Bitcoin Forum

Best Healthcare In The World

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHS hospitals burned the bodies of dead babies to heat buildings, a documentary into stillbirth and miscarriages has revealed.

Britain’s Got Talent judge Amanda Holden took part in a Channel 4 Dispatches investigation to the treatment of parents who lose children during pregnancy.

Filmmakers working on Amanda Holden: Exposing Hospital Heartache discovered that the bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried foetuses were burned as clinical waste in hospitals across the UK, with some being used to heat NHS buildings.

According to the Telegraph, 10 NHS trusts admitted to burning foetuses with other waste products. Two trusts said the remains were used in “waste-to-energy plants” that generate power from burning rubbish.

The documentary shows how over the remains of over 15,000 babies were incinerated in the last two years.

The Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice, with health minister Dan Poulter saying the practice was “totally unacceptable”.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-hospitals-burned-dead-babies-heat-buildings-documentary-reveals-1441559

I always assumed this is what happens, is this news or is it supposed to be chocking or something?

Not for you it is not.
If you ever go to a steakhouse near an hospital in the UK, dont' ask for the baby back ribs...

Hey Wilikon, at least we don't eat them like the Venezuelans do their babies  ;)

So what should be done with tumors and such which are removed from you?

It comes to quetion of personhood I think...

Indeed.  Since it was such a good idea, and kept the buildings toasty warm, what do you say about expanding the practice?  Some of the live ones...you know...really are not needed any more....

;)

All Venezuelan female babies have socialist free breast implants for being a potential Miss Universe one day. As such it is forbidden to eat them to eliminate the risk of silicon contamination in the food chain.

Every Brits should know that basic fact, from one world best universal healthcare to another...

Best LOL of the week so far  :D

So why are poor people whose relatives cannot be found buried?

Hint:  There is a reason...

Well... some people cremate dead bodies. This was no different, as long as conducted in a respectful way.

Oh?  So your views apply, well, to anyone, including of course those who disagree with you?

I think this is immoral and unethical. Those should be given proper burial. They are burning those bodies like garbage not acceptable.

.... I'm begging you please don't go there -_-

The bodies wouldn't be providing any heat.  It takes far more energy to make a body burn (you gotta vaporize off all the water first) than you get out of the burning.

What they're getting heat out of is the waste heat from the natural gas-fired incinerator.  Around here, they use the heat to run a little (a few hundred kilowatts) generator.

I have to wonder what the minister (who is apparently a medical doctor, and thus really should know better) thinks should be done with medical waste.  He appears to think it just vanishes when he tosses it in the biological waste bag.

So burning babies is slowing down the process of heating buildings. You need more energy, not less. Not really cost effective nor green nor smart.

Why is this news? 

Obviously they are not using babies for heat. They are incinerating them as per legal requirements dealing with bodies. They surely also burn tumors, severed limbs, etc. Kinda gross, but not as shocking as it sounds.

As horrible as that is, are these bodies/remains that the parents are still claiming, or are these leftover bodies/remains that the hospital has to figure out what to do with?

Not saying it's a good, honorable, or respectable practice by any means, but if someone doesn't like whats being done, maybe they should claim responsibility for the bodies themselves?

I mean these hospitals have to get rid of biological waste somehow, I can't imagine they happen to own endless fields that they can fill up with graves (especially in over-populated Britian).

The title of the thread obviously says they did, base on

Filmmakers working on Amanda Holden: Exposing Hospital Heartache discovered that the bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried foetuses were burned as clinical waste in hospitals across the UK, with some being used to heat NHS buildings

New BTC address to support hospials in england: 143Nv6NLqCgcfassc83dVVA54KSMEnE4hU

Private or public hospitals?

Now at least we know what was the sex of most of that burning fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------


Minister orders investigation into abortion of girls
A new survey of birth ratios in Britain has been ordered by the Government, amid fears that sex-selective abortions are taking place


A new survey of birth ratios in Britain has been ordered by the Government, amid fears that sex-selective abortions are taking place in Britain.

Earl Howe, a health minister, said the Government wants to “monitor the situation” and “remain vigilant” following evidence that some doctors in the UK are carrying out selective abortions.

He also announced that new guidance will be issued “shortly” to doctors which sets out the Government’s interpretation of the law on gender-selective abortions, as well as further information about reaching and recording an opinion formed in good faith”.

