Church plans to bury aborted fetal remains

BOULDER, Colo. -- A Roman Catholic church plans to bury the ashes of up to 1,000 aborted fetuses Sunday to mark the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, prompting scathing criticism from family planning groups.

Boulder Abortion Clinic director Dr. Warren Hern, who had no idea the mortuary working with his clinic had been sending ashes to Sacred Heart of Mary Church, said the decision was "a cynical exploitation of private grief for political purposes."

Chuck Myers, the director of Crist Mortuary, has an agreement with the clinic to collect and cremate tissue and had been giving the ashes to the church since 2001. Myers also delivered ashes to the parish for three years in the mid-1990s while working as a funeral home director, said parish volunteer Susan LaVelle.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Fetus%20Burial

there just aren't any words...

As Howard Dean has lately taken to saying, it's a big tent where abortion's concerned. Just don't get your stolen ashes on my blue suede shoes, please.

Certes, I refuse to cluck or gnash teeth over this one. If these people insist on their exercises in morbid self-aggrandizement, let them.

They need to release them off a mountain top or out in the ocean.
To Freedom. But we know the churches stance on freedom...

They are just mourning the fetuses of all the little boys whom they missed the chance to rape.

I could say I thought this type of political exploitation was beyond anybody, but I cant say this comes as any surprise to me especially since were talking about the religious right.

... why I don't go to church anymore. Stop with the political messages and just talk about peace and love for Christ's sake.

...How much did the church pay Myers for the ashes over the past four years?

...Can we call it blood money? "Church pays for aborted fetal remains" is a much more interesting slug.

...Is direction of that money political advocacy on the part of the church?

...Can we make them pay taxes now? :eyes:

he also sent the church ashes from a funeral home when he worked for one... are they mixing all those ashes up and making a memorial... why are they only using fetal ashes?

And how about a mother who has to have an abortion to save her own life... and what if she is buddhist or hindu or muslim or atheist? What gives this church the right to use her devastating experience to further its religious agenda?

in an earlier post that is farther down in the thread. Read the reply that I just posted.

remains to the church and will take it as a tax write off. This is another example of a faith based initiative at work.

is pregnant, I suggest we send over all our used tampons and sanitary napkins for burial...JUST IN CASE.

This is just despicable!!

I think any of the women who had stayed at the clinic could justifiably sue this "Church" for tinkering with destroyed parts of their bodies.

And why do the ashes need to be "buried" anyway?

Many people who are cremated prefer that their ashes be buried. My in-laws' ashes were buried and they were Protestant. Catholics are perhaps more likely to choose to have their ashes buried because the Church used to insist on burial, not allowing cremation at all because it was seen as a denial of the resurrection of the body.

The Church has changed its policy (yes, the Catholic Church does change!) in recent years and now allows cremation, followed by burial or scattering of ashes. The only requirement now is that ashes are to be scattered in one location only. Many Catholics are still uncomfortable about cremation, though my parish now has an area outside the church where small plots for the burial of ashes are available in a lovely garden.

The people at this church are wantonly disregarding the wishes of both the clinic and the women whom these remains gestated inside for a petty politcal statement. They have no authority or free-speech right to do this with body parts of others. I find this simply monstrous, and hope they're sued into bankruptcy.

He wanted to be cremated but didn't stipulate about the ashes.

Survivors ultimately choose where to bury bodies or ashes.

***

I don't see that the church is "wantonly disregarding" the wishes of the abortion clinic or the women who aborted their babies.

The women just wanted to be rid of the inconveniently conceived babies; the clinic just wanted the bloody little bodies disposed of in a manner that wouldn't cause them embarrassment, as in the past when tiny corpses were discovered in clinics' trash.

than the Mormon church collecting the names of the deceased to "baptise" them posthumously. Lots of people around here get really uptight about that. The families of dead Catholics and Muslims, etc., don't feel particularly grateful for the Mormon gesture. Hindu and Muslim and even Protestant folks probably would not (or should not) be too happy about Catholic burial rituals.

abandoned by their families and not given a decent burial. This parish is going to give them a decent Christian burial.

The Mormons posthumously baptize people who were not abandoned by their families.

I don't like the idea of my family being posthumously baptized by the Mormons -- and I don't believe posthumous baptisms by proxy are valid baptisms -- but I support their right to their beliefs and don't see how I or my family is harmed by their practices.

You don't believe Mormon posthumous baptism is valid but you don't see the harm so just let them go about their business imposing their religious beliefs on those who see and feel very much harm in what they're doing. That choice you respect although others feel a great sin is being committed and tangible harm results from the practice.

See how that works in total opposition your pro-birth stance?

that all these fetuses were "abandoned" by their families. There are many, many more natural abortions than there are therapeutic ones. Not every aborted fetus is intentially aborted and many women have D&C's after an early "miscarriage" in a clinic and those remains of blood and tissue are sent along with the rest, to be disposed of. I have yet to hear of any Catholic family having a funderal service for a 4 to 8-week aborted fetus.

Are you in favor of allowing body parts of any kind to be "collected" for religious purposes? Why should Catholics be allowed to collect these remains? Perhaps Pagans want to dedicate the tissues to the earth or something. Or perhaps Catholics are better than Pagans?

Note: I used to be Catholic.

It is designed to play on the emotions.

That is far different from people who intentionally instruct that their ashes be buried in memoriam

And you are pretty insulting to imply in another post that abortions only happen because people were careless when they had sex. You and the Catholic Church have no idea why individual women have abortions. There are many reasons...medical, rape, birth control failure, gross birth defects, and yes, some accidents. It is none of your business what the reasons are. No one is telling Catholics to have abortions. No one wants there to be more abortions.

But please stop with the condescending tone that implies a fetus deserves as much (more?) respect than woman who had the abortion.

Why can't you keep your nose out of other people's bodies?

*

religion. I was not Catholic when I realized that all the pro-choice arguments were undone by some simple biology, nor did I become Catholic because I became pro-life, but for other reasons.

From conception, all through the zygote>blastula>embryo>fetus progression, an unborn human is alive because it meets all the criteria that biologists use to distinguish living things from non-living things. Pro-choicers used to seriously argue that unborn humans weren't "really" alive.

From conception, all through the zygote>blastula>embryo>fetus progression, an unborn human is human because its genotype is human. Pro-choicers used to seriously argue that unborn humans weren't "really" human.

The immaturity of unborn humans simply does not make them disposable; they should not be killed.

There are very few cases in which there is a medical reason to abort. There are very few abortions due to rape or incest because there are very few pregnancies due to rape or incest. If abortions were only performed for real medical reasons or due to actual rape or incest, we'd have a small number of abortions.

You also mention "gross birth defects" but of course birth defects aren't obvious until birth so I think you mean fetal defects. Most fetal defects cause spontaneous abortions -- and the rate for those is high, said to be over 50% of all pregnancies, with most of the spontaneous abortions taking place so soon after conception that the woman doesn't know she is pregnant. (They should be called embryonic defects in all those cases, technically.)

