Child sacrifice victims who have been killed are having their bodies used to heat up hospitals and this has been well documented in multiple hospitals in the United Kingdom. “Waste to energy” incinerators yes they are realSo the child sacrifice victims are used to heat the hospital so they can mutilate the genitals of little baby boys and sell the foreskins? And feed baby’s, children, teens and adults the corpses of animals that were abused and tortured in factory farms?
>>42228437The verified facts from the 2014 investigation (Channel 4 Dispatches + Telegraph):27 NHS hospital trusts across the UK incinerated the remains of more than 15,500 aborted and miscarried babies over just a two-year period.10 trusts treated the fetal remains as ordinary"clinical waste" and burned them alongside general hospital rubbish.At least two trusts (Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge and Ipswich Hospital) sent the remains to "waste-to-energy" incinerators. These plants generated heat and power that was used to help warm the hospitals themselves.Addenbrooke's alone incinerated 797 fetuses under 13 weeks in its own on-site waste-to-energy plant.Ipswich's contractor incinerated 1,101 fetal remains between 2011-2013.Mothers were often told their baby's remains had been "cremated" or given respectful disposal when, in reality, they were being burned as fuel in the hospital's heating system.The NHS medical director at the time (Prof Sir Bruce Keogh) immediately called the practice "totally unacceptable" and issued guidance banning the
>>42228448waste of money. somebody would buy those.
>>42228448incineration of fetal remains, insisting on cremation or burial instead.https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/thousands-of-unborn-foetuses-incinerated-to-heat-uk-hospitals-9212863.html
if this counts as sacrifice then so does the meat industry, the military industrial complex, and the porn industry are all just there to collect souls.you just want people to not have a choice you never would have to make.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkH3vrevU9o Abortion pills which can be easily obtained and ordered online work to to 12 weeksThe earliest case for which I believe the precautionary principle should hold was around 43-45 days. Which comes out to be 6.1-6.4 weeks.The fetal brain begins to develop around 3-5 weeks gestation. So I am okay with abortions prior to that timeframe.It's hard to say what the levels of sentience equate to at each week. But I wouldn't not assume this is a miniscule amount of sentience. Many EEG brain patterns observed in fetal brains as early as 6.1-6.4 weeks ( high voltageslow waves with superimposed fast activity) are comparable to mature birds, mature frogs, mature rabbits and the mature marmot. We can even observe sleep spindles in the fetal brain this early.Does this prove the same degree of sentience? No. Does this give us reason to take the precautionary principle with respect to this degree of sentience? Yes
>>42228470
>>42228479>>42228470
>>42228437Thought you sounded ridic at first but is pic fishy or what? It's another waste disposal company. It makes complete sense (human bodies aside) but INTERESTING choice of words lol
>>42228463>if this counts as sacrifice then so does the meat industry,Yes>the military industrial complex, Mostly yes>and the porn industry are all just there to collect souls.Women who make pornography are not exploited victims >you just want people to not have a choice you never would have to make.They are choosing to be the mother of a dead child instead of choosing to be a mother of a living child
>>42228470https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0OV30m4gUp4More evidence for very early fetal sentience here https://linktr.ee/avibittmdhttps://discord.com/invite/yyt97GH
>>42228463Truth. This whole realm is ass backwards.
>>42228437Remember, its not happening but if it was its a good thing
>>42228492they are choosing not to be a mother at all.and i was talking more about lost fluids. but yes some women are.
>>42228463>meat industryIn a technical sense but only in as much as animals must die to feed other animals anyway.>military industrial complexYou can have a standing army but not kill, not like it matters because you would throw a fit if it was all in self defense also>pornagain, because its an "industry" you are angry at it but if its an individual choice you are ok with it.you just want to find reasons to be angry and to lessen the impact of abortions.
>>42228533less mouths to feed. some reasons ,same effects.
Oof this one hit. So the same ole cycle continues...
>>42228550we kill "lesser" beings as humans to create a comfier society.lines can't be drawn, if they could it'd only stop right below your neck.
>>42228533Forgot to click but this lol
>>42228542You don’t lose a soul by ejaculating. That’s an extremely fringe view A much more common view is ensoulment Happens when consciousness first happens inside the womb, laid egg, etc. a less common view is at or right after conception She is still a mother just like a mother who kills her newborn baby. Is she still a mother if she kills her 1 day old zygote?Is she still a mother if she kills her 2 month old fetus?Is she still a mother if she kills her 3 month old fetus?Is she still a mother if she kills her 7 month old fetus?Is she still a mother if she kills her 9 month old baby in her womb? What if half of it has left her body and half of him or her is still inside her when she kills it?Is she still a mother if she kills her Baby immediately after birth right after it leaves her body?Is she still a mother if she kills her child on it’s 1 year old birthday?
