Mar 24 2014

Aborted Babies Are [almost] Soylent Green

Published by at 9:20 am under All General Discussions

This shocking headline at Drudge pretty much encapsulates the heartless, consumer-driven nature of modern society. Where individuals are throw away commodities. Where consumption obliterates the human rights of some to feed the needs of others. Today humanity is hitting a point I once naively thought was too cold, callous and abhorrent to reach. We have a whole new meaning for the term “Green”, renewable energy:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

If we can burn dead humans – aborted because of the myth they are not viable individuals – and use them for heat, how far are we from using them as food? The reason I ask is this news story puts us up against one of Science Fictions most disturbing takes on humanity – the movie Soylent Green:

The 20th century’s industrialization has left the world permanently overcrowded, polluted and stagnant by the turn of the 21st century. In 2022, with 40 million people in New York City alone, housing is dilapidated and overcrowded; homeless people fill the streets; 20 million are unemployed with the few “lucky” ones with jobs scraping by, and food and working technology is scarce. Most of the population survives on rations produced by the Soylent Corporation, whose newest product is Soylent Green, a green wafer advertised to contain “high-energy plankton”, more nutritious and palatable than its predecessors “Red” and “Yellow”, but in short supply.

Spoiler Alert: Soylent Green is made from the corpses of the dead. The story basically predicts out of control humanity consuming itself as it decays into pointlessness.

But really, using bodies for food or for heat – what’s the big diff?

It really is disturbing since it is a scientific fact embryos are unique human individuals. This can be proven beyond any doubt using the same scientific methods we use to identify victims and criminals in court every day. If you test the DNA of an embryo – even at the 4 cell stage – it will demonstrate that the embryo is a unique human being, distinct from mother and father.

Just as the mother’s tissues cannot be mistaken for her children’s at any crime scene, the same holds for aborted embryos and fetuses.

So how is it society will not allow parents to kill and burn a new born baby for heat, but a hospital can if that same “baby” is just a few weeks younger?

Update: Interesting round up and comments over at Hot Air:

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.

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “Aborted Babies Are [almost] Soylent Green”

  1. [...] AJ Strata has a lot of excellent thoughts about England’s newest energy source. Be Sociable, Share! TweetShare this:DiggEmailFacebookStumbleUponTwitter Filed Under: [...]

  2. A_Nonny_Mouse says:

    This is one of those times I simply have no words.

    Back in my youth, admittedly long ago, it would have been understood: you treat the physical remains of dead people (no matter what age) with respect.

    But as with this article from Matt Walsh’s blog–>

    http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/22/i-cant-explain-why-we-shouldnt-murder-disabled-children/

    I’m left essentially stammering along with him, “if you can’t SEE why this is wrong, how do I explain it to you?” Our values are so dissimilar we have no basis for understanding each other. (As he further asks, “How can I explain a self-evident fact?”)

    God help us. “Here there be monsters”, indeed; and they’re no longer waaay beyond the boundaries of known territory.

  3. kathie says:

    When I saw this story, my thought was, Hitler’s mentality has returned. I guess if you don’t think of an unborn child as a human being, what difference does it make how you use the remains, call it a piece of wood and burn it.

  4. Soviet of Washington says:

    Kathie…Hitler was just the logical end-point of turn-of-the-century German/English/American social Darwinist progressive thought. Note that the Nazi program to deal with the German disabled/undesirable predates the Holocaust.

    This article gives a good overview. Michael Burleigh’s book Death and Deliverance is excellent for a more in-depth treatment.

  5. Mordecai Subaru says:

    This is the same NHS that also just gave up the “Liverpool Pathway”
    What that was : if you are in hospital and they don’t reckon your chances all that much, like you have a terminal illness or bad dementia etc, then the hospital puts you on the Pathway – in other words, they kill you. This was done by witholding food and water and putting the “patient” on heavy sedation so as to not suffer “too” much.
    I am told the process of dying from lack of water is really bad,
    I hope not to find out. I would think that imprisoning someone
    and then denying water is murder. It would be if you locked your Aunt in a bedroom for a wek. I see no difference.
    Then there was the mess at Stafford hospital, where they have decided that a “few hundred” people died because the nurses
    just didn’t bother with them. “Excess deaths” they called them.
    That so-called National Health Service is now pushing almost daily in the media the so called “right to die” in which somebody who can’t get back to full health, say a victim of spinal cord paralysis, should get the right to die and can go to an NHS doctor for hellpful drugs and advice about how to die. Hasn’t been decided yet.
    It just staggers me – what if a doctor didn’t want to comply with this?
    I wouldn’t want to.
    The fact that NHS hospitals were burning corpses for heat, that doesn’t surprise me much.