As a person now disabled by chronic disease, I'm opposed to aborting fetuses when tests show they may be disabled. If we live long enough, most of us become disabled in one way or another and living with a disability is preferable to not living at all. Besides that, there are degrees of disability, and prenatal tests can't differentiate a slightly disabled fetus from a severely disabled one. They are often wrong, too, as a young friend of mine learned when told her second child would be mentally handicapped, probably with Down Syndrome. As a Catholic, she knew she would not abort but began trying to figure out how she could give up her teaching career to work with a disabled child. A second test -- after she went through two months of fear and worry -- showed the baby was normal. Her son is now a healthy, normal, four year-old. What a tragedy it would have been if she had decided to abort based on that test. How many women have aborted based on a false reading on an early test?

As to your other "reasons" for abortion, isn't "birth control failure" covered by "accidents"? How many of those are actual birth control failures, "method failures," and how many are "user failures"? When I say "user failures", I'm thinking of a woman forgetting her pill (perhaps because she wants, in part of her mind, to have a baby), of a man convincing a women to have sex without a condom "just this once", of a couple "getting carried away" and not using contraception, of a couple deciding "it's a safe time" and not using contraception. Any honest person knows those are the most common stories behind "birth control failures." They are very human "failures" and nothing to be ashamed of, but why should a baby conceived through one of these moments of humanity be rejected? Before abortion was legalized, many couples had an "accidental" child or two and those "accidents" were loved by their parents. What's wrong with people today that they can't accept and love an "accidental" result of their own lovemaking?

It's not my business what others do with their own bodies, but when a child's life is ended, it is my business. Abortion has hurt our society more than it has helped any woman.

it's condescension, misogyny, emotional appeal and moral posturing. But that was totally expected.

I will never understand women who so vehemently HATE other women!

There are no accidents, just women who secretly want pretty little pink bundles of joy. Good grief, am I still on DU or in an alternate universe? :puke:

and I'm sure you are aware of doing so.

"I'm thinking of a woman forgetting her pill (perhaps because she wants, in part of her mind, to have a baby)"?

Why yes you did. :crazy:

And didn't get home in time to take my first pill of the month.

Damn! It's a sign from God that I really and truly wanted to have a baby!

Thank you Jesus.

So God was helping you realize your deep, dark, secret longings.

Imagine how bad Mary must have longed for a baby for god to have let her escape that messy pill-taking, copulating part.

Why not help women avoid abortion? There is much that could be done.

a chemistry minor. Magna cum laude.

and staying out of other people's genitals. Summa cum laude.

back to me because your arguments in other posts show you have insufficient understanding of biology.

You've presented no scientific evidence. Just claiming an almost religious relience on science. It is because the books say it is. Your a scientest, show your metal. What makes it alive? What makes it different from an organ? Your making the argument, I'm not going to search through a library of books for it.

This is what science is made of. Arguments and evidence, not appeals to a higher authority.

If I have missed the post where you bothered to do this, please just link me to it.

yes, it's alive. Yes it is a child or potential child.

I, however, don't think that that is grounds for punishment.

It is alive and a child therefore it should be punished for such, make sure it is born to a teenage drug-addicted mother to an atmosphere of child abuse and neglect, where it will never feel wanted or loved, or at best born at the wrong time to a woman who just doesn't want to be a mother and always KNOW deep inside that it is not truly loved.

There is a reason God put the womb in women, because God knows we are most qualified to make the choice of when to breed and when to give birth (or not). Men have been trying to take our supreme right away from us since the beginning of time, and these high-holy drag queens in their pointy sky scrapers need to get over themselves and their lack of a womb and just be happy with the amount of inappropriate control that they do have over people.

From conception, all through the zygote>blastula>embryo>fetus progression, an unborn human is alive because it meets the criteria that biologists use to distinguish living things from non-living things.

From conception, all through the zygote>blastula>embryo>fetus progression, an unborn human is human because its genotype is human.

Ergo, from zygote on, the developing fetus is a living human.

******

None of this is my opinion, it is all scientific fact. The facts changed my opinion from "pro-choice" to "pro-life."

Look it up and get back to me. You obviously have no grasp of logic.

"an unborn human is alive because it meets the criteria that biologists use to distinguish living things from non-living things."

I've never heard of an accurate definition of alive. I remember learning a naive set of criteria. I found them on this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive

1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

It also mentions that these criteria aren't exact because they classify fire as alive, and sterile people as not alive. You don't want to base your argument on something that allows murder of sterile people now. If there is some other criteria, what?

with your circular reasoning and reliance of multiple other logical fallacies, I'd be really worried if you ever agreed with me.

LOL.

Its about a person's right to make their own decisions about their life and thier bodies...to live with the consequences of those decisions.


If it is a sin or wrong or a mistake then it is their karma to pay...not yours or anyone else's.

You are exactly right, of course. While I agree totally with the biological perspective provided by DemBones, that is where it ends for me, and rightfully so. I will not force my viewpoint on others on this issue.

Anti-abortion folks always say next, "Well, what about murderers? Should THEY just get away with it because you won't press your value system on them?"

To which I always answer, "In the case of murder, there is no one value system pressed upon the offender. Mitigating circumstances, up to and including self-defense, can be partially to totally exculpatory. I am simply applying the concept of mitigating circumstances in this case."

Thanks again Desertrose, for the breath of reason in your post.

While I am at it, I wonder why the Church does not conduct burial ceremonies for amputated limbs and removed organs, the ashes of which they could collect from the hospital crematory? Are these not, by right of having lived, as sacred and to be venerated as the fetal remains? Or does age or cellular position or it being a body part alone somehow make it lesser?

And why is it only human life that is venerated? Should not a "right to life" Church also conduct religious burials for the millions of dogs and cats we kill and cremate every year? (Oh yes, it says in the Bible that they have no souls. I forgot. I reject that arrogance. But I forgot that. It makes it OK to kill them just because they are unwanted.)

On a purely ethical plane, this can get to be quite a tangled matrix, eh? Then, if we step into an Eastern country from ours, we will find a whole new set of societal standards by which to gauge it. Did you eat beef at McDonald's this week? You then committed a sin in India.

Iraqis (and vice versa), either. I shouldn't worry about abused children, spousal abuse, pedophilia, murder, rape, etc.

After all, it's not my karma. :eyes:

we all worry.

thanks for the worry.

that's something like the old saying if you wish into one hand and shit into the other, see which one fills up first...

:thumbsup:

and if you really want to, you can worry about the abortion stuff too for that matter....

What you can't do is tell me what I can do with my body, my beliefs and my choices concerning them. (Well, you can tell me but don't expect me to follow your directives :evilgrin: )

As far as the Iraqis, abused children, spousal abuse, pedophilia, murder, rape, etc. , you are right...it is not your karma. Does that mean you may not want to do things to prevent these things or help the victims? I would hope not.