>>42228571when are those cells not hers anymore? you wouldn't arrest someone for removing a wart.
>>42228564That’s what arguments like name the trait are for Do androids dream of electric sheap? Is a good argument for veganism>rights are only for humansDefine human.If an animal is living a mostly bad life, suffering massively in a factory farm and experiencing little wellbeing then it’s wrong to breed them into existence.If an animal is living a mostly good life, perhaps on a pasture then it’s wrong to cut their mostly good life short by executing them when they’re a healthy teenager.https://www.dominionmovement.com/watchhttps://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTraitThis dialogue tree has been used by vegans many times in live debates, (feel free to comment on one of their videos, email them, message them on Instagram etc to challenge them to a debate on NTT )https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiGT6ox0Y-Mhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJR5vsrkr9Ahttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLjgo2TfcMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrtziO8Ffc4&pp=ygUjRHIgQXZpIGRlYmF0ZSB2ZWdhbiBuYW1lIHRoZSB0cmFpdCA%3DIf someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)
>>42228437You're right, OP. Hospitals should be cold.
>>42228571No one knows but what we do know is that a POTENTIAL life was lost. The root actually isn't "Oh when is it alive? Heartbeat? Cells?" The root is maybe women and men should be responsible with who they fuck (incest,health,and rape aside obv smart ass). I know fellow dudes - that would suck. But if we truly be honest with ourselves THAT is the real problem. Or else you would never need abortion. Reeeally tough to do but my point is that is the philosophical root that we actually do know and can control.
>>42228575I reject your framing. It’s murder when it ends a conscious experience and warts are not conscious. Fetuses have a significant chance of having a significant amount of consciousness as soon as 8 weeks into pregnancy and almost all abortions happen after 7 weeks
>>42228588i don't think wet flesh burns that well, its more about removing biohazardous stuff in a way defined by law.
>>422285641: eating other animals is literally a matter of survival both physically and spiritually. 2: you won't last a month without your modern comforts so stop acting high and mighty
>>42228588There’s too many hospitals. More fat people and drug addicts should be left for dead. Waste of resources
>>42228592its a lose, but it wouldn't have probably survive regardless, if we we not in modern times.you kinda gotta lean on there being a system for young souls. maybe why children see other children that are not there alot.
>>42228596i don't just mean for food. i mean culling animals we consider dangerous or annoying.
>>42228437Animals are meant for consumption, btw. But yeah, the treating of a human being (whether it's a fetus or infant or child or teen, or adult) like waste is shitty, but what's worse is lying to someone about "cremating them" is evil. I'm not shocked the UK is doing evil shit; there's no morality there whatsoever.
>>42228596>1: eating other animals is literally a matter of survival both physicallyNo. Vegans who have been vegan their entire life including while in the womb exist and are healthy https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v90Q4civ_tsProfessional vegan athletes who have beaten world records exist.And lots of large studies on vegan populations like the vegan community in seventh day Adventists exist and show they are healthy >and spiritually.This doesn’t make any sense. Almost no major world religions say you must eat animals today
>>42228607That’s schizophrenia . No wonder you find it so persuasive
>>42228618you do it, because that is the gift of experiencing your life.you do it less because you like experiencing life in other things.simple as
>>42228613That’s not the same thing as willfully choosing( in non rape cases) to force another being into a state of dependence on you and then killing them
>>42228616Being 'bred to die' is an argument that is often used as a justification for the slaughter of animals.If the interlocutor/s name 'bred to die' as a trait, there are, yet again, absurd conclusions that follow from the premise.X purpose given by someone =/= moral justification to do X - or that would implicitly imply that morality is dictated by that someone.A could say:P1. If a being is bred into existence for the purpose of dying, it's OK to kill them.P2. Farmed animals are being bred into existence for the purpose of dying.C1. It's OK to kill farmed animals.B could then say:P1. If a being is bred into existence for the purpose of dying, it's OK to kill them.P2. I want to breed children into existence for the purpose of them being killed when they're old enough to run for their lives and make it fun.C1. It's OK to kill said children.It's very easy to show how psychopathic, incompatible, and inconsistent, conclusions entailed by such a premise would be.Being brought into existence with an intended purpose for your existence, doesn't morally justify carrying out such purpose simply because it was intended to be so.
