Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Extra-260:

 It appears that Pepsi is experimenting with human baby remains as flavor enhancers for their products. These remains are most likely the remains of aborted babies.

 This is a serious breach of morality.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/034..._soda_flavoring.html

This story broke in 2010, there are NO baby remains in Pepsi products. A research company uses cloned kidney cells that originally came from fetuses to determine taste receptors. The remains come form ELECTIVE abortions. 

 

Aborted cells are used in the development of artificial flavor enhancers by biotech company Senomyx, with which PepsiCo signed a four-year, $30 million agreement in 2010 for research and development. No Pepsi products containing Senonymx flavor enhancers should be expected until 2013.

Senomyx’s disputed cell line is HEK-293, derived from the kidney cells of an aborted baby. We could go into the weeds at this point, but Wikipedia offers an easy explanation:

    HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney cells. These cells, which were cloned, originally came from healthy, electively aborted human embryos. Using information from the human genome sequence, Senomyx has identified hundreds of taste receptors and currently owns 113 patents on their discoveries.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:

Crumbpicker.

 While there may be no human remains in Pepsi products, they ARE being used in research to enhance flavorings in those same products.

 

Yes, but you made it appear that baby remains are in the Pepsi products. The original kidney cells came from electively aborted fetuses, thrown out by hospitals as medical waste. If it was being discarded any way, why not make use of the available technology to use that 'waste' in a productive manner? After the first set was cloned, would it still be from the fetuses?

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:

Crumbpicker.

 While there may be no human remains in Pepsi products, they ARE being used in research to enhance flavorings in those same products.

 

Yes, but you made it appear that baby remains are in the Pepsi products. The original kidney cells came from electively aborted fetuses, thrown out by hospitals as medical waste. If it was being discarded any way, why not make use of the available technology to use that 'waste' in a productive manner? After the first set was cloned, would it still be from the fetuses?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I didn't imply that human remains were in their products. I stated they were using it as flavor enhancers in their research and then posted a link that made the same clarification.

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:

Crumbpicker.

 While there may be no human remains in Pepsi products, they ARE being used in research to enhance flavorings in those same products.

 

Yes, but you made it appear that baby remains are in the Pepsi products. The original kidney cells came from electively aborted fetuses, thrown out by hospitals as medical waste. If it was being discarded any way, why not make use of the available technology to use that 'waste' in a productive manner? After the first set was cloned, would it still be from the fetuses?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Your concept of morality is "staggering".

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:

Crumbpicker.

 While there may be no human remains in Pepsi products, they ARE being used in research to enhance flavorings in those same products.

 

Yes, but you made it appear that baby remains are in the Pepsi products. The original kidney cells came from electively aborted fetuses, thrown out by hospitals as medical waste. If it was being discarded any way, why not make use of the available technology to use that 'waste' in a productive manner? After the first set was cloned, would it still be from the fetuses?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Your concept of morality is "staggering".

You are more concerned with discarded cells being used for research than the fact that those cells came from ABORTED fetuses. I find the morality of the abortions a bigger problem. Once the abortion has occurred, where is the immorality in using a few selective cells? This is no different than a med student practicing on a cadaver.

Hi all,

 

Babies should NOT be aborted -- elective or otherwise.   And, even if our misguided government and society does allow abortions -- the results should NOT be used in ANY commercial venture.   Just my thoughts.

 

And, please do not run that old "Incest-Rape-Mother's Health" flag up the flag pole.  All of those total represent less than 3% of the ONE MILLION babies aborted in America every years since 1973.

 

That leaves "97%+" aborted for convenience or as an alternate form of birth control.  That 97%+ represents, on average, over 970,000 babies killed each year in America alone -- for convenience.  That, my Friends, is INFANTICIDE!

 

We read in Luke 18:16, "But Jesus called for them, saying, 'Permit the children to come to Me,. . .' "

 

However, He was not telling us to accelerate their entry into heaven by killing them prematurely.

 

When our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- that ALL MEN also included babies, even unborn babies. 

 

And, yes, they, too, have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."   No one, regardless of age -- deserves to be killed "for convenience."

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

1 - Baby-From-God_DIE-ONE MILLION

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - Baby-From-God_DIE-ONE MILLION

Both extra and Bill are attempting to use semantics here. A baby is an infant. An infant is a baby. The infant/baby is defined as being from birth to 12 months (some will say until 24 months). The key word is birth. Until birth, the entity is a fetus.

 

Most of us would not like to be referred to as a corpse, but when our spirits leave our human shells, that is what will be left. It's a fact. It's a word. Just as fetus is a word, whether Bill or extra like to use it or not. When opponents of induced abortion misuse words, it weakens their case.

 

Just in the for what it's worth department, do you know what happens to still born infants? Many are never returned to their families for burial--their families can't afford it. These remains are incinerated with other medical waste, usually by professional companies. Sometimes the mother has been in an accident or has a serious illness and doesn't even know what has happened to her still born infant until it is all over.

 

I certainly believe money should be spent to help the living, but I've often wondered why someone has never set up a fund to offer a burial for these infants. At least in this area, there is not one.

FTR, I'm not pro abortion. I am pro using the correct terms. Many people call a spontaneous abortion a miscarriage. That's called a euphemism. So is saying someone passed away when someone dies. No matter what your wife called your child, until it was born, it was not a baby. How would you like pro-abortionists to begin calling a fetus a tumor? I certainly wouldn't...

 

Did you know as soon as a baby is born, a pediatrician or pediatric CRNP is there to begin its care? The obstetrician will not care for a neonate and the pediatrician will not help with its delivery. There's a very distinct line there that isn't crossed.

