It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
As said before this has always happened maybe more are now linking their incinerators to their heating system. Makes good financial sense, I loathe the fact that money makes the world go round but it does so I deal with it. Now someone twists some details to make people think it's actually little tiny babies perfectly formed being lined up and tossed into a fire purely for this purpose to heat a hospital . Anti abortion propaganda.
In my country all body parts , placentas, limbs ,anything, are offended back to the patient if they want to keep it or not, some do some don't . Of that's not the case in your country then that's what you should be appalled at.

My personal view is that we are all just souls in meat suits, once we are dead we are just decaying meat.
More empathy should be paid to the living ( the living breathing living) and let the dead rest in peace. They don't care!




posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I have no real comment. I just think it's sad.

To an extent, whatever is done with an aborted fetus doesn't make the situation any better or worse. This is a disgusting story, but the practical side people speak of is sort of understandable.

I hate reading about such sadness. I have no opinion other than the whole entire process is just, sad.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'd honestly hever much considered what they do with aborted foetuses afterwards.

The whole subject is touchy of course, but when what you're left with is essentially biological waste then you don't have many options do you?



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Do we do this for deceased adults? If not, why not?? There's got to be a way to do that with minimal emissions. I can totally get behind an opt-in on-site incinerator derived heat or energy program. My husband and I both want to be cremated, and neither or us gives a damn what happens to the remains (why the bleep would we care at that point?) If either of us died in a hospital, we'd be more than willing to donate ourselves to generating heat or energy stores, it's a whole lot more useful than rotting into nothing somewhere.

That said, I don't see why someone wouldn't be offered their miscarried baby's remains or directed to a crematory. If you're just leaving it behind as waste, it should be treated as such and disposed of. Ergo, I have zero problem with the hospital incarcerating what you don't take care of yourself. If it bothers you that much, you will surely take care of any arraignments yourself to see that it matches your desires.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Its the law in the US that all medical waste must be incinerated. Because of HIV and a number of other infectious diseases

Few hospital will build more then one incinerator.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Blundo
 


The title of the thread is ridiculous trolling. Humans are not flammable. The fetuses may have been cremated during the incineration of rubbish that also heats buildings but the fetuses were not burned to heat buildings. Apart from some spontaneous combustion of humans, which is exceedingly rare, people, including fetuses, don't burn on their own. Human adults are up to 60% water for example. Treatment of the fetuses is cultural. They are dead organisms to some, cherished former bodies of souls to others. But not cherished enough to not have been aborted and not to have had funerals or some such cultural activity. These fetuses were cremated along with other unwanted refuse from at least some people's point of view.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
All medical waste is incinerated. This is common knowledge. The only purpose of this post is to evoke an emotional response. It's forced birth propaganda posted across multiple conspiracy theory web sites.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Stormdancer777
Look here,

I imagine they would think we were the barbarians.

www.newscientist.com...



Two ice-age human infants, buried together with great ceremony, have been discovered on a hillside overlooking the Danube in Austria.

The pair, who may well be biological twins, were found near Krems in northern Austria by Christine Neugebauer-Maresch of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and her colleagues.

The remains have yet to be carbon-dated but are thought to be at least 27,000 years old, because other artefacts from the area have been dated to between 40,000 and 27,000 years old. During this period, which falls within the Upper Palaeolithic, Neanderthals were superseded by modern humans, who were developing increasingly sophisticated hunting abilities and forms of culture.

The babes were placed side by side in their grave and protected beneath a woolly mammoth's shoulder blade, which was propped up by pieces of mammoth tusk. The bodies were wrapped in a material such as animal hide that has since deteriorated and were covered with ochre.

Neugebauer-Maresch told New Scientist that more than 31 ivory beads were also found at the burial site. "They had been buried with much ritual - it is really very interesting," she says.


