hospital is persuading women who want to terminate their pregnancies to have the babies so it can sell them for $1,400 each to childless couples.
The shocking ?baby farm? has been exposed at the 30-bed Palash Hospital in the Gwailor district of India. Two of the sold babies have since been rescued by police.
Prateek Kumar, from the ASP crime branch, told Times of India: ?Three others have been sold to childless couples in Uttar Pradesh and Chattisgarh.?
Hospital manager Arun Bhadoria was arrested and claimed that agents in the Chambal region fetched girls with unwanted pregnancies. An investigation was launched when he could not give the whereabouts of two babies born in the hospital.
In total, five people have been charged with slavery crimes.
Greenpeace protesters climb Nelson?s Column and other monuments to protest London?s air quality
Two arrested after baby is left in car in sweltering heat so mum can audition as dancer at a strip club in Nashville
Terror expert?s warning as drone hits British Airways Heathrow flight carrying 137 people
An investigating officer told the Times of India: ?When a girl or her parents approached them for a termination of pregnancies, doctors at this hospital used to convince them, assuring a safe and secret delivery.
?Once the baby is delivered and the mother gets discharged, hospital authorities start hunting for gullible couples who could buy them.?
The hospital was raided on Saturday night following a tip about trafficked infants.
Police are now searching for couples who bought babies from the hospital and for those who were sold.
Selling dead baby parts is much better than selling a whole live baby to a couple who really wants one.
You are so out of line here Panties!!! You have NO IDEA that they're going to couples or that they really want them or that they're not going to abuse them or use them as sex toys or something!!! SICK!
You are so out of line here Panties!!! You have NO IDEA that they're going to couples or that they really want them or that they're not going to abuse them or use them as sex toys or something!!! SICK!?
Who are you to say what or who is out of line? If you don't like what I say you don't have to read it.
Hopefully, it will be found out that the hospital investigates the parents buying the babies before they are allowed to take the babies.
Ted Cruz Gets Away With Blatant Nonsense On Abortion As Scientists Keep Quiet
This generation of young people is the most pro-life generation of young people we have seen in modern times, and I think that?s because science is making more and more clear that unborn children are people who can feel pain, who can feel suffering, and we ought to be protecting them.?
?Ted Cruz speaking at MSNBC Town Hall, April 14
Ted Cruz says a lot when he brings his limited expertise about science and medicine to bear on the issue of personhood and abortion. A lot that is wrong.
Cruz may or may not be right about whether young people are more pro-life than they have ever been?Gallup?s yearly polling does not support that claim. Some 20% of Americans said all abortions should be illegal in 1975 and 20% said so in 2015. But, polls can be interpreted in many ways.
What cannot be interpreted in many ways are the facts of human embryology. Those do not support Cruz?s assertion that scientific advances are making it clear that embryos and fetuses can feel pain and thus ought to be treated as persons.
How can Cruz get away with such blatant nonsense when it comes to the lessons that science and medicine have to teach about embryos and fetuses? It is partly because the medical and bioscience communities long ago abandoned any serious effort to shape the debate over abortion. Many, I suspect, don?t want to alienate the main source of their financial support?Congress and state legislators. They have decided to stay out of the whole divisive issue leaving pro-life politicians like Cruz to make claims that are just as much junk science as climate denial, creation ?science? and efforts to link autism to vaccines.
A good number of scientists and doctors hide behind the claim that science cannot tell us anything of relevance to abortion. This attempt to evade any relevance to the battle over abortion started with a U.S. National Academy of Sciences statement in 1981 that the existence of human life at conception is a question to which science can provide no answer. Since that time, most life scientists and physicians have remained more or less mum on the issue of abortion. Their reticence permits Cruz to invoke biological science and medicine in ways not supported by either.
While it is absolutely true that the law or theology have the power to stipulate when both human life and legal personhood begin, it is also true that science and medicine have in their possession facts that bear on the answers to those questions. Oddly, that is something that Ted Cruz seems willing to acknowledge even if many scientist don?t. The unwillingness of scientists and doctors to counter misstatements like Cruz?s only lets them flourish.
So what about fetal pain? Cruz and proponents of fetal pain laws requiring fetal anesthesia as part of any abortion at 20 weeks of the sort just enacted in Utah insist that science and medicine hold that fetuses at 20 weeks feel pain. Cruz is even hinting that embryos do, which is absolute nonsense. However, so is the claim about 20-week old fetuses. No studies demonstrate any such capacity.
In 2010, Britain?s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reviewed the available evidence and concluded that the ?fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed.? Further, they said, the fetus, ?while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious.? The main American article on the subject published in 2005 in The Journal of the American Medical Association reviewing over 2,000 articles on the ability of the fetus to feel pain came to the same conclusion. The fetal brain at 20 weeks is not wired sufficiently to feel pain.
Legislators who despise abortion may not care. They want to pass laws prohibiting abortion at 20 weeks or earlier. But those who do, like Ted Cruz, should not get a pass on citing false medical or scientific in support of their moral point of view. As the Utah law shows bad science makes for bad public policy.
Since when did a supposed ability to feel pain become the determining point as to when someone is human? So your sister in a coma - not human? That unborn child has its own unique DNA, its own brain, its own heartbeat. In the womb it is developing and is totally dependent on its mother. Explain to me why it is OK to kill it? Convenience in most cases. The outcome of one's behavior caused an inconvenience. Now let me add that if the life of the mother is at risk and the choice has to be made to save the mother or lose them both, then there is room to discuss an exception.
How many unwanted children will Panties and Somedude take in?
Just another fallacious argument. As if there is no valid position on anything unless you are personally involved. We could ask some variation of this argument to everyone on here about something.
Secondly, there is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. I would say that many, many of these unwanted pregnancies would turn into very wanted children just the second the parents saw the child.
Also, ?Unwanted? describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. It is not the child's fault that they may not be wanted, why take the child's life? Where is the fairness and justice in that. The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them.
AMDG - Excellent points. Ugly yapper dog - Sorry, no soup for you. How do YOU define human - by appearance? By ability to feel pain? I would argue that the hair puller does not look so human to me. but that is not what makes that person a human. Human DNA means one is human. A heartbeat and a brain and lots of other human organs developing means ... human. So why kill the most innocent, most needy humans? Your example of the beginning cells of a human in its first day or week of life does not not take away the fact that it is a developing human.
And already at that early stage of development in complete possession of a unique and totally human future. There is no moral justification to deprive anyone of their unique future.
For those on either side who want to educate themselves on this issue, I have attached a link to what I believe is the best non-religious argument against abortion. IMO it is worth a read, in the something like over 20 years I think since it was published, there has not been a very good counter argument raised IMO.