Just because these terrible things are not caused directly by or affect us directly does not mean we don't care. It was a stretch of logic to put them together in the first place really. Just because I don't want anyone to dictate my life choices, doesn't mean I don't care about what is happening to the living human beings on this planet. If you choose to have it be an either or scenario then I might comment that this particular narrow vision is what causes so many of the problems in this world.

If you are trying to make it seem as though simply because I feel women should have sovereignity over their bodies that I am callous to the rest of the world's suffering, you couldn't be more wrong.

Plus, you might add that by not worrying about those things not in his or her sphere of influence, DemBones would be a happier person.

You know the old prayer...

Lord, grant me the

serenity to accept the things

I cannot change,

the courage to change the

things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

:thumbsup: good prayer

makes ya a lot more mellow :)

stand... Why do you even argue about opinions from which you could not possibly be swayed, since you obviously have such an extreme view of it.

Basically, you are saying that a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant and chooses to abort, or a woman who is told that it is very likely that she will not survive her own pregnancy and chooses to abort, are no different than pedophiles, murderers and rapists. And don't tell me that is not what you are saying, because it is. You cherish that little bit of cells so much that it means more to you than those two women's lives. You would probably think that it was God's plan for the first one to be raped in order for her to bear a child, and the second one to die for it.

declares our esteemed scientist.

This sounds suspiciously like some fundie freak here in PA who ran for a house seat and claimed rape victims cannot become pregnant because during rape a woman's body would reject the sperm of her rapist. He also claimed this was a biological certainty.

He lost his bid for the seat, naturally. His crackpot theories, sadly, live on. :eyes:

couldn't even think of a response... The plain ignorance of the statement itself (about rape rarely resulting in pregnancy) is appalling when you consider that most people who do not want to get pregnant take precautions, so the incidence of pregnancy as a result of a rape is probably pretty well on par per capita with unwanted pregnancies through consensual sex (especially since women who are raped likely don't have the opportunity to ask their attacker to use contraception, or forego the rape for another time when they are not ovulating /sarcasm).

That assertion is ridiculous on its face but she doesn't seem to want to back it up with any facts or stats. She also claims EC is an abortifacient. Can't back that one up either.

The only reason I can think of that somebody would claim that rape and incest don't result in pregnancy is that they want women to be punished for consensual sex but will oh so graciously let them off the hook if they've been raped.

But they'd better have lots of bruises and defensive wounds to back up that accusation. :eyes:

abortion clinics

Warning, graphic pic.
http://www.sapphireblue.com/25years/

edited to add warning

"when a child's life is ended, it is my business"

Does this make you now responsible for all children who's life is not ended- or only when the life is ended?? Are you the guardian angel of all unborn children and that suddenly if a woman has an abortion, this is your business??

and seriously...how can you say it is not your business what other people do with their bodies until they do someting you don't agree with?? Does this make any logical sense? And who are these people who decide what is right for 100% of everyone else??

Oh, and about this fine train of thought...."What's wrong with people today that they can't accept and love an "accidental" result of their own lovemaking?"

What world do you live in? We are not back in the 50's-60's. Do you have any idea what this world is like? Do you think all children first of all are even conceived in love?? How people struggle to make ends meet and there is no healthcare? schools are horrble dangerous places... education ain't exactly cheap....society is all about making future drone workers.....cannon fodder.

Why should anyone have to live their life by your rules?? I'm soory, but I find it just beyond belief that anyone can be so selfrighteous as to to claim to have the only *life rules* that a planet full of people have to live by.

:wtf:

Wait, wait, wait, don't tell me. I heard this once from misogynist creep running for a house seat in PA. That's because a woman's womb and ova aren't receptive to sperm when the impregnator is a rapist. He was laughed off the campaign trail.

Science? I report, you decide.

It's so telling how your true agenda only comes out at the end of your screed "but when a child's life is ended, it is my business", but you forgot to add "up until they die, I could care less. Let them live in squalor, be plagued by sexual assault, drink dirty water and starve for all I care. So there."

Not a very good poster-child for the pro-life campaign, but I'm sure that is just as lost on you as it is on all your partners in crime.

...or any of us.

We all say that we hate like hell that a woman so often sees no way out of a pregnancy. So what are we doing about it?

Do I personally have the means to adopt an infant? No. I don't. But I can do things in the community to help women through crisis pregnancies, as well as work to change the system so that women won't feel backed into making the choice out of economic necessity or desperation.

When you ask that question, just remember the same could be asked of you.

I don't fault women who have them, I don't gnash my teeth over aborted fetuses.

If more people would have abortions that need to, there would not be so many children living lives of hell on earth until they commit the serious crime that ends them up in prison or on death row.

I have a relative like this, born to piece of shit parents, sexually abused, started showing signs at the age of 5 or so, adopted by a wealthy couple in Asheville NC. The damage done to him at so young was unmitigated though, despite counseling and other help he was given.

So one day he catches a star cross country runner from Western Carolina University up on the Blue Ridge Parkway running alone, tasers her, ties her to a tree, rapes her, shoots her in the head, guts her like a deer. Leaves her there for a month til she is found by a hunter.

See what abortion could have prevented? The death of a wanted child at the hands of a child that was unwanted and uncared for until it was too late.

...but I have a problem with making judgment calls about people who "need to" have abortions. That is a very slippery slope for me. I see where you are coming from, but I think as a society we don't want to go there.

This speaks more to deeper societal ills that neither pro-lifers or pro-choicers really want to address.

Pro-lifers want to address these ills alright,they want to throw bloody fetuses at them.

And the pro-choice movement, which came out of the feminist movement, HAS addressed these problems, but the solution is one that people who live in a fairy-tale fantasy land can't cope with. The candy-land people want to take us from a land of how things really are to a land of how things never were.

And imprison us there.

And BY ALL MEANS don't feel sorry for "my family." You missed the point utterly and completely.

Grieve instead for Karen's family. Her perp is still alive, just like you pro-lifers want him to be. She's the one that is dead.

So please don't lump me in the same category as the fetus throwers. To my mind they are just as much as a problem (if not more so) as those who constantly yell about abortion on demand.

As someone posted later in the thread, what I am talking about concerns the factors in a woman's life that make her see abortion as her only alternative to a pregnancy that may be unwanted or inconvenient. Is it a lack of available birth control? Poor sex ed? A job (or no job) that doesn't pay enough to live on? An abusive spouse? Poor health care? Lack of health care? These are the things we should be looking at.

I have no illusions that abortion will go away if it is "outlawed" tomorrow. In fact, I do not think it should be outlawed, because there are times when it becomes a woman's only choice. I am not as clueless as you may think. And while ultimately it is a woman's personal choice, I do not see why we cannot take a step back from the argument for just a minute to see what could be done to make abortion less of an immediate and only choice for some women.

And I am still troubled by your implication that there are some in society who **should** have their children aborted because those children **might** turn out to be criminal deviants. That is also playing God, only to the other extreme.

I wonder how many people know that many abortion clinics give away the babies' body parts for medical research (for payment too) -- and in those cases, just as in the case here, the mothers do not have a choice in the matter. I'd rather see these little bodies treated with some dignity posthumously than to be used for scientific experimentation.

