I'm surprised you don't know about it .Guess you never heard of a waste to energy biomass incinerator . DC has one of the largest in the nation .

What do you suppose happens to baby body parts after an abortion ? They are packed up in medical waste containers and incinerated or go through a process of thermal hydrolysis pressure cooking . . It happens in other states ;and I have no doubt it is true in DC too..

Fetal Tissue Used to Generate Electricity in Oregon (nbcnews.com)

Why Are Aborted Fetuses Burned? | Live Science

Even more to the point, if the unborn is merely a non-human, "clump of cells" and no more than a part of the woman's body which she wants to get rid of, then why object to burning the little dead body to provide electrical power?

My goodness. It has been a busy day so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Even more to the point, if the unborn is merely a non-human, "clump of cells" and no more than a part of the woman's body which she wants to get rid of, then why object to burning the little dead body to provide electrical power?

---

But but but fetuses are real babies!!!!

Except you don't believe that. And since you don't, why would you object to burning the bodies to produce electricity?

Burning deceased humans will produce electricity In Durham, England, human corpses will soon be used to generate electricity. A crematorium is installing turbines in its burners that will convert waste heat from the combustion of each corpse into as much as 150 kilowatt-hours of juice — enough to power 1,500 televisions for an hour.

Thus, this should become the norm worldwide.

cremations of the dead is one thing . Mutilating babies and then incinerating their parts(the parts that can't be sold ) is right up there with Hitler's ovens.

Why selling baby parts should shock no one – Baltimore Sun

Quote:

---

cremations of the dead is one thing . Mutilating babies and then incinerating their parts(the parts that can't be sold ) is right up there with Hitler's ovens.

---

Yep. Sad how that concept just sails right over the heads of so many. And the reply, instead of seriously looking at the significance of the human factor, is to react with the usual, "Who's going to feed these children???"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"Who's going to feed these children???"

---

Apparently no one right now.

Yep, thanks to the current pres who you defend so ardently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yep, thanks to the current pres who you defend so ardently.

---

Please quote me on that, O screamer for quotes.

Rather than make up a quote like some here do, I'll just admit I cannot find where you have done that. I also can't find where you have been critical of him either, but your point is still well taken. I spoke too soon.

Thank you for your honesty!

If you knew how to google with good keywords, you'd find that elusive TC quote jiffy-quick!

A little honesty on your part would be refreshing. How are you coming with that legal analysis you promised us WEEKS ago?

This was your statement. It's about a month old now.

Quote:

---

Oh, never fear. You'll get your desperately wanted "legal solution".

---

You should have mentioned it before now. I'm very old and have no recollection.

After an "extensive " 8 month investigation by the John Roberts led SCOTUS ;the court has concluded that it cannot identify the person who leaked the draft of the Dodd decision .

Supreme Court unable to ID leaker in Dobbs decision : NPR

They really grilled them .....

All personnel who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits affirming that they did not disclose the draft opinion or know anything about who did.

yup really a hard hitting investigation .


"did you do it ? ......nope .......next ! "

I wonder if it ever occurred to them that a person willing to leak such information would also be willing to lie on a sworn affidavit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

They really grilled them .....

All personnel who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits affirming that they did not disclose the draft opinion or know anything about who did.

---

The justices themselves were not required to sign affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion or know anything about who did.

The spouses of the justices were not interviewed.

The investigator simply asked questions and did not use any of the interview techniques of law enforcement.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

(Aside to Tomder - will reply to your #20 in Populism as soon as able....)

Quote:

---

The justices themselves were not required to sign affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion or know anything about who did.

The spouses of the justices were not interviewed.

The investigator simply asked questions and did not use any of the interview techniques of law enforcement.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

---

agree