They had been buried with much ritual
edit on 033131p://bMonday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)


Buried with much ritual could also mean they were sacrificed. Those societies also practiced a lot of infantcide. It's unknown when contraceptives were first discovered, so popping out a kid a lot of the time was unavoidable, regardless of circumstances. So kids born to sick or inexperienced mothers, during times of scarcity, or conflict, were often killed or abandoned for various reasons.

Also, a few things to point out:

These are the remains of babies who were actually birthed. Aborted tissue would have decayed away long ago with little trace. So we do not know how they reacted to miscarriages.

These babies could have also been born to someone of high status within the tribe/clan, like a chief, and were considered due higher status burials.

So we are discussing two totally different things here.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
ok peeps - REALITY CHECK time :

aborted featuses are NOT being burned to " heat hospitals "

and any one that thinks they are needs a remedial science education

the facts of this tail are that :

COMBUSTIBLE waste is beiung burned in incinerators with waste > heat systems - and hositals toss bio-hazard waste [ including human featuses ] into the burners to destroy / sterilise it

most of this bio-hazard waste - ESP human tissue requires more energy to destroy it than is produced by its combustible compoments -



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

marbles87
reply to post by cosmikDebris
 


I'm sure there has to be some kind of greener way of handling organic wastes. If we can process sewer waste I'm sure this stuff isn't much harder. Maybe it's just that I think we should be farther along in the disposal of such things rather than burn it for heat which is already produced from burning stuff. Doesn't seem like it is a forward thing to do.


Not with medical waste there isn't - in the worst case, you have gangrenous tissue, viral infections, infectious diseases (tuberculosis). This stuff simply can't be kept sitting around otherwise it would get into the air, the water, attract insects, vermin and everything else.
Freeze-drying the stuff would just turn it into an airborne powder. The only option is incineration.


la2

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cosmikDebris
 


I think it is common practice, none of the European or Asian press has picked this story up, I assume that it's all classed as medical waste, it has to be destroyed.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   
If you don't want your aborted fetus burned then don't have stupidly unprotected sex with others in the first place....
Lotta reaaaal responsible mother jumpers here moaning about others selfish pleasures....
Far more people drop the live fetuses off without looking back than those who care....



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Definitely a morbid situation, that's for sure.

I can kind of see why their doing it though. They have have to do something with the bodies. Why not use them to your benefit and save some money to keep the business afloat more easily. As other people pointed out, it's way more cost effective to bury them. Plus it can start taking up a lot of land. So cremation seems to be the right thing to do.

However, I will say that it comes off a little greedy as an outside observer. Perhaps you can say it's almost kind of disrespectful. It's almost like your just making the bodies into firewood. And that is a bit unsettling.

I'm a bit glad they banned this practice. it just takes it a little to far if you ask me. And it is way too touchy in the public eye to pull stuff like that off.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   
This really speaks for how far we've slumped as a society. They're using human remains for what is essentially a battery. How long before population control, by form of abortion, is encouraged for a 'renewable energy'?

It's no wonder the world is losing respect for everything. It's getting to the point we can't even respect our dead.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by EternalSolace
 


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



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
"But what's so wrong with socialism"
"We don't need guns in the UK"
"God save the Queen"

And this is what happens.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

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.


we could charge them in a capitalistic culture so they either have to take it home or pay for its disposal so the fetus would just end up in the trash 99% of the time and i dont think many bin men fancy hauling that away plus the incineration of such items has been going on since abortions were legalized and probably before that, the only difference is someone has said why don't we use the incinerators heat to warm up the rest of the hospital..will save the tax payer a few bob which isn't bad

about 1 in 30 people in the uk have a firearms license, i'd rather not mix uk chavs/white lightening and firearms thank you very much...too much culture clash but its got more to do with the price of whippet collars than the matter in hand

and as for the queen...she's a profit to the country in taxes/revenue from visitors so why not keep her? if we replace her with an elected head guess we'll probably end up with buckingham palace known as the bunga-bunga palace



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
How is this different from a crematorium generating heat?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join