Which AB clinic have you worked in? You're obviously not familiar with what goes on at all.

Because you just never know.

Forget it.

If a fertilized egg is life the second it attaches to the uterus, why isn't it life before that? The Catholic Church is against the pill, IUD's and RU47 because they prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus and becoming life. For the Church, it's all the same thing, it's all the intentional taking of life and morally wrong,

are you talking about. Spell it out please.

And yes, the RCC changes, but only in the small stuff..

That's the whole point. Don't you get that? They're fetuses. I've worked in an abortion clinic and I can tell you that is not the normal way to dispose of fetal tissue.

At the Assumption Grotto on Gratiot. There's a cemetary behind the church, with a Virgin Mary Shrine/Grotto in it. When you walk back to see the shrine, you pass this huge monument to "The victims of abortion".

The Grotto itself is rather cool, not in as good of shape as the one at Notre Dame (for those who like to check that kind of thing out), but still pretty neat.

all over the world. Why should the innocent victims not be remembered? They were not responsible for their conception. They did not choose to be a problem for their parents. The great majority of them came into being through acts of love between two people who cared about each other but for some reason did not want the child they created.

And perhaps those who see the monuments will try to avoid adding to the number of aborted dead by being more careful in their sex lives. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

This thread is about a church tinkering with incinerated remains of parts of other people's bodies (and worst of all doing it to make a political statement). They do not have permission from the former patients or the clinic to do this, and I think a good case could be made that they are breaking the law.

...I doubt very highly that they will care one way or another what becomes of the remains after the procedures are done.

Some may, however.

In that event, this whole issue can be resolved with a simple question: "What do you want us to do with the remains when we are done?" That way, the woman has the option of determining what happens: A proper burial, or a toss in the incinerator with all the other medical waste. Just one more choice for her to make. But really, that is a matter of common courtesy and respect, and should be asked of any person who loses a baby, either through choice or not.

But a church honoring the memory of deceased human beings -- yeah. The NERVE of those people.

without the consent of their former owners or the clinic they came from.

I'm frankly disturbed that anyone is sticking up for these slimeballs.

I doubt very much the women these remains came from would want them used by activists in some grotesque political statement. They most likely would not want to be reminded of the operation, which the actions of this church will certainly do.

Too bad you're not as concerned about the lives the women chose to end.

You know nothing about the women who were at the clinic, or the pain and soul-searching they went through leading up to the operation. Perhaps they considered the moral implications of having the abortion and whether it was "right" or not. Perhaps they had been raped, perhaps the abortion was necessary to save their lives. Perhaps they simply couldn't stand the possibility of their child growing up amongst strangers.

We don't know.

Regardless, this church obtained the remains under deceptive pretenses and are making a spectacle of them without consent of the people they came from or the clinic that the remains originated from.

If you condone what they are doing, I think you're with the wrong party.

for extremely good reasons which I will not go into here... the statements by this poster against ALL women who have had abortions is very hateful and completely lacking in compassion.

We'll chant you down at my next National Order of Witches meeting. After we get done sticking pins in our Falwell doll, and burning an effigy of Dobson that we made out of sponges.

and making some sort of political/religious circus out of it? Debate all you like about abortion and its "innocent victims", but even you must admit that memorializing them in this manner by surreptitiously obtaining the ashes under false pretenses is way over the line, right? Or maybe not... I think you might be ok with them going from hospital to hospital in the dead of night to collect ashes and make a statement out of them.

I mean really, now, where do they draw the line? Spontaneous abortion and early miscarriages happen all the time. If they think life begins at the embryo stage, don't they want to bury the bloody mess in women's toilets?

give me an address, I'll start collecting them next month.

piece of legislation that got smacked down. I just wonder how far these people will go into the private lives and bodies of other people? I think they are grossly out of bounds.

while Gene Wilder laughs maniacally?

article. The abortion clinic has the mortuary cremate the embryos and fetuses killed by abortion. They obviously don't care what happens to the ashes next or they would have made some arrangements for burial or scattering of the ashes.

No one is "going from hospital to hospital in the dead of night to collect ashes" -- and, of course, hospitals don't have ashes, anyway, since they don't perform cremations.

The mortuary director has been collecting the ashes and giving them to the church. No doubt the bodies the mortuary receives are often mangled and many are quite tiny, so they would be cremated together, not individually. Since the ashes are thus all mingled together, they would have to be buried in what amounts to a mass grave, though they take up little space. (My mother-in-law's ashes took up no more space than my laptop, as a point of reference. She was only 4' 10" and weighed 85 pounds or so when she died, down from her fighting weight around 105.)

I don't know the people involved but I can imagine that an initial idea of providing a Christian burial for these innocent victims of abortion could evolve into the idea of timing the burial service to be a protest against abortion. I do not think the innocent victims would object to being "used" in this way. They were, in fact, abandoned by their parents, and no one else wanted to provide a suitable burial for them. (Their parents gave up the right to give them a burial in another religious tradition or a secular service when they signed a form authorizing their killing.)

some women terminated their pregnancies. The tissue should not have been "given" to anyone without informed consent of the formerly pregnant women. A burial and service is a private event for family and friends to mourn the loss of a living human being. There are no human beings involved here and thus no reason for burials and ceremonies.

According to the church the unbaptized are doomed to spend eternity in limbo so it's a gross dispaly of false concern to actually bury them as if they ever had life.

Both the church and the mortuary are acting in a grotesquely unethical manner.

This idea that "it's just a few cells" or "just tissue" was spread by those who advocated legalized abortion pre-Roe v. Wade. It's a complete falsehood.

It's completely false to say that an embryo/ fetus is "not living" or "not human" and displays a gross ignorance of biology. I've just written at length on this, see my other posts.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches that unbaptized souls go to Limbo; as noted in another post, the Church does change.

and just as worthy of respect.

The falsehood is that there is any medical or scientific evidence that can definitively pinpoint when life begins.