>>42228634>That’s not the same thing as willfully choosing( in non rape cases) to force another being into a state of dependence on you and then killing themthat's the survival of the fittest we won at that game for the most part so we live life easy we built systems where we don't have to kill our food and have someone else kill the food simple as that. Animal lives aren't that important; they do nothing but exist, so why not put them to use?
>>42228643>>42228616If the interlocutor/s do not agree to that, then even more absurd conclusions follow:P1. If a being is bred into existence for a purpose, it's OK to carry out such a purpose onto them.P2. X dogs are bred into existence for the purpose of dogfighting.P3. Y dogs are not bred into existence for the purpose of dogfighting.P4. X and Y dogs are at the same sentient level, and are equal.C1. It's OK to make X dogs dogfight, but not Y dogs.P1. If a being is bred into existence for a purpose, it's OK to carry out such a purpose onto them.P2. X humans are bred into existence to be slaves.P3. Y humans are bred into existence to be slave traders.P4. X and Y humans are at the same sentient level, and are equal.C1. It's OK for Y humans to make X humans their slaves.And so on.After a certain point, person A will either have to admit that P1. is wrong, or agree to absurd and psychopathic views that are inconsistent and make no sense.
>>42228437What is more sickening is what they do to the fetuses before they are sacrificed. Before they are used as fuel, they are harvested for their stems cells. A twisted fountain of youth for those who wish to extend their life or turn back the hands of time. Another use is to flavor our foods. How does a person stumble upon this flavor enhancer?>Human embryonic kidney 293 cells, also often referred to as HEK 293, HEK-293, 293 cells, are an immortalised cell line derived from HEK cells isolated from a female fetus in the 1970s> Given the location of the adrenal gland (adrenal means "next to the kidney"), a few adrenal cells could plausibly have appeared in an embryonic kidney derived culture, and could be preferentially transformed by adenovirus.A poor mans adrenochrome for the masses.
>>42228654i think they've found other ways to get or make stem cells now
>>42228618Brother. If you're in the jungle and you have 6 hours to live until u die of starvation and all you can eat between then is a nice med rare ribeye steak 99.99% of humans are eating the steak. Animal instinct to survive. It's nature, it's how we are wired. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill all male baby chickens fresh out the egg but most people will do anything they can to sruvive, and some won't even be able to control it. It is what it is. Your message is good tho. I would never argue with "hey lets kill less shit" so I'm with ya bud
>>42228648>That’s not the same thing as willfully choosing( in non rape cases) to force another being into a state of dependence on you and then killing them>that's the survival of the fittest we non severely permanently mentally handicapped humans won at that game for the most part so we live life easy we built systems where we don't have to kill our severely permanently mentally handicapped humans and have someone else kill the severely permanently mentally handicapped humans and harvest their organs simple as that. severely permanently mentally handicapped humans lives aren't that important; they do nothing but exist, so why not put them to use?
>>42228579>Define humanhigher-functioning than a wetlands gorilla.
>>42228665I’d also quite possibly eat a severed human leg in that situation. I don’t see why it matters .Some monks or prisoners have chosen to starve themselves to death >most people will do anything they can to sruvive, and some won't even be able to control it. It is what it is.You can use that to justify stealing from a bunch of poor low income people just so you can afford to buy an expensive drug that will make you age 2% slower and maybe make you live an extra few years in a couple decades from now >>42228684That would exclude severely permanently mentally handicapped adult humans and toddlers
>>42228643Humans aren't the same as these livestock animals, though we actually make a difference; unlike them, we just exist, while most humans have the potential to do something in their lives>>42228671I don't care if we kill handicapped people if they serve absolutely no purpose, but with new technologies, everyone can serve some purpose in a job. However, livestock do have no purpose other than being consumed, milked, or used as a material for making things.
>>42228684This would also include intelligent aliens even if they have gray skin and antlers.If these gray skinned antler having “humans” came to earth and decided to factory farm Homo sapiens would that be immoral?
>>42228707>purposeto you.they are obviously experiencing life.
>>42228684Did two non humans give birth to a human? Would it be moral to kill , eat and or factory farm that humans parents but not their child? Pic somewhat related
>>42228710Again, survival of the fittest, whoever wins wins, morality serves no purpose, other than pathetic emotional bullshit.