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

FTR, I'm not pro abortion. I am pro using the correct terms. Many people call a spontaneous abortion a miscarriage. That's called a euphemism. So is saying someone passed away when someone dies. No matter what your wife called your child, until it was born, it was not a baby. How would you like pro-abortionists to begin calling a fetus a tumor? I certainly wouldn't...

 

Did you know as soon as a baby is born, a pediatrician or pediatric CRNP is there to begin its care? The obstetrician will not care for a neonate and the pediatrician will not help with its delivery. There's a very distinct line there that isn't crossed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Firenze,

 For someone who is supposed to have a medical background, you sure are mixed up.

 The word "fetus" is Latin for baby. It is the pro abortion crown who pulls the semantic switch in an effort to decieve people as to their true agenda.

 As a health care provider you should know this. Maybe your a fraud.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 

They can't afford to bury the baby but they would have been able to afford to raise it? I don't think a little graveside funeral for a baby would be astronomical in cost. 

 

Most young couples don't expect that their baby will be born dead. Especially if the child's death can be attributed to an accident in which the mother was injured and is still hospitalized, the family often chooses the easiest and cheapest way out. Insurance will pay for a birth, but the family is left to deal with funeral costs. Cremation runs $1,000.00 at least--not everyone can come up with that.

http://www.ehow.com/info_86945...adstone-funeral.html

 

http://www.midwivesonline.com/...tatingloss///?dlid=8

 

 So many sites say most funeral homes do the services for free. Also the parents have the say as to how the baby is treated, the hospitals don't just take them away never to be seen again. It's not a huge expense and there are organizations to help. I know it sounds like arguing but it isn't. It isn't a huge expense and it's completely up to the parents as to what they want done. BTW, would the hospital "dispose" of the child free of charge? I'd be willing to bet the hospital would charge more for that than a funeral would cost.

 

There's still the fact that once a baby is born its needs contiue. Unfortunately, conservatives feel their responsibility to that child ends at birth. Yet they still demand it be taught that belief is more important than understanding, and that sex is only good when narrowly defined, and that the body must be kept alive to the last possible breath at any cost, and a thousand other closed minded ways to limit the choices.
And they say that is moral.
 
Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:

 

There's still the fact that once a baby is born its needs contiue. Unfortunately, conservatives feel their responsibility to that child ends at birth. Yet they still demand it be taught that belief is more important than understanding, and that sex is only good when narrowly defined, and that the body must be kept alive to the last possible breath at any cost, and a thousand other closed minded ways to limit the choices.
And they say that is moral.
 

Unfortunately, conservatives feel their responsibility to that child ends at birth. 

?????


And I'm sure you can provide examples. Or, like most Libs on here, you are just pulling it out of your...well, you get the drift.

No idea where your twisted thinking comes from coffee. I don't think I'm obligated to care for someone elses child, before or after they're born. I just think that in the year 2012, and even before now, that the idea of killing that child because the parents couldn't be bothered to be responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy is ludicrous. The abortion argument is useless because neither side will give. Do I want to "take those babies" and raise them? Of course not, and I or anyone else shouldn't be expected to do that simply because we don't agree with abortion. 

 

I'm an atheist, my objection to abortion doesn't come from a religious view of it, it comes from a human view. I have two children, how can any parent that has children and has aborted others because they weren't "convenient" to have at the time, look at the child/children they have and not think that could have been the child they killed?  How can a parent look at the children they have and decide to kill the one they're carrying at the time? How can a woman claim to love a man yet kill his child? How can a man claim to love a woman and force her to kill her child? How does a man keep loving and living with a woman that would do that, and how does a woman keep living with and loving a man that would do that? These are some of the things I wonder. 

 

A woman that has to have an abortion for health reasons, real health reasons, has my full sympathy. I've posted that before. That has to be some sort of torture that no one can understand. I sure couldn't and I wouldn't want to be in that position for anything. But I will be honest enough to say that on the other hand, a woman that has it for birth control reasons is, to me, a special kind of evil. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Anyway, this has gone way off subject and I'm guilty of doing that too, but pepsi doesn't "experiment with human remains."  It amazes me how some people post things that could be harmful to a company's/city's repu tation that are just completely untrue. There was a thread about this about a year ago.

When this broke in 2010, there was a 'boycott' Pepsi due to ignorance. I see no reason to try and stir up false information again even if it's only on a forum. So thank you for seeing that.

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

The Latin word for left is "sinister." In English, if you're left handed, should I call you sinister?

 

And just how am I a fraud? Please elaborate.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Do you know WHY the left hand is considered in such negative terms?

 

Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:

 

There's still the fact that once a baby is born its needs contiue. Unfortunately, conservatives feel their responsibility to that child ends at birth. Yet they still demand it be taught that belief is more important than understanding, and that sex is only good when narrowly defined, and that the body must be kept alive to the last possible breath at any cost, and a thousand other closed minded ways to limit the choices.
And they say that is moral.
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 HEIL Hitler!!! ZEIG HEIL!!!!! ZEIG HEIL!!!!!!! 

 

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

The Latin word for left is "sinister." In English, if you're left handed, should I call you sinister?

 

And just how am I a fraud? Please elaborate.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Do you know WHY the left hand is considered in such negative terms?

 

 I know why the left is considered liberal. You may be thinking of some Muslim connotation.

 

You didn't answer my question. I assume I now join a list that includes a former candidate for judge and a prominent businessman?

 

______

 

Best, the last time I checked Huntsville Hospital and Auburn didn't charge for disposing of medical waste. That could have changed. Even so, there's no way the charge would come close to that of a funeral home. (And the last time I checked at a funeral home was many years ago and the cheapest casket was 600.00 then--not counting other charges.) No, the hospital doesn't take the bodies away without signed consent from the father or other family member. In Huntsville, there's a group of volunteers who dress the bodies in handmade clothes (they are usually premies) and take photos to give the mother later if she wants them.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×