Quote
Ma_Republican quoted my post:

OK, horrifying headline, but let's be rational. Cremation is acceptable, burning babies beside trash is repugnant. Unfortunately, the term 'baby' causes readers to imagine a fully formed baby. The headline is unnecessarily incendiary.

A woman carries an embryo for two months. After two months, she carries a foetus. She has a baby after it is born.

Few abortions are performed during the first month of pregnancy. A woman typically suspects that she is pregnant when normal monthly menstruation does not occur.

At the end of two months (the end of the embryonic stage) the (now) foetus is about the size of a kidney bean. So much fluid and tissue is removed during an abortion, finding the tiny thing would be difficult. Of course, the hospital would deal with that fluid just as it would the afterbirth from a normal delivery or miscarriage.

I'm with Rick. I don't believe the story and I want to see the figures.

Quote
Ma_Republican's Reply:
So, maybe we should consider it a green initiative? I mean the rational mind should consider the dual purpose that cremation and energy generation makes all the sense in the world?

Ma, I'd love to have a conversation or even a debate with you, but I would prefer that you not frame my side of the argument for me, especially since I'm not sure we're on the same plane of consciousness. Your take on what a rational mind should do doesn't seem to be based on first-hand experience with a rational mind.

Oh, and is it me, or is that last sentence a bit garbled? I think I understand what you almost said.

Last edited by Spag-hetti; 03/25/14 03:43 AM.
Just a Missouri school teacher ... stubborn as a mule and addicted to logic.