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.

 

NEWS: Colorado Church Buries Hundreds Of Aborted Fetuses Ashes

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
...stop pushing your views on abortion on others that is not what the thread is all about.


Well spoken! This thread is definitely being derailed...I went off-topic myself.

Like it or don't, abortion is legal, and that mortuary had a legal responsibility to deal with those remains in the prescribed manner. Shame on them!




posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
'Pregnancy termination' .. yeah ... okay ... use what ever words
you like to cover up the fact that they stopped a child's heart
from beating - KILLING a child. 'These fetuses' ... yeah ... okay
.... use what ever words you like to cover up the fact that it's a
HUMAN CHILD.

Anyone who kills their pre-born child is a murderer. They have
killed a human being. You say the children weren't viable. As long
as that child's heart was beating he or she was alive. Just because
the child isn't 'perfect' according to worldly notions doesn't mean
that child isn't viable. If at some point the child were to die in the
womb, then a D&C (or abortion of a dead child) would be in order.
But not before the child's heart stopped beating. To stop a human
heart from beating is killing that human. Their handicaps and/or
other physical deformities don't matter. That's all there is to it.

How 'comforting' to the doctor and the mother that the murdered
children are to be given 'proper burial'. What hypocrites. Kill the
kid and then give him or her a nice burial to try to make up for it.
humbug. Perhaps their intentions were 'good' ... spare the child
the pain or whatever ... but killing an imperfect child isn't their
decision to make.

Having a miscarriage isn't something that a woman wants to happen.
Having an abortion is something that is freely choosen by the woman.
Abortion because the child isn't perfect, or because there are serious
medical issues isn't an excuse to murder a child. I'm not surprised
that the killers of children don't want their abortions to 'become public'
(as you say). They killed their less than perfect children.

You can disagree. Whatever. This is my stand. I won't apologize for it.



I don't think that you can make generalizations. What part of FATAL ABNORMALITY is ambiguous? You are assuming that all of these births are going to results in smilling, semi-mentally-challenged kids that are otherwise healthy. If these births come to term at all, we are talking about severe deformity and severe pain for the short lifespan that the child may suffer through. Perhaps you feel that it is more morally acceptable to allow the birth to occur if it can occur at all, but others do not. Who are you to judge? Are you their god?

Everyone does not have your beliefs and it is wrong to inflict them unwillingly upon other people. You are free to practice your religion, and others are free to practice their beliefs as well.

In this case, the church clearly overstepped their bounds when they chose to make a decision for these women about what to do with these remains. It was a violation of their rights and of their privacy.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
By the way the thread is about the decision of a mortuary hired to cremate and bury fetuses, by an abortion clinic, and without the consent of the people that had the abortions or the abortion clinic has been given away to a church group to used as anti abortion propaganda.

stop pushing your views on abortion on others


Sorry Marg but ... THEY started it.

The anti-pro-life slams and the rest were just begging to be answered.
If people didn't want to hear what the pro-life side had to say, then
they shouldn't have been saying things against the pro-life thought
process. AND this is a discussion forum - things are going to be
fully discussed. Part of the reason that the dead children were
buried at a church instead of the anon. cemetary plot has to do with
pro-life issues and the pro-life thought process. To fully understand
the dynamics here, that has to be looked at.

You said that this thread is about people's dead children being
buried in a way that wasn't what they consented to. I'm not
sure that is factual. When the people went in to have their
abortions at the abortuary, they must have signed paperwork.
Included in the paperwork or discussions would have been how
the dead child would have been disposed of. If the abortuary
told them that the baby would be cremated and buried in a
cemetary, then that is indeed what happened. There could be
some question legally if the crematorium had specific orders
for a specific plot in a specific cemetary. However, if it was
just orders to bury in a cemetary ... then that did happen and
it was probably fully legal.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
What part of FATAL ABNORMALITY is ambiguous? You are assuming ...
Who are you to judge? Are you their god?


Nothing of 'fatal abnormality' is ambiguous. It is still not our right to
take the lives of children. I assume nothing. I don't judge ...
I state fact. Stopping a human heart from beating is killing.
And no, I am not God .. however, the people who take the lives
of the children certainly are playing God. They may think that
they are doing the humane thing by stopping possible suffering
or whatever, but the fact remains that killing is killing.

Perhaps God had plans for that child even if his or her life
was short and painful. You never know how that would have
touched people around that child. How that would have moved
them to be more helpful, or kinder, or more compassionate, or
whatever. Those are graces that are totally lost because people
played God and killed the children before they were born and
before they had a chance to fulfill whatever roll the REAL God
had for them on Earth.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Flyerfan,

I like the threads you do on medical research is very interesting and brings very good points.

Its just that the thread was heading on a very bad path bordering on "coallition"


No harm done I still like your threads with very usufull information.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You said that this thread is about people's dead children being
buried in a way that wasn't what they consented to. I'm not
sure that is factual. When the people went in to have their
abortions at the abortuary, they must have signed paperwork.
Included in the paperwork or discussions would have been how
the dead child would have been disposed of. If the abortuary
told them that the baby would be cremated and buried in a
cemetary, then that is indeed what happened. There could be
some question legally if the crematorium had specific orders
for a specific plot in a specific cemetary. However, if it was
just orders to bury in a cemetary ... then that did happen and
it was probably fully legal.


The doctor stated that his contract says that the remains would not be used in religious ceremonies, and he also stated that his contact said that the remains were to be buried in their own plot. It seems to me that the mortuaries decision to bury the remains on a religious site is sketchy, but the church funerals would clearly be a breach.

What is unbelievable is that the Catholic church believes that inviting photographers and press to a funeral is actually burying these remains with dignity. On what planet is calling media attention to anything, much less a funeral for aborted fetuses, something that could be called dignified. Leave it to the Catholic church to continually redefine hypocrisy....


seattletimes.nwsource.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I find it rather sad that nobody actually took on the issues of abortion and the rights of the dead babies, which according to me is the right to be mourned for - even if its not by your mother. Fetusses aren't like an appendix or tonsils that you can have removed because they were inconveniences. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving the aborted baby a christian burial? This is not some pagan sacrificial ritual.

However - who here is brave enough to take on the pro-choice issue or the statement by Norma McCovey (Roe in Roe and Wade).

I think its time that people who speak about human rights understand that a human fetus is a human, its never going to develop into a cat or monkey. Its a human and as such in Roman Dutch law the Nasciturus fiction applies. Which in turn implies treating the fetus as if it were already a free living human organism with full human rights.

Marg: This is a thread not about how wrong anti-abortion activists are, it might be the original slant of the thread, but its more about the human rights of the unborn baby.

Flyersfan: I have huge admiration for you.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
The doctor stated that his contract says that the remains would not be used in religious ceremonies, and he also stated that his contact said that the remains were to be buried in their own plot.

What is unbelievable is that the Catholic church believes ...
Leave it to the Catholic church to continually redefine hypocrisy....


Okay ... now we've got some info to chat about ...

You said 'contract'. Is the contract you are quoting the one between
the patient and the abortuary or the abortuary and the crematorium?
That makes a difference as to who is liable (IF there is liability).
If it was between the patient and the abortuary only - then the
abortuary is at fault. If it was between the abortuary and the
crematorium, then the crematorium is at fault. It doesn't look
like the people at the Catholic Church had any kind of contract
at all (as far as we know now) ... so I don't see them being
LEGALLY at fault.

As far as 'The Catholic Church' in this ... this whole thing was done
by one church, under one priest. I haven't seen anything that says
that the bishop, or anyone over him, knew this was going on.
Anyone have any reliable info on that? Considering how the
American Bishops are all wolves in sheepskin these days, I highly
doubt that the Bishop (who is over the churches in his area) knew
this was going on. If he did ... then I wonder if he had a lawyer
check to see the legalities of it all. It looks like a lone church
idea that was self contained and not 'THE Catholic church' ...
if you know what I mean.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They are preborn human children - boys and girls waiting to be born.

Heck, they aren't even boys or girls in some cases, they haven't differentiated their gonads. The Holy Mother Church also maintains that sperm are sacred, that they cannot be wasted, and that they can't be blocked. THis implies that sperm are pre-consolidated humans, as zygotes are pre-born. This might seem absurd, but it isn't necessarily. If 'ensoulment' can occur in a placental-zygote fusion, why not also in a predetermined matching of egg and sperm? I refuse to beleive any god is going to punish miscarriages, and I refuse to beleive that any god suspends any rules about salvation merely to get around that. Ergo, sperm, eggs, mordulae, zygotes and even fetuses are not significantly more like a full grown adult than the gonadal folliciles from which they develop.


what Limbo is supposed to be.

I think its interesting that when a person doesn't know the status of somethign or what to do with something its 'put in limbo'. I have to wonder if that usage was before or after the usage of it as an actaul metaphysical realm. Becuase the unborn/unbaptised are certainly 'in limbo', so to speak.




Unbaptised infants - section 1261
1261 -

This does not say that they are saved and sent to heaven tho, or that they are in anyway baptisted. Its seems to be saying 'I dunno, but i don't think god would send babies to hell'. Is there any catcheism on miscarriages?


I guess I am a heritic of sorts)

EXCOMMUNICADO!!!!!!!



www.catholic.com...
Historically, the Church has taught that the graces of baptism can be received not only through the administration of the sacrament itself (baptism of water) but also through the desire for the sacrament (baptism of desire) or through martyrdom for Christ (baptism of blood).

This cannot apply to sin stained infants, or unthinking unwilling zygotes.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Marg: This is a thread not about how wrong anti-abortion activists are, it might be the original slant of the thread, but its more about the human rights of the unborn baby.

Flyersfan: I have huge admiration for you.


Actually you are are right to a point, the tittle was a bit off the information of the news.

But is not about the rights of unborn fetuses either.

It's about the way in wish the law was broken and how the crematory was illegally and without consent using ashes that did not belong to them and were given them to the religious group.

Now what the religious group did with them after the crematory gave them to them is not part of the legality of the issue, the legality of the issues is with the crematory.

Did they had the right to do that?

Or did they were braking the law?

Now about the religious groups, how do they know if the ashes were from unborn fetuses or just the ashes of some other type of wasted?

What they are performing is not just burring unborn fetuses ashes but just the symbolism of it.

Now that in itself is a mean to make a statement and used it as propaganda.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
the rights of the dead babies, which according to
me is the right to be mourned for - even if its not
by your mother.

Flyersfan: I have huge admiration for you.


Gosh.. Thanks.


I'm glad you brought up the rights of the dead.
The dead can't be asked what they want, can they?
What is sad is that the purpose for which God created
them will never come to fruitation. I wonder what
goodness they would have inspired in us had they
been allowed to live, if even for the one or two days
that God wanted them to live. We will never know
what the world has missed out on. Graces missed.
Lessons never learned.

Legal or not ... these children are being mourned for.
I'm glad for that. The courts can decide if any earthly
contracts were breached.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Legal or not ... these children are being mourned for.
I'm glad for that. The courts can decide if any earthly
contracts were breached.


Exactly, we have the symbolism of the act, that does not have to do with the legality in wish the ashes came from VS. the legality of the crematory in giving away something that was not to be given away.


The religous group is not the issue but the crematiory actions.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
If there were a spate of infant killings with the mothers saying they don't care what happens to the remains, would it be wrong for the community to come together to (1) mourn the slain kids, (2) take a stand against this behavior and (3) make it a public event to say "this has got to stop"?

Oh wait isn't that what people were doing when they dragged coffins along the street to stop GWB and the war in Iraq? Did they ask all the parents for their permission to mourn them.

And even if these fetusses have no rights and are really non-organisms why are the liberals objecting to this burial rite of the things that are mere cast offs?

I believe He knows the names of every still born babe , and he mourns each ones passing.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Mynaeris]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Heck, they aren't even boys or girls in some cases..
The Holy Mother Church also maintains that sperm are sacred ...
This implies that sperm are pre-consolidated humans...
I refuse to beleive any god is going to punish miscarriages ...
This cannot apply to sin stained infants, or unthinking unwilling zygotes.


Hey Nygdan ... this is GREAT fun! I haven't had a good
chat about the Catechism in a loooooooong time! EXCELLENT!

Some may not have their sex organs yet, but the DNA and all the
genes are there to finish making their sex organs. Boy or girl ...
or yet to be seen ... they are still HUMAN children.

Onanism .. that the spilling of sperm without pro-creative purpose
is from the Old Testament and is punishable by God by death -
it's Onanism. The thought is that God never changes therefore
if 'spilling sperm' is punishable by death back then, then it's still
punishable by 'death' (spiritual kind - going to hell) now.

I don't think that the 'sin' of Onanism implys that sperm is a
pre-consolidated human. From what I remember (I'll have
to go look it up), Onanism is that any lustful sexual desires outside
of marriage is adultry and therefore a MAJOR sin in God's eyes so
masterbation would be a lustful sexual desire outside of the
marriage (the marriage partner isn't involved). It's a sin against
the 'dignity of marriage'. The purpose of marriage is pro-creation
so blah blah blah ... you get the idea. I don't think that the
Catechism says that sperm are little pre-people or anything like
that.

Where'dya get that God is going to punish miscarriages? I don't
know where that comes in??
Was that said? Did I miss
something??? (no jokes .. I mean did I miss something in THIS
conversation!
)

Sin stained infants or zygots ... I think from what I have read, the
Baptism of Desire DOES apply because the parents would have
wanted to baptise and/or the children themselves would have
wanted to baptise. The paragraph I quoted earlier kinda' covers
this - that it's left up to God and that the Church really doesn't
know where the souls of unborn dead children go.

(Edited to add - I'm quoting the stand on Onanism ... but I
really don't believe that it's a mortal sin. Just quoting here ..)



[edit on 1/24/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
While I don't agree with the decision to publicize this event, in the scheme of things as far as right & wrong I have to ask who's more wrong.

I don't like to impose my beliefs on others and I believe abortions will happen regardless if they're legal or not. Thus I'd rather have them legal & make the rules more stringent then to allow worse things to happen underground.

Though I do believe at some point after conception & before birth there is a human and at that point if there is an abortion that is an act of killing another human. We justify killing humans all the time all over the world for pretty much the same reason - selfishness & greed.


By David Kelly Los Angeles Times

Sergio Gutierrez, diocese spokesman, said Friday. "This discussion clarifies the distinction between people who believe in the sanctity of life and those who don't. What is their view? To discard unborn children and then worry where they end up."

[edit on 25-1-2005 by outsider]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
The mortuary in question has apologized for its conduct in the case.




LOUISVILLE, Colo. - A mortuary that secretly gave a Roman Catholic church fetal remains from an abortion clinic and other medical sources has apologized to a hospital unaware of the practice.

Crist Mortuary in Boulder sent the apology this week to Avista Adventist Hospital in nearby Leadville.

Sorry



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Boy or girl or yet to be seen ... they are still HUMAN children.

The DNA is there immediately preceding fertilization tho too. Would you place no limit on it? Would a zygote at the four cell stage be considered human? Do medical practices around miscarriage go thru the same efforts to save these zygotes as they do the mother herself, or another person?


I don't think that the
Catechism says that sperm are little pre-people or anything like
that.

But why not? They are haploid people, but they are still independant functional living things made up of human dna.


Where'dya get that God is going to punish miscarriages?

IE that a zygote destroye by miscarriae is considered a lost human, ie that, as an unbaptised, and generally unsaved person that they are sent to the lake of fire/hell/what have you.




Sin stained infants or zygots ... I think from what I have read, the
Baptism of Desire DOES apply because the parents would have
wanted to baptise and/or the children themselves would have
wanted to baptise.

I'm not so sure that I buy that. Then why have the children baptised at all? Would a person who had intended to get their kids baptised, but never got around to it, be considered baptised in the church? Very doubtful. I know people who have potential god parents who were baptised, but never confirmed, and thus can't serve as god parents, and there was even a question of them serving as witnesses. I suspect that this 'baptism by desire' would only be applied when convient (not to allege any intellectual dishonesty on your part tho)


The paragraph I quoted earlier kinda' covers
this - that it's left up to God and that the Church really doesn't
know where the souls of unborn dead children go.

There is simply no reason to think that they are, for some odd reason, given special protection, especially since an omnipotent and omniscient god will know the entire person a zygote could become as well as he would know an actuall fully developed peson who lived his life.


Onanism .. that the spilling of sperm without pro-creative purpose
is from the Old Testament and is punishable by God by death -

I beleive nowadays its called "SKEET! SKEET! SKEET!!"




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join