And speaking of falsehoods, when are you going to stop spreading the one about how an unimplanted fertilized egg meets the criteria for a pregnancy?

any cell, bacteria, organic material is in a sense "alive" in the way that you are describing the 'life' of the fetus or embryo or zygote or what have you.
the problem with any abortion argument is that there are not universal principles which can be agreed upon by both sides. some people believe that life begins at conception, some believe it is sacriledge to practice birth control, some believe that life begins at birth, some believe life begins when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. scientifically there is debate on this as well so your claim that abortion is ethically wrong based on scientific evidence is really just another argument in a great big pot of debate. (and just how many cells make up a zygote when it is first conceived, i believe it is just a few) you have no scientific authority nor moral authority here or anywhere else because of having college degrees in scientific fields and being a catholic.
my point being, since there is no universal principle that can be agreed upon in this debate, one should act according to one's own ethical code.
if you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one.
if you believe abortion is within your right and you are faced with a decision about your pregnancy, then consider abortion as one of your options.

i say this as a woman who could not personally choose abortion (i've never been faced with the question but i believe this to be true about myself) but i believe in a woman's right to make that decision for herself. her body is not mine and her decision is not mine to judge.
that having been said, the crematorium worker had no right to deal with the cremains of the fetuses or body parts of the women or whatever anyone would like to call them. they were not his property to distribute. this was not his decision to make on behalf of the women or the fetuses. i believe this is an instance of one trying to assert moral authority where none exists and it's reprehensible. it doesn't matter if you think these women didn't care enough or wouldn't care or wouldn't want to know. you don't know the women, so you can't represent their thoughts here. because of your passion about the issue, your arguments tend toward emotion and rhetoric (i don't say this as an insult, just an observation from reading your posts). you cannot speak for why these women chose to terminate their pregnancies or speak to the internal debate most of the probably faced when the time came for them to make a final decision. you aren't their relative or friend. these are strangers to you. none of us know what any of them have gone through and we ought not pretend we can unless we have been in their shoes.
universal principle applies here; what the crematorium worker did amounts to at least theft.

>>A burial and service is a private event for family and friends to mourn the loss of a living human being. There are no human beings involved here and thus no reason for burials and ceremonies.<<

Would you have the same opinion if the fetal demise came by way of miscarriage? Especially if this baby had been planned for and wanted? Is there a difference in the worth between spontaneously aborted fetus and a deliberately aborted one? Or all they all just blobs of tissue, or like cysts? Just wondering.

>>>According to the church the unbaptized are doomed to spend eternity in limbo so it's a gross dispaly of false concern to actually bury them as if they ever had life.>>

Actually, no. Current thought is that such infants are commended to the mercy and love of God. And I personally take great comfort in knowing that three of my children have been so commended.

>>Both the church and the mortuary are acting in a grotesquely unethical manner.>>

Then again, if that is so, the proper thing to do would be to ask how the patient wants the remains to be disposed of. For some, knowing that they have the option of a proper disposition may go miles toward their healing process.

And how DARE you say that these women ABANDONED children, when they had instead a perfectly legal medical procedure. It must be hard for you to understand that someone who is not Christian would be insulted by this political/religious statement.

As for going from hospital to hospital in the dead of night... you know I was making a point. Of course no one is doing that, yet.

the remnants of one's physical vehicle after that vehicle is no longer in use.

It is another thing entirely to use the remnants of a soul's incarnation HOWEVER BRIEF THAT INCARNATIION MIGHT'VE BEEN for another individual's PERSONAL POLITICAL STATEMENT.

on gathering names of dead people -- including YOUR ancestors -- in order to posthumously baptize them as Mormons.

Isn't that more intrusive than providing a burial service for unclaimed ashes?

(I think Mormons have a right to their belief, though.)

And please consider that your statement says MORE INTRUSIVE.

You tacitly agree this is intrusive.

Instrusion into these VERY private aspects of our lives is not to be tolerated in a Free Society.

The best geneaology data-base in the country.

(In case anyone is interested).

Seems a bit sacrilegious to me.

give me a break.

is ours from one incarnation to the next.

That is MY Spiritual Belief. It is shared with many others on this planet.

Furthermore, the Churches doing this have no right whatsever to claim they speak for any other soul.

Not a potential mother
Not a potential human being

Why not take care of them before you start building monuments to mounds of tissue.

Lunatics. Next, it will be aborted fecal matter with Mary's visage.

aLthough, i have a ceromoniaL buriaL everytime i empty my car ashtray, so maybe it's not so weird.

for the innocent victims of abortion?

guilty of anything. They are innocent victims who didn't ask to be conceived.

Those poor organs didn't ask to be a part of your body. Should you choose to have them removed, do they have a legal right to live?

They may not have been sentient when aborted but they would have become sentient if allowed to develop normally.

Kind of like a twenty year-old may not be mature but will become mature if allowed time for maturation.

as far as how the woman uses her body. If she makes the "wrong" decision, I guess the gov't should step in and "correct" her.

Thanks for the correction. Such intellect wasted on the pro-life cause.

...I've got four ultrasound videos I'd like to show you.

If I ever have to have them amputated, I certainly won't argue that they are living things.

Try again.

By the way, I also had the same mindset as many here as it concerned the "humanness" of a fetus -- until I had my first ultrasound with my first child.

Don't get me wrong -- I am in favor of keeping abortion legal because there are sadly times when it must be performed for medical reasons. But I will not deny that it is, in essence, a procedure that takes another human life. Life ends here. Be it in a spontaneous fashion, as in a miscarriage, or by deliberation.

It is for that that I mourn any instance of abortion.

that's so sweet. I love stories like that.

Now there's a good reason for enforced pregnancy for everyone.

My point is that you cannot deny that it is a living human being, as so many are trying so hard to do here.

I also recognize that there may be times when a woman has to abort -- but let's not forget that a life is being taken. That's it. That was the entire gist of my post.

No inference to "enforced pregnancy" ever implied or intended, but I think that was clear to begin with.

just like you just did.

I have my beliefs and you have yours.

My belief is that nobody has definitively found a point when human life begins. I believe if you want an abortion, I should not have a say. I believe if you don't want an abotion, I should not have a say in that either. I don't care why you've chosen to do either. I don't care how you got into the position where you had to contemplate that choice.

Pro-birthers cannot say the same. They impose their beliefs onto others based on very subjective and personal criteria and morality.

I would not force someone to have an abortion even if I magically knew they carried the next Hitler in their womb.

Give me the same respect as to my choices. Thank you.

>>I don't care how you got into the position where you had to contemplate that choice.>>>

Funny, but I thought we as Democrats did care about the standard of living of people, especially those who might have to make the choice of an abortion because of economic, or other societal, factors.

No matter how we may feel about them, we SHOULD care why people choose to have abortions. Otherwise it makes a big lie of our claim that we want to see them as being "safe, legal, and rare." So, I ask -- IS this all a big lie? I'm beginning to think it is, and this is one of the reasons why the Democratic Party is in such trouble in this country.

And by the way, you were the one who first implied that I was forcing my opinions on this matter -- I was the one who, by citing how I viewed my own ultrasound films that I was somehow advocating enforced pregnancy. You read a hell of a lot more into my post than I did into yours.

You called it killing, the taking of a life. I don't believe it's anything of the sort. So there you have it.

You mentioned the camera footage, apparently drawing on the idea that sense fetuses exhibit the characteristics of living beings, they are identical. My arms and legs do just that. What about this comparison "makes no sense."

I can't wait til the day the fetus vs. child argument dies. But I think God gave women the right and ability to decide. Before religion wiped out all the wise women in the middle ages, they used to know the herbal formulas for abortion, and it was a very private decision, which I think is one reason men made sure to get rid of them so brutally and completely.

To me it is a life, a very specific one, and a very specific child. But with what I've seen in my life, I can't help but think that people who think that the worst thing that can happen is for someone to skip an instance of a life on earth and go straight into heaven, or the next one, or just into oblivion are some sheltered-ass, priveleged white-bread people. Either that or ones that think unbaptised kids go to hell. God created the whole freaking universe, do you really think he needs a lowly human to splash water on his spawn-on-loan in order for him to let the kid back in the gate? Puh-leeze.

how is a fetus different...

to be born and become an independent organism. Fetal time in utero is a brief part of our life cycle. A fetus is an entire organism, a whole, temporarily living inside another organism. A fetus is not a part of the mother's body. Once a sperm fertilizes an ovum, there is a new human.

An organ remains an organ, never changing or developing, a part, not a whole. It's not a human being, but an organ, a part of a human.

Please read up on this in any biology book.

As we grow into adulthood, various organs and systems grow and develop with us. If our organs did not change and adapt, we would never survive into adulthood.

Foetuses are "a part" of the mother's body, regardless of whether they're "alive" or not. I'm greatly disturbed that you want to take the decisions women make on their bodies and put it in the hands of the gov't. As I said earlier, are you sure you're at the right board?

and it concerns me greatly that you likely bring such utterly unswayable religious opinion into your version of science. The fetus is indeed a part of the woman's body, made from the woman's body, later incubating in the woman's body to eventually become an actual human being. Your opinion and mine are different... no amount of patronizing retorts on your part with the same message repeated over and over will change that.

These same religious nutcases who rant and wail about the "innocent victims" claim that all humans are "born sin". So are they innocent? Are they sinners? Maybe they aren't sinners until they are actually born in which case the abortion keeps sin from entering the earth. Or is the fetus innocent until they want to convert them and get them to join their church?

why bury them at all?

As a child of parents who came from different faiths, Mother reared in Catholic Orphanage, Father reared by Protestant...Baptist, Methodist, Moravian. There was a couple of bible-thumping Aunts that feared my Mother had secretly baptised her brood Catholics so whenever we spent summer vacations with them we were sure to have another dunking, or sprinkling of water......not sure how many times we were baptised. Can we call this "born again," and again and again? My younger sister tells everyone that she has been baptised so many times that one way or the other she should make it through the rapture.

With millions of women in the world, each with their personal tragic history and stories, I find it amazing that those who only see things in black or white seem to think that they have the answer to all these women's problems. When I read/hear such simplistic responses to a very personal and highly emotional subject, my memories return to my Aunts who held the Catholic religion in complete contempt and a design of the devil.

I am under no illusion that many of the fundamentalist's be they Catholic or Protestant hold anymore respect for the others beliefs than they did during my childhood but they will use each other to gain control in this power play.

These are Family Planning Clinics....are any of the tissue/cells of the vasectomie's, included? In the Women's Clinic's, are those minor surgical procedures which are not abortions, such as D&C's, surgical repair of the of the clitoris,etc. included in the ashes???

was there a release signed stating the ashes could be given away? is it part of the contract/agreement that the mortuary dispose of the ashes as they see fit?

I think this ranks right up there with posthumus baptism but still...what legal ground is there?

From a personal standpoint, I don't think any church has a right to the ashes of aborted tissue...same reason I don't agree with baptising the dead without their consent(well, duh, course you can't). You shouldn't be able to impose your religion or beliefs on the dead or the living.

But if an agreement is signed stating the woman releases the tissue to the clinic, and if the clinic signed an agreement releasing the tissue to the mortuary...it's a legal issue now. Maybe the clinic and the patients can sue?

and is disgusting because of that. Doesn't surprise me though, it just says 'how low will they go?'.

takes time out, from counseling the alter boys

...the obligatory sex scandal post.

Who goes on trial today for counseling some "young" men.

If the Roman Catholic Church is so discredited and so full of shit, then why do people here spend so much time on topics that concern it?

Treat it like the fraudulent institution that it apparently is to most of you and ignore it. Turn your attentions to other, more meaningful pursuits.

In any case...please find a more productive outlet for your displaced anger. The obligatory sex abuse posts are becoming quite boring.

What religion are you representing with that kind of talk? The Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell Church of Hypocrites -n- Phonies?

Church would like to see buried. Too bad the church
is not performing witchcraft trials anymore, then we
could have the obligatory Inquisition post.

the cases of priests having sex with boys is not relevant to this thread.

It's exactly like freepers yelling "Monica" whenever Bill Clinton is mentioned: irrelevant and annoying to those of us who see the good in Clinton/ the good in the Catholic Church.

...if it's relative to the topic being discussed, but then as it concerns the Church here the scandal is always relevant. My bad. I should have known that.

That's what makes it so redundant and boring. Just what is the name of the logical fallacy that the post shows? Is is non-sequitur? Strawman?

Just how DOES the sex abuse scandal tie into a thread about a church burying remains of aborted fetuses? I'm sure it won't be much of a stretch for some to tie it altogether somehow.

the first being an obscene political ploy for media attention and the second being the church saying "do as I say, not as I do" ergo they are both relevant.

It's all so much clearer now.

The Church's opposition to abortion is so clearly linked to the sex scandal -- no wonder I missed it. It's just so obvious.

:D

So much to do, what with looking for fetus remains, counseling children, etc., etc. It's a wonder they can manage.



Reprobate's responsible
for this photo!

blood and a few cells was Catholic? Most certainly, it wasn't baptized. They must be burying these ashes in the "unconsecrated" ground. Unless they are baptizing the ashes.

How do they know some father of the tablespoon of blood and cells who is a Muslim, won't sue for the ashes they bury in their church cemetary? I wonder if there are tombstones for each and every one, with names, date of birth and date of death, complete with epitaph.

See this for the full article:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2665430,00.html

Excerpts:

Dr. Warren Hern, director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic, issued a scathing statement in response to Sacred Heart of Mary Church's announcement that it would stage a ceremony Sunday morning to bury the ashes of what Hern describes as surgical tissue from abortions and what the church describes as babies....

In his statement, Hern said, "I am appalled that the Catholic Church again has shown its willingness to exploit the private grief and pain of women seeking legal abortions in order to advance its political goals."

He had similarly harsh words for Crist Mortuary, which he said "performs important work requiring the public trust in its confidential treatment of those who have sought its services."

He called its actions and statements unconscionable and ethically questionable. "Anti-abortion zealots, Catholic or otherwise, have shown that they will stop at nothing to inflict guilt and to compound the grief, sadness and sense of loss that these women experience," Hern's statement said. "These fanatics simply cannot leave other people alone with their most intimate sorrow."

This indicates that churches did not believe that life began at coception until it was politiclly expediant.

died... that would be so much more Christian.

"so much more Christian." Christianity is about standing up for those whom no one else will stand up for. In the United States today, the unborn are certainly in that category. "Pro-choice" people try to deny that they are human, try to deny that they have any rights. Much like people in the past denied the same of black people, Irish people, and other "inconvenient" people.

or not as many as the contents of their womb.

Your belief is that the contents of your womb are human, therefore you have the choice to not abort any pregnancies. Nobody will ever force one upon you.


Our belief is that the contents of our womb are not any of your business. The decision to have a legal medical procedure is between us and our doctors. The moral implications, if any, of having that legal procedure is a matter for our own conscience. We ask those whose beliefs are different than ours to leave us to make our own decisions without interference as we do unto you.

Facts can be denied. Beliefs cannot. I do not believe a zygote, embryo or fetus is human. I'm not denying a fact, I'm stating an opinion which is contrary to your opinion but no less valid or deserving of respect.

There's no OPINION about it. Human sperm and human ova can only combine to form a human zygote. Didn't you ever study biology?

Environment affects us, certainly, but otherwise, everything you are today was in your genotype the moment you were conceived. Your sex, your hair color, your eye color, etc., all come from the chromosomes you were born with, which are identical to the chromosomes in the zygote you began as. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Scientists may differ as to the morality of abortion but no scientist can seriously say a fetus is not human.

Check out your subject line.

No editing now. That would be dishonest. :evilgrin:

Historically, men have treated women as property, denying us our humanity and our God-given rights just because it was convenient for men to treat women like slaves. Women weren't even thought of as persons in their own right--just the chattel of their fathers, brothers, sons, and/or husbands. Rightfully, women rebelled against that attitude that we're somehow the property of men.
It makes no sense for pro-choice zealots to insist that women have the right to treat fetuses the way men treated women--as property to be disposed of if they feel like it, if the fetus is an inconvenience, all the while denying that they are human beings unless they want the kid. I have news for pro-choice zealots: DNA evidence suggests otherwise.
Another fallacy: all pro-lifers hate women. NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! Pro-choice zealots are the ones who impose the litmus test of "you must be pro-choice if you want to be regarded as a liberal/progressive/Democrat/feminist." Consequently, they are condemning an entire group of people, who may even constitute the majority of Americans and close to half of Democrats, solely by the actions of the misogynist wing of the Republican Party, who hide behind the pro-life cause to cover up their deceitful means to a vicious end: to revert to a bygone era where men were kings and women were slaves. It's just as bigoted of pro-choicers to accuse people of hating women just because they're pro-life as it is for some pro-lifers to brand their pro-choice counterparts as baby-killers.

anything they want to; people, babies, human beings, martians, whatever. They may ascribe any characteristics and qualities to the contents of their wombs as they wish. I would not deny them their opinions, their beliefs, or their autonomy to do as they please based on those beliefs. They may choose to abort or not and I will respect any choice they make with regards to their reproductive health. Hell, I'm not even interested in knowing about it.

I demand the same respect for my opinions, my beliefs, my autonomy and my choice as I offer them.

Treat women as if they were the property of the fetus. It makes no sense for pro birth zealots to insist that women be forced to be treated as a holding tank for the fetus.

If they don't have choice and control of their body, how are they not being treated as property?

Yes. I believe to be a liberal/progressive/Democrat/feminist, etc., you must allow for others to come to their own conclusions about what they are to do with their own bodies. That does not mean you MUST have an abortion, or even that you have to like it or think it's a good thing.
I think that one must accept that there may be circumstances other than the tired old, "in case of rape, incest, or a threat to the life or health of the mother", that may arise which may or may not have been considered where a woman may find within herself a need to have a safe, legal procedure to end her pregnancy.


DNA evidence suggests a lot of things. It suggests that my appendix is human, but there circumstances in which it calls for removal. Where's my memorial ceremony?

I don't believe that the State is the proper arbiter of whether that need exists, only the woman in question can decide, so if one is claiming to be a liberal/progressive/Democrat/feminist, etc., I don't think there is any way you can spin it that shows that women would have more equity and freedom if they were not permitted to terminate their pregnancy at will.

I don't think that all pro birthers hate women. I think that some are in love with the concept of babies, and don't care if others don't share their fetish. They don't seem too concerned with the suffering the children and their mothers( and fathers) have to endure after birth, though.

But, I'm just a guy, so what do I know?

I remember that's where the souls of "good" unbaptized people went after death. But I took my catechism classes before Vatican II, so the rules may have changed.

What's the current Church teaching?

were people went called Limbo. Had to be Catholic or
you missed the boat at that time. When I was told this, I laughed
at the priest, who was later moved to a different diocese for
unspecified reasons, and then later picked up by the police.

but you may still hear it brought up from time to time, probably by older, more conservative Catholics.

The more precise term is (as you know) purgatory. According to the Catechism (1030): "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification so as to receive the holiness necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven."

As this concerns unbaptized, unborn infants (fetuses, tissue, whatever your term), the current thought is that their souls are commended to the infinite mercy of God. You may hear some discussion about "original sin" and all that, but I like to believe that such babies are in heaven, safe from earthly torment. But that's just me -- I;m not the most by-the-book Catholic you'll meet.

But I believe that Limbo as teaching is pretty much archaic now.

just because it no longer fits it's agenda, would it? I DO find it interesting that so little is made mention of the 'right of conscience' that allows Catholics the right not to follow doctrines of the church and they are still good Catholics.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

The Vatican itself validates the right of conscience over Church doctrine.

emphasized (or not) at the preference of the bishop. I am definitely NOT an old-school Catholic, and my confirmation came several decades after Vatican II, but I was still instructed (and tested) about purgatory. I've talked to other Catholics from other parts of the country, though, who heard about it only in a vaguely historical sense. I've gotten the idea that our diocese might have been an exception in continuing to talk about purgatory, but I'm sure it's not the only one, and (as you noted) purgatory is still in the catechism.

Limbo was for those who either lived before Christ (Limbo of the Fathers) or who were born after Christ and, while not guilty of personal sin, were still stained by original sin and had not been cleaned by baptism (Limbo of the infants). Limbo was never explicitly held as Official Church Doctrine, but was a common element of Catholic faith and was referred to in documents about official church doctrine (the baltimore catechism, for example). The latest Catechism, issued by the current pope, does not refer to Limbo.

Purgatory is for people who die in God's graces but still have sin on their souls, and while it may have been de-emphasized, is, as you noted, still on the books.

Catholic Church DOES change!

change its direction. What about the doctrine of ex cathedra does
that disappear too in order for the church to change its direction.
BTW, the church changed its mind about Galileo too.

I wonder how he liked hell and if his burns have healed since he got paroled. :evilgrin:

*

Though much of this thread is indeed comical, albeit uninentionally so.

that anyone is in hell, rather, it says we pray no one is there. The Church also has recognized it was wrong in the Galileo case, has recognized it for centuries.

Pope John Paul II decided to make a formal statement acknowledging that the Church was wrong and Galileo was right.

Unfortunately, all his effort accomplished was to give some people something to make smart ass comments about, i.e., "Oh, the Catholics finally figured out the earth revolves around the sun, yuk, yuk, yuk." I've heard it from a lot of freepers.

Ask anybody who went to Catholic school before the pope's statement and they'll tell you they were taught that Galileo was right.

I did go to Catholic school for 12 years and I was always told excommuinication results in eternal damnation.

