3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Why treat medical waste with dignity? Unless you've had an epiphany in the last 24 hours you know what I mean. The question is when/if does a fetus become medical waste? The next question if it is considered medical waste should it be burned to heat buildings? On the surface this doesn't seem like a big deal, but it somehow strikes me as a lessening of our humanity to not treat fetuses with a little more respect than a failed gall bladder. Finally, a woman's input. Gator, taking as extreme a position as possible to prove a.........................nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Finally, a woman's input. Finally, a complete idiot's input Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) has it even occurred to anyone that it requires more energy to burn human tissue that it can produce as heat energy as it's being incinerated? not only is it ghoulish, it's not even practical. now, if you bury it all deep underground, you might get some petroleum out of it in a few million years. Edited March 25, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Then one is aknowledging them a child/person. That is where the diagreement lies. When the pro-life people push the definition all the way back to conception they will have illegalized abortion. Our government has already done that...sort of: They are a 'child in utero' in cases of violent crime but a 'fetus' during abortions: http://en.wikipedia....of_Violence_Act Per this law: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1] The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision exceptingabortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child." #3: So we should give a amputated leg, removed gall bladder, or removed bio growth a dignified burial? Man, that's pretty crazy... I bet the funeral directors love you on the slow months. ;-) Who gets a dignified burial here? A. "Fetus" delivered/aborted by dilation and extraction (google for the 'procedure' if you're not familiar. It's not for the faint of heart.) at 24 weeks. Everyone is pleased with this successfully completed medical procedure. B. "Baby" delivered down the hall from above case. Born prematurely at 24 weeks and in incubator in ICU. 'Crazy' estranged dad delivers blunt trauma to child's skull etc. and society declares him public enemy number one....likely heading for a death sentence. The above two 'children' are the same gestational age, terminated by similar blunt trauma (one a procedure and the other a crime), in the same building just hours apart. One is 'perfectly acceptable' and the other is 'horrific?' I get that one is a consented procedure and the other is clearly criminal. I'm talking about the children's perspective. How are they different? Does a few hours really mean life or death? There is the dichotomy that I can never reconcile. It is the question of when the 'fetus' magically becomes a child? I have my answer and am very comfortable with it. Everything I've ever learned about science and medicine tell me that a conceived child, followed by a healthy pregnancy, will grow to what we call a 'human.' (possible health/maternal issues noted). It is growing from day one. So, I'm just curious...what's your definition? You can't just say 'taking it back to conception is wrong' without justifying why, or more importantly, when you define life. I ( actually smarter folks than me) can trace (forwards or backwards) the development of a human to a single cell. It's observational science. How can you arbitrarily define developmental 'non-life' followed by life? Tangentially, it has a spontaneous generation 'feel' to it. There has to be a magic moment in there. Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 The Telegraph’s headline implies that incineration was reserved for aborted babies, as some sort of final ghoulish indignity for the unwanted, but the story says the policy was broader than that. Miscarried fetuses ended up being burned too. How do you process this story if you’re a pro-choicer? I can imagine three camps. One is the “so what?” group. If “life” doesn’t begin until viability (or birth, for the hardcore abortion warrior), then yeah, this is medical waste. You don’t cremate tumors, do you? Toss it in the incinerator. Next is the group that wants to distinguish between miscarried babies and the aborted. The parents of the former saw a life in the making even if pro-choicers didn’t; the remains should thus be treated with due decorum, as a consolation to the bereaved. The remains of the aborted needn’t be similarly respected. Finally, there’s the group that’s uncomfortable with treating fetal remains as waste (or fuel) under any circumstances. I don’t know how to square that with the idea that life begins at viability, though. To do it, you need to move from the standard pro-choice position that what’s growing in the womb isn’t really “life” to the position that yes, okay, it’s human life, but abortion is a form of justifiable homicide. Then you can treat the remains with the dignity due, say, an executed prisoner. But most pro-choicers are obviously reluctant to make that move; once you concede that a life is at stake, you’re on dangerous ground politically. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Gator, taking as extreme a position as possible to prove a.........................nothing. If life beginning at conception is an extreme position then the pro life movement is based upon an extremist position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Unless you've had an epiphany in the last 24 hours you know what I mean. The question is when/if does a fetus become medical waste? The next question if it is considered medical waste should it be burned to heat buildings? On the surface this doesn't seem like a big deal, but it somehow strikes me as a lessening of our humanity to not treat fetuses with a little more respect than a failed gall bladder. I know...I just keep trying to focus this back on "medical waste," because it's an important consideration in the discussion. Like you said, the question is when/if a fetus becomes medical waste? Semantics, yes, but extremely important semantics. I think you and I pretty much agree, otherwise. What if she only took the morning after pill that didn't allow the fertilized egg (a human?) burrow itself in uterus, is there an emotional attachment there, too? I think not. You are a !@#$ing retard. Only in your painfully small, pitifully weak mind does contraception have anything to do with the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 You are a !@#$ing retard. Only in your painfully small, pitifully weak mind does contraception have anything to do with the topic at hand. Ha ha, Tom not knowing what he is talking about? Imagine that I thought you were an expert in women's issues, too lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 If life beginning at conception is an extreme position then the pro life movement is based upon an extremist position Your next screen name should be "Strawman". Both you and the toll taker from Illinois have tried to take over this discussion by confusing the issue at hand. You would do well by reading MD's post (#84) in this thread. You and EiI are basing what should be a moral position on politics while the vast majority here, both pro-life and pro-abortion, are struggling with a moral issue on a moral basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Ladies and gentlemen...your progressive partners at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Ladies and gentlemen...your progressive partners at work. Un!@#$ing believable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Un!@#$ing believable But hey...that tea party. Them are some crazy people, ammiright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 But hey...that tea party. Them are some crazy people, ammiright? Yep! What kinda animal would sponser a bill like that! :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Barbara Boxer goes full gatorman: Why are companies like Hobby Lobby complaining about birth control but not Viagra? Never, ever go full gatorman, Babs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Barbara Boxer goes full gatorman: Why are companies like Hobby Lobby complaining about birth control but not Viagra? Never, ever go full gatorman, Babs. “And it’s important to note that women take birth control, more than half of them, as a medication for other conditions,..." THEN IT'S NOT BIRTH CONTROL, YOU FRICKIN' LOON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 PPP - an exceptional place for sexual education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Your next screen name should be "Strawman". Both you and the toll taker from Illinois have tried to take over this discussion by confusing the issue at hand. You would do well by reading MD's post (#84) in this thread. You and EiI are basing what should be a moral position on politics while the vast majority here, both pro-life and pro-abortion, are struggling with a moral issue on a moral basis. I made a friggin comment, not trying to do anything to your discussion. Douchebag Tom is the one that went nuts over it, what else is new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 I made a friggin comment, not trying to do anything to your discussion. Douchebag Tom is the one that went nuts over it, what else is new? Who, prior to your comment in post #86 was talking about conception? You tried to stake out some new position for others to have, thus you are worthy of the "Strawman" moniker. Again, until you and EiI started your blabber this was a discussion based on morals, not on politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Who, prior to your comment in post #86 was talking about conception? You tried to stake out some new position for others to have, thus you are worthy of the "Strawman" moniker. Again, until you and EiI started your blabber this was a discussion based on morals, not on politics. I guess I'm guilty of something there. Didn't realize you had such stringent rules for posting here. I won't follow your unwritten rules but good to know you think there are restrictions about what to post in a thread Are the idiots that brought up Paul Ryan and Barbara Boxer just as guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I made a friggin comment, not trying to do anything to your discussion. Douchebag Tom is the one that went nuts over it, what else is new? That's your excuse, that you were simply having a completely different discussion? Not much of a defense, you !@#$ing retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts