I just read this headline: Shocking report shows 15,000 aborted babies incinerated to heat British Hospitals.
According to the story:
The hospitals, funded by the British government’s NHs health care program, admitting burning the babies’ bodies along with legitimate medical waste and trash. The Department of Health has reportedly issued a ban on the practice, prohibiting the hospitals from exploiting the bodies of babies victimized by abortion any further.
The 15,000 babies whose bodies became fuel for heating hospitals were incinerated at 27 various hospitals and clinics across the U.K. and the parents were not consulted about burning the babies.
This led me to a simple train of thought:
If the aborted infants are “just a mass of cells”, with no human worth, why prohibit the practice of incinerating them?
If you ban the practice of incinerating aborted infants out of respect for their humanity, how is the practice of aborting hundreds of thousands of them each year any different than napalming the same number of people in a remote village, or in a dilapidated urban neighborhood slated for business development?
You say the difference is the mother’s decision? In addition to searing thousands of human infants you sear thousands of human consciences. That justifies it?
Consistency demands that the U.K Department of health withdraw the ban.
Emerson said, though, that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.
Let that console you when they come to haul your inconvenient body to the ovens. Will it assuage your righteous indignation?
What you do unto the least of these you do unto yourself.
Better to ban the murders than to ban the incineration that exploits them. The human rights you save will be your own.