Strontium Dog wrote:I thought, as atheists, we don't consider dead bodies to be endowed with special qualities? They're just organ sacks, aren't they? A "collection of cells which will soon begin to disassemble and rot away". Not a person, but a "lump of meat".

Animavore wrote:
I don't think Mick is trolling at all. I think his beliefs are genuinely messed up.

Animavore wrote:So it wouldn't bother you to throw a deceased loved one to the dogs or a society of necrophiliacs then?

Animavore wrote:It's how the bodies got there is the issue and why there remains no records rather than the bodies in and of themselves.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Beatsong wrote:I'm not sure I'm clear what's actually going on here.

Is the story just about the fact that when these children died (of disease and "natural causes") they were chucked in the septic tank instead of being given a proper burial?

Or is there a much stronger claim involved - that they killed the babies, or neglected them until they died prematurely or something, to avoid the religious disgraces of bastardy or abortion?

I too am unclear.

I thought, as atheists, we don't consider dead bodies to be endowed with special qualities? They're just organ sacks, aren't they? A "collection of cells which will soon begin to disassemble and rot away". Not a person, but a "lump of meat".

Once again, zero consistency being displayed on these forums. And people claim that Mick is trolling...

Strontium Dog wrote:

Animavore wrote:So it wouldn't bother you to throw a deceased loved one to the dogs or a society of necrophiliacs then?

It's immaterial what I think, since what I think is often at odds with what many here think.

Animavore wrote:It's how the bodies got there is the issue and why there remains no records rather than the bodies in and of themselves.

They got sick and died. As the records show.

Paul wrote::roll:
So you assume and jump to the conclusion that people are objecting to the mode of the burials. Very rational.

Animavore wrote:The records? What records? That's the point.

And nevermind what the records show, it's what the autopsy shows that will be vital in this case.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Paul wrote::roll:
So you assume and jump to the conclusion that people are objecting to the mode of the burials. Very rational.

Yes, it is rational, because the maltreatment of inmates at these establishments is certainly not news, so what could people be objecting to that is new?

And certainly, reading the news reports, the vast amount of opprobrium seems to concern the mode of disposal of the bodies. It's that which seems to be the focal point for the news story.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Animavore wrote:The records? What records? That's the point.

And nevermind what the records show, it's what the autopsy shows that will be vital in this case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27710206

County Galway death records showed that most of the children buried in the unmarked grave had died of sickness or malnutrition.

DaveD wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Paul wrote::roll:
So you assume and jump to the conclusion that people are objecting to the mode of the burials. Very rational.

Yes, it is rational, because the maltreatment of inmates at these establishments is certainly not news, so what could people be objecting to that is new?

And certainly, reading the news reports, the vast amount of opprobrium seems to concern the mode of disposal of the bodies. It's that which seems to be the focal point for the news story.

The mode of disposal of the corpses is indicative of a lack of care in life, just as your posts are indicative of a lack of empathy.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Paul wrote::roll:
So you assume and jump to the conclusion that people are objecting to the mode of the burials. Very rational.

Yes, it is rational, because the maltreatment of inmates at these establishments is certainly not news, so what could people be objecting to that is new?

And certainly, reading the news reports, the vast amount of opprobrium seems to concern the mode of disposal of the bodies. It's that which seems to be the focal point for the news story.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Animavore wrote:So it wouldn't bother you to throw a deceased loved one to the dogs or a society of necrophiliacs then?

It's immaterial what I think, since what I think is often at odds with what many here think.

Animavore wrote:It's how the bodies got there is the issue and why there remains no records rather than the bodies in and of themselves.

They got sick and died. As the records show.

Paul wrote:The bit in blue I think DD

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Paul wrote:The bit in blue I think DD

Phew, thanks, Paul!

I missed that, and I apologise to Skinny!

campermon wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:I too am unclear.

I thought, as atheists, we don't consider dead bodies to be endowed with special qualities? They're just organ sacks, aren't they? A "collection of cells which will soon begin to disassemble and rot away". Not a person, but a "lump of meat".

Once again, zero consistency being displayed on these forums. And people claim that Mick is trolling...

You raise an interesting point SD.

Perhaps we associate the 'special qualities' that our loved ones had in life with their corpses?

Following revelations that an estimated 796 children were buried in a mass grave in Tuam in Co Galway, the Irish Daily Mail has brought to light the fact that there is a similar grave at what was known as the Castlepollard Mother and Child Home (later St Peter’s).

According to the organisation Adoption Rights Now (ARN), there may be as many as 500 babies buried in the “little angels” plot at Castlepollard.

ARN claims that 2800 to 3000 babies were born in Castlepollard. Of these, “2,500 were adopted out and between 300 to 500 died although this figure could be higher (no one knows the actual numbers)”.