>>42228707If not having potential for an arbitrary thing is used as a moral justification to inflict harm, there are absurd consequences that follow.1. What if a human has no potential for something that a being better/more intelligence than a human has potential for?If a being having potential for a named thing (while another being doesn't), means that it's OK for the first being to eat/harm the second, it can be shown how it could be the case for other potentials to hold the first being as the one being morally OK to be eaten/harmed.For example:P1. X having potential for processing information Z fast at the same time as Y not having said potential, makes it OK for X to eat/harm Y.P2. Humans have no potential for being able to process information Z fast, while an AI does.C1. It's OK for AIs to eat/harm humans.P1. X having potential for prolonged survival without water at the same time as Y not having said potential, makes it OK for X to eat/harm YP2. Camels have the potential to survive 15 days without water, while humans don't.C1. It's OK for camels to eat/harm humans,2. What about humans that have less potential for something than other humans?
>>42228733>>42228707If a being having potential for something that another doesn't have, means that it's OK for the first being to harm the second, it would follow that if a being has *more* potential than another, it would also mean that it's OK for the first being to harm the second (as the moral worth is contingent on potential).P1. X having more potential than Y, makes it OK for X to eat/harm Y.P2. Someone with prodigious ability to do mental calculations has more potential in math than the average person.C1. It's morally OK for that someone to eat/harm average humans.P1. X having more potential than Y, makes it OK for X to eat/harm Y.P2. A child with genetical advantage has more potential to perform in sports than a child with lower genetical advantage.C1. It's morally OK for the child with more genetical advantage to eat/harm the other child.
>>42228733Yes, it does make it okay for the superior one to kill the inferior one if someone has less potential than they should die.
>>42228730How do you build and maintain a civilization with this viewpoint? If the government says >survival of the fittest, whoever wins wins, morality serves no purpose, other than pathetic emotional bullshit.Kids are taught in schools >survival of the fittest, whoever wins wins, morality serves no purpose, other than pathetic emotional bullshit.Etc etcHow are you going to have a non shit hole country if it’s filed with lots of people who literally believe >survival of the fittest, whoever wins wins, morality serves no purpose, other than pathetic emotional bullshit.
>>42228707There are 3 ways to go about dismantling how inconsistent this named trait is.1. When having 'low intelligence' is named as trait to justify animals' farming and consumption, there's another reduction ad absurdum that can be easily done.P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.C1. It's OK to harm and slaughter mentally handicapped people (low intelligence).P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.C1. It's OK to harm and slaughter humans, but not super-intelligent alien/AI beings.P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.C1. It's OK to harm and slaughter super-intelligent alien/AI beings, but not hyper-intelligent alien/AI beings.This begs the question: when beings of higher intelligence are discovered, would it then suddenly classify the beings of previous highest intelligence (that were *not* morally OK to harm and consume) OK to harm and consume?2. 'Low' intelligence is very vague, and it's arbitrary.Low intelligence can be applied to pretty much anything, as intelligence is a very vague term and is best used in a comparative way to see who's more intelligence in what, rather than an objective view of who's of high intelligence and who's of low intelligence.Low intelligence compared to what?It could even be argued that humans are of low intelligence, since it doesn't have any comparison and it's arbitrary. And when there's something more intelligent than humans, humans could easily be considered 'low intelligence' in the same way.
>>42228664Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are derived from the embryonic stage of development and Umbilical cord blood stem cells are derived from the fetal stage.A good thread instantly derailed by shills. Notice how they do not argue over the child sacrifice claim. They argue over the definitions of life and were it begins.
>>42228707P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.P2. High intelligence is determined by the current being of highest intelligence, and less intelligent beings are low intelligence.C1. When super-intelligent alien/AI beings are discovered, it's OK to harm and slaughter humans, but not super-intelligent alien/AI beings.P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.P2. High intelligence is determined by the current being of highest intelligence, and less intelligent beings are low intelligence.C1. When hyper-intelligent alien/AI beings are discovered, it's OK to harm and slaughter super-intelligent alien/AI beings, and of course humans as well, but not hyper-intelligent alien/AI beings.And so on.'Low intelligence' is arbitrary, and so can't be used in an objective and consistent way.3. While higher intelligence sometimes correlates with a higher level of sentience, what people would normally consider 'low intelligence' can still retain very significant levels of sentience. Intelligence =/= morality.Basing morality on 'intelligence' (instead of sentience) leads to absurd conclusions.Are plants of moral significance, because they have a level of intelligence, even though they have no sentience and therefore can't feel or subjectively experience?Are non-sentient super-computers of higher moral significance than humans, because they have more intelligence?And so on.A reductio ad absurdum would be:P1. Moral worth is based on intelligence.P2. Current computers have a higher intelligence than humans.C1. Current computers have a higher moral value than humans.Instead it should be:P1. Moral worth is based on the level of sentience (ability to feel, perceive and experience subjectively).P2. Current computers have no sentience, while humans do.C1. Current computers have no moral value (lower) than humans.
