Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Mike McNally

Bio

March 24, 2014 - 2:58 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Even given the emotive nature of the abortion debate, some stories on the subject have a special capacity to shock. The case of Kermit Gosnell, who snipped the necks of viable babies in his Philadelphia charnel house, is one recent example, and now comes news from the UK that, while less overtly gruesome, is an equally chilling reminder of the everyday horrors perpetrated in the name of a woman’s “right to choose.”

It’s emerged that several National Health Service (NHS) trusts in the UK have been routinely burning the bodies of aborted babies as “clinical waste,” and that in at least two cases the remains were used to heat hospitals – an example of ruthless efficiency if ever there was one. This is what happens when the progressive left’s culture of death meets the heartless bureaucracy of socialized healthcare.

An investigation for Channel 4′s Dispatches program, which airs in the UK this evening, found that the remains of more than 15,000 aborted and miscarried babies have been incinerated in the last two years alone. At two hospitals the remains were burned in facilities that generated power to heat hospital buildings.

The Telegraph reports:

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’ Another ‘waste to energy’ facility at Ipswich Hospital, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 fetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

The program also found that, in the case of miscarriages, parents weren’t consulted over what should happen to the remains of their child. Britain’s Department of Health has acted swiftly to ban the incineration of remains, with health minister Dr. Dan Poulter calling it “totally unacceptable.”

The latest horror story is a reminder that, even as the pro-life movement in the U.S. has been eking out victories, with several states imposing tighter restrictions on abortion, in Britain pro-life campaigners have made little headway in recent years. The general public remains largely ambivalent on the issue, while the powerful medical and legal establishments appear thoroughly committed to the pro-abortion cause.

In 2012, 97 percent of the 185,000 abortions carried out in the UK were on the grounds of risk to the mother’s health, and 99.94 of those involved a purported risk to the mother’s mental health. Pro-life campaigners claim the “mental health” provision is routinely abused, and effectively amounts to abortion on demand. Under the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act, no termination is supposed to go ahead unless two doctors have judged it to be in the woman’s best interests; however the rules have been relaxed to the point where, in around half of cases, the woman doesn’t have to be seen by a doctor at all – a nurse can carry out the consultation, with doctors merely signing the paperwork.

And last year, prosecutors decided not to pursue criminal charges against doctors accused of arranging “sex selection” abortions, ruling that it would “not be in the public interest.” That decision was celebrated by Britain’s abortion industry, with the head of one of the country’s biggest abortion charities declaring open season on sex-selection abortions, and likening them to abortions carried out following rape.

(Incidentally, I’ve always found the position of those pro-choice people who do oppose sex selection abortions odd – they apparently think it’s wrong to abort a baby that the parents don’t want because it’s a girl, but fine to abort a baby because they just don’t want it.)

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I've picked up my fair share of dead late-term preemies, and only the morally bankrupt could tell themselves that this is just a "clump of cells". When doing the funeral arrangements I've never heard a grief-stricken mother or father use the word fetus. They were referred to as "my baby" or most often by their name. How people in the medical profession can perform this kind of work is beyond my understanding. One day they will stand before God and tremble as they try to explain and rationalize how they earned their daily bread.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
No doubt these are the same Brits who are horrified if they find out American troops burn the corpses of the Taliban. Because that is against "Islam." Evidently, one thing NOT against Islam is the abortion of infidel babies. Babies. Not a fetus. Which actress has ever claimed to have had a "fetus bump?"
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
They should be burning korans to heat their hospitals. They have certainly got enough of them just in London alone. They could burn some burkas too while they're at it. Our women Marines and Soldiers could ship over the hijabs from Afcrapistan that their generals make them wear and burn those too. The look on the face of David "Holy Qur'an" Petraeus alone - priceless.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (40)
All Comments   (40)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Thank you for the information and your evaluations. I would hope that this "little" event (compared with the burning of Jewish corpses in Auschwitz)--and quite "ecological" in comparison with the Nazi energy waste (sic!). I used the term "little" in order to have something to explain which hopefully stimulates a bit of reflection.

When the Nazis took power in 1933 there were, I believe, about 400,000 disabled children in Germany, often mentally deficient. One can find through German math texts of the day (hint: watch out for CORE) young kids learned to add and subtract using the HIGH cost of helping the non-producitive handicapped re cost of healthy children. Enormous diffferential. Ths implicit knowledge created a "little" mind-set towards eliminating the non-productive. Lo and behold, Hitler did eliminate the handicapped children and adults (but without the ecological briliance of today's British).

Interlude: Check out in YouTube George Bernard Shaw's assertion that all who consume more calories than they produce should be eliminated. Or read some US eugenicists and find out how many "deficient" people, particularly blacks were castrated. Follow, as did Hitler himself, the eugenic theories, some leading to today's Planned Parenthood. At that time now only were Blacks defective, but also So. European Catholic immigrants --they multiply like rabbits. I think the US castrated agains one's will soe 70,000 people, all "deficient". The connection here is the "LITTLE" event that Hitler read American eugenic theories. This very "LITTLE" event led to the almost "tiny" event of German kids learning of the high social costs of caring forthe disabled followed by the "little" (bigger) event of killing just a few hundred diabled by Hitler:

What is the moral of my interlude? The principle implied was: Inferior people, for whatever reason detrimental to society, should be eliminated. Well, as the racial "science" of the day proved, Jews are an inherently detrimental "race" to the (German) society and, boom!!!, a "tiny" to "little" event transforms the IMPLICIT principle into a moral imperative to rid the (Germanic) world of a deliterious "race" re societal well-being. The SS youth unto SS soldiers did learn this principle explicitly. The murdering of millions of Jews was taught as a scientific "fact" along with the explcit imperative to eliminate (and eventually burn Jews bodies). Beyond that "BIG" event (sharing the same principle as the "tiny" events) Himmler wanted to kill off most Slaves (or enslave them), they too being inferior or racially handicapped people.

What is my point? The British ecological behavior is a "small" indication of changed principles (probably not yet formulated ---exceptions such as Peter Singer, who is willing to have born children up to 3 or so post partem aborted as societal waste). I am striving to inspire people to think upon the implicit principles behind some "tiny" abberations, as they can become '"BIG" events. By the way, space forbids me form showing in technical terms that the moral imperative used by Nazi to get rid of life-inhibiting humans is the very principle (implicitly) used, particularly by feminists) use to abort, even when no endangerment of the woman's life is involved. This little report above is a "tiny" example of the decadence informing much of modern Western society.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are men t lving that can easily evoke the stink of Auschwitz. The USA, the UK, the EU, have picked up where the Nazis left off.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
"While people can reasonably disagree on whether abortion should be legal in the case of rape or risk to the life of the mother, or when there’s a substantial risk of the child being born severely handicapped"

Not really. Either murdering a baby is morally right or its morally wrong. Neither the circumstances of the child's conception or the child's health have a bearing on that question.

After all, we would never excuse the murder of a toddler for these reasons, would we?
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
According to the feminist law review that was the subject of Ann Coulter's first article, Great Britain will not charge a mother with (premeditated?) murder in the year after birth, because of post-partum issues. (So why are they allowed to vote or drive?)f
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
BTW, are you or are you not advocating banning abortion if the mother's life - not health - is in danger? In my religion, at least, if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is required. (It's not clear whether partial-birth abortion would be allowed in these cases.) Because we do consider abortion immoral and close to murder, but in this case, you can be "a little bit pregnant".

I do, of course, understand and respect your perspective, but it will turn myself and many others from rabid pro-lifers to reluctant advocates of - shudder - abortion on demand (which is the original and proper term). I doubt the courts would let it go that far in any case.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
"(It's not clear whether partial-birth abortion would be allowed in these cases.)"

Are you aware that the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) has gone on record stating that partial-birth abortion is NEVER medically indicated?

"Never" is a strong word, but that's the word they used. They are not exactly a conservative organization, either.


"In my religion, at least, if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is required. "

Required? How so? I would not quarrel with calling it legitimate self-defense, but wouldn't that be the individual's choice? I have a right to defend my life, at the expense of my attacker's life. Do I not also have the right to choose to NOT defend myself, and to accept violence?


38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Are you aware that the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) has gone on record stating that partial-birth abortion is NEVER medically indicated?"

This is because the appropriate procedure in the event of a maternal life-threatening event during late-term pregnancy is emergency C-section. PBA has one & only one objective, to kill the infant.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
"we would never excuse the murder of a toddler for these reasons, would we? "

Well, truth to tell, some would. Some notable "intellectuals" do just exactly that.

38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not sure where people thought they were going to. How is "incinerated" different than "cremated"???? What would be a more dignified method of disposal?

note: I find it gross to be talking about this in the first place... but the crime was committed with the abortion, not the incineration.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
T Control, you find this "gross"? The TRUTH is gross?

I'll tell you what is gross. It is the mindset and narrative of people like you who use terms like this in an a attempt to stop the reporting and exposing of the TRUTH in an attempt to expose obfuscation, coverup and LIES of the Left in their ongoing and never-ending crusade to subjugate the people (who remain) who unashamedly love God and freedom!

You want gross? See my earlier post re: Christian slaughterhouses being found in Syria conducted by ISIS forces, if you dare (and if you can stomach it)!  Now THERE is something the Left don't want you to know about.

Get off your high-horse of 8th-grade name-calling, examine yourself, join up or start trolling truthfully.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
What? I guess I wasn't very clear. Abortion is heinous, but really, where did people think aborted babies were ending up? Were hospitals having tender little funerals 70 times per day?

No. We just never stopped to ask the question.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ever heard of over-management or "management creep"? It probably happens in all human institutions. In the private sector, it gets pruned or else the institution goes bankrupt and everybody is out on the street.

Not so in public institutions, where a rising number of administrators, assistants, assistants to assistants, etc. reduces the mission budget.

Unfortunately NHS is an example. Tony Blair convinced Brits to support a raise in NHS spending. They did so. Unfortunately, a lot of that increase went to people sitting in offices who wouldn't know a speculum from a clamp.

So, Brits are a little like Stalin's kulaks, knowing a powerful state has life/death power over them.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
The raid on Gosnell's clinic was related to his pill mill opiate business.

Gosnell, who made a seven-figure annual salary from his pill mill/abortion activities was too cheap to pay for his "medical waste" to be picked up. So the bags of dead fetuses iln the freezer were available as evidence.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sometimes, just sometimes, you read about something so horrible and unthinkable that it's hard to hold that thought. This has everything from pure evil right down to downright disrespect.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
How could it be a Gosnell moment? It's actually being reported, not covered up. Or am I wrong?
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Of course they dispose of medical waste in the most economical fashion. There are probably federal and state guidelines on the disposal of medical waste which would, by default at least, apply to fetuses. How do abortion facilities in the US dispose of unclaimed fetuses? I suppose the material - human remains - eventually winds up in the sewer. Has anyone ever seen a fetus graveyard? I have never heard of one. See Hanna Arendt on "the banality of evil." The Nazi SS would understand.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've picked up my fair share of dead late-term preemies, and only the morally bankrupt could tell themselves that this is just a "clump of cells". When doing the funeral arrangements I've never heard a grief-stricken mother or father use the word fetus. They were referred to as "my baby" or most often by their name. How people in the medical profession can perform this kind of work is beyond my understanding. One day they will stand before God and tremble as they try to explain and rationalize how they earned their daily bread.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All