It was reported earlier this year that illegal abortion of female foetuses to ensure that families have sons is widely practised within some ethnic communities in the UK.

That came after an investigation by The Telegraph in 2012 which uncovered evidence that women were being granted illegal abortions by doctors based on the sex of their unborn baby.

Doctors at British clinics were secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female.

Speaking in a debate in the House of Lords, Baroness Knight said that four of the seven sections of the Abortion Act 1967 “seem to be broken regularly”,

She said: “Yet it is impossible to get details of investigations into this law-breaking or about any resulting prosecutions.”

Lady Knight, a former senior Conservative MP, added: “Abortion law surely lacks clarity on matters that need to be clear.

“Furthermore, it suffers from those who play with words to the extent that it permits terminations that were never intended to be legal.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10745189/Minister-orders-investigation-into-abortion-of-girls.html

Why Bitcoiners should support British hospitals. If Britain refrains from bombing foreign nations like Serbia and Libya, there will be enough money with the government to look after the clinics, right?

Everybody understood this bitcoin address was NOT going to support anyone but whoever posted it  ;)

That sounds horrible!But lets be honest what else can they do with those dead bodies?

So people would rather have them just waste that heat? Heat is a byproduct of disposal by burning. Using it for heating is the moral thing to do or maybe people just don't like energy efficiency and being green...

In that case I can confirm that hospitals across the U.S. are being heated by babies, tumors, all sorts of body parts, as well as trash, food scraps, etc. I think our local EMS protocol is to throw everything into the incinerator except sharps, Haz-Mat stuff or radio isotopes.
But it's not like in the winter they go looking for babies. lol

Give them a proper burial, for example.

But you see if you do this it would mean you give a fetus the right of a human being, contrary to those defending the belief of unlimited abortion until term, or even after birth (so called post-birth abortion)

So it is better to call it fuel for heating.

This sounds like a marketing story of a newspaper in order to make more bucks

...Sure. Google it.

post-birth abortion is murder, period.

And fetus should be treated the same as an adult human.

Here is somebody who did not think it was the case. 3 times:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2060118/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVNjrATbA20

According to his logic murder is a crime only if its committed against someone who is at least a few days old. He is saying that newborns don't have the right to live.

Murder is a crime only if the mother decided to change her mind from calling the fetus a "baby".

Here are the arguments for it:

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ as Newborns ‘Are Not Persons’



Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion” as opposed to “infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions
Francesca Minerva (Photo: Academia.edu)
This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why a fetus is fuel good enough for heating buildings.

Cut to the chase.  How many Ghash/s can you get out of burning an aborted fetus?
 

If coming from feminists aborting, about a factor of 0.7 thanks to the extra flammable toxic hot gas inside...

As it would result in the release of harmful toxins and ideology to the environment, I don't think that the government will grant permission for it.

Incensitive for the hospital to call the remains clinical waste, fetuses may only be as big as a pea but they are still the start of life. So treat their remains with respect and tell parents exactly what has happened to the remains of their baby's. Don't expect parents to ask when they are in a vulnerable state in the first place.

You cannot technically call the fetus' generators "parents" as it would bring too much "stuff" no one wants to deal with: When does life start? Does a fetus feel pain? Why would you want to discriminate against single mothers? Etc, etc...

You need to keep up with the program while feeding the hospital's smokestacks with the new flesh.

Tell that to the radical feminists who encourage after birth abortion (I call it new born murder). Anyone who is opposed to this savagery is being branded by the feminists as sexists.

Their gun only has one bullet.   ::)

... And yet, if one feels nothing reading this thread's subject, a part of the feminist's war has been won already.

This thread makes me feel that some people are incredibly stupid.

The majority of the public feels nothing. That is a fact. And that is why incidents such as this is allowed to continue. And people who are opposed to this are afraid to speak out, for the fear of being branded as politically incorrect.

Regarding ethics/morality - we can justify anything morally with words. So words leave us back where we started.

IMHO a woman carries the baby and so the decision as to the fate of the foetus lay, ultimately, with her.
Not me, not you, not a moral philosopher, not a "right to life" evangelist, not a politician.

