Topic: British hospitals burned dead babies to heat buildings. - page 3. (Read 3914 times)

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

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.

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.

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

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

Their gun only has one bullet.   

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

post-birth abortion is murder, period.

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

...Sure. Google it.

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

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.

Give them a proper burial, for example.