Oklahoma State Senate Bill 1418 outlaws the use of aborted human fetuses in food.  "No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients."

Fortunately for the atheist community, this landmark legislation does not outlaw the use of miscarried human fetuses, or small children, in food products.  However, this is a slippery slope.  We should contact our more liberal democrat senators and representatives NOW, to firmly condemn this bill.  It is an obvious and outrageous violation of our religious liberties.

Views: 545

Replies to This Discussion

Was this actually a problem in Oklahoma?

When I want to make Paula Deen's special recipe for turkey casserole, I always use my own aborted fetus.   That way I know it's fresh.

My girlfriend won't even let me eat our rabbit! I wanted to name him "Christmas Dinner" which I thought was appropriate, but I yielded, so Franklin it is. Anyway, I suppose that if you'd call it "Homo Sapiens à Naître au Vin Rouge" you might find a buyer or two.

@Dr. Kellie, that is the funniest thing I've read in a while.  You've put me at a loss for words.

I've heard of people taking placenta pills as a kind of panacea for aging, but fetuses? 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!

In a hundred years or so, when the social policies of the red states, along with those of Islamic societies, bring the human population up to fifteen or twenty billion, and the biosphere is near depletion, a much broader use of H. sapiens will be de rigueur for the stone soup.

You know, I've never really thought about this outside of the context of some extreme survival situation, but I would love it if my friends could dine on my flesh after I die.  I'm just a little thing, but I think I'd make pretty good eatin'. 

The innate phobias of our psychology, and there are many, thwart a lot of sensible ideas.

So true.  It's too bad.  I have many friends who are weird enough to love the idea of eating my flesh.  I think my parents would not be fond of this idea.


I always found the "cannibal" stigma to be nonsensical, and I mean in survival scenarios.  Why in the hell would people not eat dead comrades if they were starving?  Or even hungry at all?

Well disease transmission is one reason. Sentimentality and just gut feeling another. Zeus thinks cannibalism is disgusting and I am sort of inclined to agree with him... but then again I also find my mucus disgusting but I live with it. The Mori who invaded New Zealand around 1000-1100 AD ate the native men/boys and kept the women to breed with... this is actually very logical from a certain stand point. By the way the natives were not a warrior people and so they were massacred by the invading warlike Mori. The pre-Mori natives were also almost white european and lived like we imagine the elves do.

I don't think survival situations are a time to worry about disease.  Eating raw animal flesh at those times would be risky, too.  The reason I specified "hungry at all" is because your dead companion isn't getting any fresher.




Natural selection didn't make these biases compulsory in all circumstances. Put a few H. sapiens in a difficult situation and there will be some trading deals with "the others." Need a partner in a depleted tribe? A first cousin might do. Run out of food with 100 km of bare snow to traverse to your camp - and you're lugging a frozen comrade and a sharp stone?   


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service