contraception. The owners of Hobby Lobby, a large (thirteen-thousand-employee), privately held chain of stores, regard certain kinds of birth control (like the I.U.D. and morning-after pills) as forms of abortion, which is against their religious principles. Does the employees’ right to choose and obtain birth control trump the employer’s right to religious freedom?

 

...

There was little doubt where the Court’s three female Justices stood. After Paul Clement, the lawyer for Hobby Lobby, began his argument, twenty-eight of the first thirty-two questions to him came from Ruth Bader Ginsburg (four questions), Sonia Sotomayor (eleven), and Elena Kagan (thirteen). The queries varied, of course, but they were all variations on a theme. The trio saw the case from the perspective of the women employees. They regarded the employer as the party in the case with the money and the power. Sotomayor asked, “Is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives, or does it include items like blood transfusion, vaccines? For some religions, products made of pork? Is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well?” Clement hedged in response. When Clement asserted that Hobby Lobby’s owners, because of their Christian values, did care about making sure that their employees had health insurance, Kagan shot back:

I’m sure they want to be good employers. But again, that’s a different thing than saying that their religious beliefs mandate them to provide health insurance, because here Congress has said that the health insurance that they’re providing is not adequate, it’s not the full package.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/women-supreme-court-justices-hobby-lobby-birth-control.html

[Security]

I'll mention this again since it appears that my first mention of this got lost in all the bickering: human tissue, fetus or no, is terrible fuel for heating anything. it takes a hell of a lot more energy to burn tissue than can be released by burning it. all moral questions aside, it seems ridiculous to even entertain the concept of burning animal tissue as a source of heat energy. it would be like tossing a slab of raw meat into the fireplace on a chilly night, expecting to gain the same warmth as you would had you instead used wood.

 

the hospital has to be augmenting their existing heating system by adding the resultant heat radiation from their biomedical incinerator. either that, or they're dessicating/mummifying the tissue first. mummies would burn pretty easily.

 

I have seen you say this a few times. I think the cost of disposing of this perceived waste separately supersedes whatever it is you are talking in meat not burning well. It is one large bucket.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Security

[Azalin]

http://www.newyorker...th-control.html

 

and the relevance to this discussion is.................?

[Tiberius]

and the relevance to this discussion is.................?

Values...

[Azalin]

I have seen you say this a few times. I think the cost disposing of this perceived waste separately supersedes whatever it is you are talking in meat now burning well. It is one large bucket.

I only said it once before, and it doesn't seem that you get the point. first, neither I or anyone else (as far as I can tell) has any issue with the incineration of biomedical waste, whether fetus or not. the point of contention is in using such things as a form of heating, since they're going to be burned anyway. many people find that to be ghoulish and/or repugnant, based on their own personal morals, while others see no trouble with the practice. that's an honest difference in personal beliefs. all I am trying to say is that it's a really stupid argument to make to say 'well, we may as well heat the building with all this biomedical waste'. in a time where many people on both the right AND the left believe energy conservation to be a good thing, to embrace the concept of actually using biomedical waste for purposes of heating is retarded. it takes a much more intense flame, at a much higher heat to destroy biomedical waste than it goes to ignite natural gas, burn heating oil, etc. it's simple practicality, and it makes the concept of using such things as fuel completely illogical.

[3rdnlng]

Values...

 

Horseshit! It's just another attempt on your part to confuse a thread. You habitually ruin threads, and it's obvious you do it on purpose. You bring nothing but assmudgeonry to this board.

[Azalin]

You bring nothing but assmudgeonry to this board.

to his credit, he does so better than anyone else.

[B-Man]

I only said it once before, and it doesn't seem that you get the point. first, neither I or anyone else (as far as I can tell) has any issue with the incineration of biomedical waste, whether fetus or not. the point of contention is in using such things as a form of heating, since they're going to be burned anyway. many people find that to be ghoulish and/or repugnant, based on their own personal morals, while others see no trouble with the practice. that's an honest difference in personal beliefs. all I am trying to say is that it's a really stupid argument to make to say 'well, we may as well heat the building with all this biomedical waste'. in a time where many people on both the right AND the left believe energy conservation to be a good thing, to embrace the concept of actually using biomedical waste for purposes of heating is retarded. it takes a much more intense flame, at a much higher heat to destroy biomedical waste than it goes to ignite natural gas, burn heating oil, etc. it's simple practicality, and it makes the concept of using such things as fuel completely illogical.

 

Well put sir.

 

.

[B-Large]

Discuss.

 

http://www.telegraph...-hospitals.html

 

 

"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.

 

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

 

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

 

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.

 

The programme, which will air tonight, found that 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."