>>42228752Simply don't have a civilization live on your own. If you get a mating partner, then fine; if not, then whatever. People have grown weak ever since the start of technology. We're forced to live in societies where we are forced to participate. If it were up to me, I'd personally be living out in the wild, farming my own crops, making my own weapons, and hunting my own prey.
>>42228694Yeah cuz god gave me free will hell ya
>>42228763Interesting you preach what is basically might makes right while also being at least somewhat of a luddite. Anti technology and or anti civilization peoples are always killed or conquered by peoples more technologically advanced and organized then them. That’s why you should be not evil and also pro technology and pro civilization so you don’t get killed off or conquered by some foreign group of pro technology and pro civilization peoples who are more evil then you.
>>42228771God is made-up bullshit made up by humans to deal with the pain that nothing else comes after death. It's pathetic that in modern society, people choose to believe in books of fairy tales.
>>42228780What about fine tuning, hard problem of consciousness, anthropic argument for God, psycho psychical harmony etc ? Almost all the best arguments for God are from the past 100 years!
>>42228780ya but I have free will! See? and I can even put a space between the 2 e's in See. Se e? Was that planned? was it planned for me to ask was this planned? hellloOh ok that 'hello' was already pre determined before my brith on this date in this year at this time and millisecond? That's what you're saying right? ok makes sense I couldn't agree more wow
>>42228790>>42228780https://benthams.substack.com/p/arguments-for-god-tier-list
>>42228437It's purpose is entirely symbolic. There is zero pragmatism in these kinds of practices. It's just done to be as vile and evil as possible. I truly believe in the loosh farm theory when these sorts of things are carried out.
>>42228804Animal agriculture, wild animal suffering (rewilding, conservationists and most environmentalists), circumcision, most wars, are better examples
>>42228780Apparently the people with endless amounts of power and literature at their disposal disagree with you. Your argument carries little weight outside of mockery of those that believe. What has your disbelief gained you other than guilt-free indulgence of vice?
>>42228532It’s working exactly as designed
>>42228827Eating and fighting are natural, and just because man has grown fat and lazy in it's tastes for flesh, doesn't make it inherently evil. Circumcision and wars are religious/financial in their motives (sometimes), and are not better examples imo. This act is done purely to disgust those that would care for the child they are burning, no utility outside of malice.
>>42228596My thought exactly. Incinerating fetuses with rubbish is controversial but it definitely doesn't generate additional heat.
>>42228437>Cremation>Not given to the baby eating wealthy>I'm so literally-me maaaaaaaddddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
>>42228778Right now the people who went to the moon and invented the computer are being bred out and replaced by people who wandered in from a ghetto covered in shit.You're obviously wrong.
>>42228437>>42228448nooooo! Those babies were meant for trump! What's he gonna eat with his mcnuggies now??????)??
>>42230174Almost everyone eats babies. Animal sacrifice and child sacrifice (circumcision) are favorites of yahweh
Bump
>>42228733>>42228740Bro aint nobody reading this slop cmon do better
>>42228759>>42228762Holy shit there's more. What's even ur point dud?
>>42233008Speciesism is bad
>>42233014lmao I guess so. I agree w that
The babies were nonwhite. How do you feel about that now?
>>42228437I don't care.
>>42233065Still murderAll races and ethnicities are made in the image of God and have members in each capable of understanding the laws of logic and calculus
Bunp
No.42228533fuck off moloch., human saciface is disgusting and you should feel bad about accepting it.-zeus.you keep telling woman to aciface their kids for money.and their strong indepant woman nonsencejust how many morons have fallen for your lies moloch?also using morloch worshipers aborted kids as heating is based.based UK.it seems i like anglos more every daymoloch feminists BTFO!>based little rome ruining human sacface pagans.I love it.saturn BTFOanother jupiter victory i see.-zeus
>>42228437The fucking fact that there are enough to heat a hospital is astounding.
>>42230165Black women were responsible for getting humans to the moon
> So the child sacrifice victims are used to heat the hospital so they can mutilate the genitals of little baby boys and sell the foreskins?This is the UK fren, we don’t have the weird fetish for genital mutilation that Yanks do, the vast majority of UK men are uncut, and those that are cut are generally for medical reasons.
>>42228437>what is biomedical waste