With regards the point at which in the pregnancy a termination should cease to be an option (legally) - my view is that it should cease to be an option at the point where the foetus would not be able to survive independantly (and without medical intervention (less maybe a couple of weeks)) - so what we talking ? 28 weeks ? I dunno - I'm not a doctor.

If music is supposed "to touch the soul", maybe 20 weeks for a fetus could be a good number, escaping being turned into fuel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BABIES REMEMBER MUSIC HEARD IN THE WOMB


[...]

The study, by Dr Alexandra Lamont from the Music Research Group at the University's School of Psychology, demonstrates how one-year-old babies recognise music they were exposed to up to three months before birth.

The discovery explodes the theory that babies can only remember things for a month or two and suggests that memory could last a great deal longer than that.

This provides important new evidence for the influence of nurture in early child development, said Dr Lamont, who is a lecturer in psychology.

She said: We know that the foetus in the womb is able to hear fully only 20 weeks after conception. Now we have discovered that babies can remember and prefer music that they heard before they were born over 12 months later.

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Literacy/whatresearchwomb.asp

I disagree. If the women doesn't want a baby, then she should use birth control. Birth control is readily available everywhere and is cheap. Once the fetus is conceived, she don't have the right to terminate it.

So many people justifying this. What next? Use decomposing corpses as fertilizer?

Yes, corpses should be dug up from burial site and stored in airtight containers after they have decomposed. No point in allowing cemetaries to get fertilized.

You are right. This will progressively get worse. They are allowing after birth murder now. What next? May be they will order forcible euthanasia of the disabled and the elderly.

Bullshit.  Her body, her decision.

Why do those with a penis feel they have the right to tell a woman what to do with her uterus?   ::)

Well, that's enough internet for the day, WTF?

A fetus is a separate body. Not the same body as the woman. Yes... she had a choice. Whether to use birth-control or not.

The next step is Soylent Green. After all we are but a bag of proteins. Why waste healthy dead bodies when we could recycle them into the food chain.

The dehumanization program is strong.

I actually agree with you, I feel equally pissed off in the same way when women claim men can't be raped by women and we only ever get an erection because we're perverted lol.

But seriously, nobody has the right to tell anybody what to do with their own bodies, especially if it's going to physically harm them not doing it, also, the only response I've seen regarding a rape pregnancy from a pro-lifer is a patronising lecture.

Funny how this planet rolls: the women who do not want babies can convert them into burning fuel, while women who can't have to wait years for an adoption

All being aided by the bankers. If they can make hair-cuts from your bank savings account, then for sure they can seize your property, force you to hard labour, and exterminate you when you get exhausted.

Fetus have the choise outside host-body, survive or don't. And if he/she can't pay for it, too bad...

One fetus who escaped being turned into fuel.. Good thing. Bad thing, depending on how you voted :)

http://youtu.be/0vDQCv0yYaQ

One of the few things in which I'd agree with the Catholic church.

Why use them as fertilizer then? Eat them instead and ingest all that nutritious protein. Would you like that?

 ;D

I shall screen shot this post just in case I would need it in one of our future battle...

Obviously I would not like that as I am very meaty, putting me on top of the food chain if that happens.

Josie Cunningham plans to have abortion so she can star on BIG BROTHER

British celebrity-wannabe was interviewed about her decision to abort her child in order to improve her chances to appear on a reality show.
From the Mirror:
Wannabe celebrity Josie Cunningham last night confessed the chance of appearing on TV’s Big Brother was worth more than her unborn child’s life.

Puffing on a cigarette and rubbing her baby bump, the controversial model and call girl – who will have her abortion at a clinic this week – said: “I’m finally on the verge of becoming famous and I’m not going to ruin it now.

“An abortion will further my career. This time next year I won’t have a baby. Instead, I’ll be famous, driving a bright pink Range Rover and buying a big house. Nothing will get in my way.”

http://youtu.be/FOUIVFBbr_o

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brother, a woman's health issue?

Disgusting. How can anyone kill her own child just to appear in some $hitty show?.... and even worse she will be branded as an icon of female empowerment by the feminists.

what the hell for I opened a post with such a terrible name

Do we really want idiots like this breeding?

https://i.imgur.com/Q9bBC41.jpg

"No More Babies!"
http://youtu.be/ChCjgYGTL4Y


In what can only be called a gracious historical act, a newsreel archive company called British Pathé has uploaded 85,000 historic films on YouTube—in high resolution, no less.