 

I find it creepy and unsettling to think of using human remains as fuel source. Because I work in the industry, I am not in the dark about that happens to non-full body remains... but the thought of "man my office is cozy on this cold winter day" and that heat being generated by dead babies and legs and tumors makes me kind of cringe.

 

I'd prefer not to see puposely aborted humans being used in this manner. But from a practical, health safety standpoint I get it.

 

I'd also prefer to see sex education, condoms and contraception being a priority in our society since few of us can keep it locked up becasue of our buring desires to stick it in. Overall, I'd like to see abortion become a distant issue because we just don't see it or do it that often anymore, with a goal of zero occurance at some point.

 

3rdning, we rarely agree on much here, but I don't think it is weird to feel creeped out about stuff like this- and too question its moral place.

[3rdnlng]

I find it creepy and unsettling to think of using human remains as fuel source. Because I work in the industry, I am not in the dark about that happens to non-full body remains... but the thought of "man my office is cozy on this cold winter day" and that heat being generated by dead babies and legs and tumors makes me kind of cringe.

 

I'd prefer not to see puposely aborted humans being used in this manner. But from a practical, health safety standpoint I get it.

 

I'd also prefer to see sex education, condoms and contraception being a priority in our society since few of us can keep it locked up becasue of our buring desires to stick it in. Overall, I'd like to see abortion become a distant issue because we just don't see it or do it that often anymore, with a goal of zero occurance at some point.

 

3rdning 3rdnlng (That's 3rd and long), we rarely agree on much here, but I don't think it is weird to feel creeped out about stuff like this- and too question its moral place.

 

We agree on a lot more than you think. The ACA is our biggest dispute.

[Dorkington]

I'll mention this again since it appears that my first mention of this got lost in all the bickering: human tissue, fetus or no, is terrible fuel for heating anything. it takes a hell of a lot more energy to burn tissue than can be released by burning it. all moral questions aside, it seems ridiculous to even entertain the concept of burning animal tissue as a source of heat energy. it would be like tossing a slab of raw meat into the fireplace on a chilly night, expecting to gain the same warmth as you would had you instead used wood.

 

the hospital has to be augmenting their existing heating system by adding the resultant heat radiation from their biomedical incinerator. either that, or they're dessicating/mummifying the tissue first. mummies would burn pretty easily.

 

I don't think hospitals are burning human tissue and using it for heat because they think its the most efficient way to heat. They burn the stuff anyways, so why not use that process to also heat?

[B-Large]

 

 

We agree on a lot more than you think. The ACA is our biggest dispute.

 

Holy ****. I never noticed that was and L, it makes so much more sense... Come to think of it, you're right.... Just that pesky health reform....

[Wacka]

I have said it many years in a discussion on abortion . The fetus / embryo is alive until the abortion kills it. A fertilized egg has a unique genome. According to my freshman bio book, a cell has seven criteria it has to meet to be considered alive. A fertilized cell meets all 7 of them. This does not include needing help to survive. If it does, then why don't we kill off grandma. she's mot alive if she needs support to feed, respire, etc. according to this. No religion, but scientific criteria.

[Azalin]

I don't think hospitals are burning human tissue and using it for heat because they think its the most efficient way to heat. They burn the stuff anyways, so why not use that process to also heat?

 

I mentioned that in my post #119:

 

'the hospital has to be augmenting their existing heating system by adding the resultant heat radiation from their biomedical incinerator.'

[3rdnlng]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/24/horrifying-bodies-of-aborted-babies-burned-to-power-homes-in-oregon-n1828680

 

An Oregon county commission has ordered an incinerator to stop accepting boxed medical waste to generate electricity after learning the waste it's been burning may include tissue from aborted fetuses from British Columbia.

 

Sam Brentano, chairman of the Marion County board of commissioners, said late Wednesday the board is taking immediate action to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries at the plant that has been turning waste into energy since 1987.

 

"We provide an important service to the people of this state and it would be a travesty if this program is jeopardized due to this finding," he said in a statement. "We thought our ordinance excluded this type of material at the waste-to-energy facility. We will take immediate action to ensure a process is developed to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries."

 

Kristy Anderson, a British Columbia Health Ministry spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that regional health authorities there have a contract with a company that sends biomedical waste, such as fetal tissue, cancerous tissue and amputated limbs, to Oregon, where it's incinerated in the waste-energy plant.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Who ever could have guessed that Jonathan Swift was actually a prophet?

[Koko78]

Who ever could have guessed that Jonathan Swift was actually a prophet?

 

What's next, an invasion by Lilliputians?

[stuckinny]

horrible, how could you be the guy shoveling fetuses into the fire? I know in NY past a certain time it is law you have to have a funeral for the child, but Koko might know the specific time frame. I could see it regarded as waste, but mass burry it if you have to under piles and piles of waste, don't burn it.