I'm sure you'll refute that too, Ms. Magna cum Loud. I guess you have a degree in theology too. I'd hate to visit any of the schools which would graduate the likes of you. At least the Church occasionally admits it is wrong. Something tells me that circumspection, like logic, is not a strong suit for you.

Sorry you don't like my smart ass, it really is one of my finer features.

murdered...and NO the unborn are NOT in that category. And to compare this situation (involving fetuses of any race) to the racism that exists against minorities in this country is specious.

We are not "trying" to deny anything... you are "trying" to convince.

who have been born. Your mercy and compassion only extends to those already born, why not extend it to the unborn? Why not help women to avoid abortion, rather than supporting continued killing?

Keep spinning dear... You know that most pro-choice advocates here are in support of sex education and birth control... what an irresponsible thing for you to imply, that abortion would be the only option. Can't you see how the anti-choice agenda will result in LESS sex education and more abortion? We're the ones trying to prevent abortion, not those people.

I doubt that Mr. Myers had a signed contract (release) with any of the sources of the foetuses (ie, lawful owners) which expressly allowed transfer of the remains to the catlick church. Improper disposal of human remains can be a felony in California, at least.

Gyre

This is obviously a game to these people--who are orchestrating their public-relations bonanza burial service.

The media attention is part of a marketing plan, designed to grab them some attention.

What they're also attempting to do--is bait pro-choice people into saying, "You don't have the right to do that! Those remains aren't yours to cremate/bury!"

Then they've baited us and they can retort, "Ohhhh! You didn't care when your baby was being throw away, but now you do??? Now these remains are important? Now they belong to you?"

See. They're just goading us into their trap--so they can make ridiculous statements.

Let's not step into the steel jaws. The success of their publicity stunt is contingent upon us reacting to them. Let's not.

Ignore this.

ever more unbalanced and out of touch with the concerns of the living.

This is not legal whatsoever. Insane, and disrespectful to people of different faiths.

You suppose people would have a problem with that?

If I took the tissue, and used it in some kind of satan worship, maybe made it into smoothies and my buddies drank it while sitting around a bonfire, that would be okay?

I'm just wondering if they have a set of criteria for what kinds of rituals are acceptable. I'm guessing just the good Christian pass the test - being that we're a theocracy and all.

actually that came to mind because of someone on a nonpolitical forum saying his mom made some kind of blender thing with a home birth placenta which his family all drank.

Everyone else (including me) was appalled, but you know, for some people I guess it has meaning.

So, yeah. Smoothies.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and become heterosexual... does it do that to you? :shrug:

:shiver down my spine:

and ceremonial burial for the contents of used condoms. Poor little feller's never had a chance.

Why not a federal law demanding women to look as sexually provocative at all times, thereby NOT discouraging any possible passing sexual rumination, speculation, or overtures within and from the potential fathers?

Ha! I think we're ONTO sumpthin' here. I could just SING with triumph! Click here for "Let the Mighty Eagle Soar!"
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.sings.wbtv.med.html

And just to be sure we don't allow any potential arousal(therefore any potential fetusi)to fall by the wayside all men should be placed on viagra therapy and women have to ...I don't know listen to Tom Jones all the time.

Welcome to D.U., youthere! :hi: :hi: :hi:

A merry spirit with a well-functioning mind is sometimes hard to find!

This is so idiotic.

who were not allowed to be buried on sacred ground


They were not allowed to be buried on sacred ground because they were not baptized!!!

They went to Limbo

The Church needs to address it past policies!!!

I never could do the limbo...they keep moving that damn bar down. I think it gives an unfair advantage to the babies...they're much shorter.:crazy:

This isn't going to go over very well. There will be opposition. Frankly, I hope the pro-choicers ignore it. It doesn't deserve the attention.

"These women are devastated," Horle said. "To discover that an entity is essentially taking it upon themselves to create a religious service that may not be acceptable to the family is probably really painful."

Indeed.

but don't think I'm defeated!

It is a sad thing that so many Democrats are so in favor of abortion that they don't want any memorials or services for those who are aborted or any protests against abortion. Why don't Democrats want to change the conditions that lead to women choosing abortion? What kind of a choice is abortion, really?

:hi:

I would never think you would pick up your ball and go home because you are so very, very far behind. I'd be the last person to say so.

period. This is not a memorial service, it is an obscene political ploy to gain media attention. If they truly wanted to do as you say, why go to the media to publicize it???

Edited to add: Why have you not cited the church allows 'right of conscience' to Catholics when making 'moral' decisons? Decisions that may include an abortion.

they will have SCOTUS if they get their way. They will overturn Roe if they deem it good strategy, but, low and behold, they will continue to cut medicaid, cut the tax incentive for employers to offer insurance, cut family planning and women's health programs, cut programs like WIC and AFDC out of existence, then they will probably go after birth control.

They may have some secret agenda that needs a whole lot of desperate starving children state-side since they are tsunami spooked and South Asia is no longer an option for their beloved sex tourism.

IMHO the conditions that lead women to choosing abortion is birth control that doesn't work or lack of access. We all know what the republican stance on those things are. I'm still waiting for Plan B...there's something that could really cut down on some abortions.

own bodies... and that you call yourself a Democrat. As for your anti-rhetorical questions... you know full well that Democrats are more (than anti-choicers) in favor of developing sound sex education and family counseling programs which would reduce the number of abortions performed. Why do you keep insinuating anything different?

You have your beliefs...obviously many here disagree with you. Do you feel you will somehow change minds with your arguments? I kinda doubt it.

(Why do you word it that Dems *favor* abortion when its the CHOICE we favor??) Why is it *sad* that Democrats want to offer women a choice? Please tell me why that seems sad to you? I find it much sadder that there are a few who want to dictate their beliefs as teh only and final word onto so many others.
Its not like the Democrats are forcing you ( or anyone else) to get an abortion....all is asked is the freedom to have that option.

"What kind of choice is abortion really?"

Glad you asked...I imagine it is a really really tough one and having self-righteous santimonious holier than thou types telling a woman she is committing murder sure as hell doesn't make it much easier.
For most women it is a last resort...for the very very few who may casually use it as a form of birth control, well honey, I doubt they'd be swayed by any argument you may make.

I would love it if Dems could change the conditions that maek a woman feel she has no other option but abortion....good childcare, healthcare, education. The choice of being able to stay home and take care of the child...there are any number of things we as a society can do to stop the need for abortions....but can we ever take away that option? Should we? No I don't think we have that right....nothing is black & white- especially human beings. I certainly do not want to make that kind of choice for another woman.....

and those that support them, maybe we no longer feel we should have to share a tent or discuss these issues with immoral zealots.

:thumbsup:

Cremation is considered "final disposition" and the State retains no control over disposition of the ashes.

Funeral directors must be licensed in all but one State, Colorado.

Just FYI

they do about live human beings. Look at howlong those lives of molested kids were ruined. Bread and circuses is what they turn this issue into.