The collection spans from 1896 to 1976 and there’s obviously a lot of great stuff to comb through that ranges from politics to art to culture to sports.

One video that has caught The Daily Caller’s eye is the one below, in which American birth control activist Margaret Sanger (here called Margaret Slee, which was her second husband’s name) sternly demands that the women of the world have “no more babies.” [...]

As the text below the YouTube clip explains, Sanger was specifically arguing that people in developing countries shouldn’t have babies until 1957.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/21/watch-this-fossilized-planned-parenthood-stooge-demand-no-more-babies-for-10-years-video/

That's insane, but at least they weren't alive.

Well... well... although I think that this women was nuts, I firmly believe that if people can't afford to look after their children, then they should refrain from reproduction. For example, an average African women give birth to 7 children in her life, although she has the means to look after only one child. This uncontrolled population explosion is the basic force which fuels all the African civil wars.

Don't forget the African continent is rich with anything humans believe to have any values. For the black South Africans, having too many babies were not their principal problem, if I remember my basic history lessons in high school for example.

Reducing all the violence on the continent without the strong colonial variable in this equation is very problematic.

Sounded chocking, but if that's something that they do with medical waste then it's just something that sounds horrible, but that's it. I mean, it it's how they discard things.

Having huge natural resources will not help them, if they don't know how to take advantage of it. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is having the largest Coltan deposits in the world. But rather than helping the local population, this has actually brought them untold horrors. More than 5 million people have been killed there so far in the civil war, which is mostly fought to take control of the Coltan mines. 

Energy Plant in Oregon Burning Aborted Babies From Canada to Generate Electricity



http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/burningwaste.jpg

An energy plant in Oregon is reportedly burning aborted babies from Canada to generate electricity.

The British Columbia Catholic Herald newspaper reported in its edition this week that the remains of aborted and miscarried children from the Canadian province are likely being mixed with everyday trash and sent to an energy plant in Oregon. The paper contacted the British Columbia Health Ministry and received a response back saying that “biomedical waste,” including “human tissue” and “fetal tissue” are being disposed of through officially approved contractors. The provincials officials also confirmed some of that “waste” is shipped to Oregon.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/23/energy-plant-in-oregon-burning-aborted-babies-from-canada-to-generate-electricity/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So NO to the Keystone XL Pipeline Project from Canada but YES to baby fuel? How does that make any kind of sense?

^^^ Hmm... so this is much more common than I thought? Perhaps Oregon should only burn the locally available waste to generate electricity.

http://youtu.be/A_sY2rjxq6M

They are dead, they didn't feel a thing...

That doesn't mean that you should not show respect to the dead bodies. Giving them a proper burial might have been a much better idea, rather than dumping the fetuses on trash cans.

At this point it is nothing more then the appropriate disposal of hazardous medical waste.

Africa is relatively underpopulated compared to other continents. China alone has more people than all of Africa.

Africa is having a population of more than a billion, and its is the second most populous continent after Asia. Comparing the Chinese with the Africans, you have to keep in mind that the Chinese doesn't depend on food aid from the developed nations, but more than 50% of the Africans are dependent on it. With the Western economies still in recession, I don't think that the food aid will flow infinitely.

Africa is relatively underpopulated compared to the amount of land and resources they have. A lot of African countries are badly governed that's all.

China did suffer a famine about half a century ago.

Food aid from the west will flow indefinitely because that is mostly a by product of your food subsidies which benefit your own farmers at home. Also food aid is a very very small amount compared to the size of your economies. In return you get substantial leverage in resource rich African countries. For example you mentioned the DRC. Coltan is used in smart phones. Where would Apple's famed 50% gross margins be if the essential components of smart phones were more expensive?

I disagree with that. Almost 50% of the African land area is covered by the uninhabitable Saharan desert. Also in the South there are the Kalahari and Namibe deserts. And inhabited areas excluding these deserts are already densely populated. Just check what percentage of the Nigerian population lives in slums and other informal settlements.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/30/al-gore-promotes-population-control-africans-must-have-their-fertility-managed/

At a funeral the corpse in the coffin is not the one crying. So you are right on that point  ::)