Should Unborn Babies Be Used To Heat Hospitals?

Should Unborn Babies Be Used To Heat Hospitals?

The Telegraph (UK) reports today:

Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals
The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants

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

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

People are reacting to this story with the natural revulsion one feels for such callous treatment of humans, whether it’s evoking memories of crematoriums at concentration camps or promises made to mothers who miscarry about the treatment of their children who died.

But why are we in any way surprised? Once supposedly enlightened societies have decided that unborn children can be dismembered in the womb for any reason — in some particularly barbaric lands, this is permitted no matter how many months old the baby is — why should their bodies be treated with any respect whatsoever once they are removed from where they were gestating?

Of course people who think it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings via abortion are going to be sickened by this story. We’re sickened by most things about abortion and how it makes people view human life as disposable.

But do prominent pro-choice politicians and leaders share our revulsion? Do they think it’s in any way wrong to use unborn children for heating fuel? And, if so, could they explain why? I’d be interested in their answer.

Could a reporter please ask President Barack Obama, the country’s most prominent defender of abortion rights, whether he thinks that Obamacare should ban the use of humans for fuel and, if so, why? Could a reporter ask Rep. Nancy Pelosi why it’s totally OK to kill an unborn baby but not OK to use her body for fuel? How about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? Perhaps the media’s most beloved political candidate of the moment — I speak of Texas gubernatorial candidate and late-term abortion filibusterer Wendy Davis — can discuss whether Texas should save money by burning the victims of abortion for heating fuel.

What about pro-choice leaders such as Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards? She loves to talk to the media every day. Have her weigh in.

Reporters and editors, you’ve struggled to cover American serial murderer abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Even Gosnell didn’t use his victims’ bodies for fuel, though he did keep trophies of them around. You’ve claimed you would do a better job of being on top of abortion news after your failures with the Gosnell coverage. And you never fail to ask pro-life politicians about whether babies should be killed if they’re produced via rape — and get days of coverage out of whatever their answer.

It’s not just that reporters and editors are tenacious with pro-life politicians compared to pro-choice politicians. It’s also that even when there’s a crazy serious hook, pro-choicers skate without questions, much less tough questions. Was any pro-choice politician grilled about Gosnell? None. Were any pro-choice activists grilled about fighting health standards for abortion clinics? No. When was the last time you saw a reporter ask a pro-choice politician why they think it should be legal to kill an unborn baby for the crime of being a little girl? (Abortion is the major means of gendercide in some countries.) Oh you have never heard that question? That’s interesting.

So let’s add queries about whether unborn children who are victims of abortion should be used for building heat to the list of questions we ask pro-choice politicians and activists. I’m really curious to read their answer and I’m sure millions of others are as well.

Follow Mollie on Twitter.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Related Posts