Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-09-2001, 12:21 PM
The Flying Dutchman The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 50N West Georgia Strait
Posts: 8,604
According to this cite , the trade and consumption of human placentae and fetuses are traditional in China although in no way prevalent.

Are there laws in Canada and/or US that govern the disposal of human fetuses? Is it legal to eat human fetus?
  #2  
Old 10-09-2001, 01:30 PM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 14,041
Jeepers. I put "legal eat fetus" into Google and the most amazin' stuff starts poppin' up.

http://www.bible-way.org/turk/e-write/fetus.html
Quote:
Let's Eat Fetus Meat
...In fact, if fetuses are not humans, why discard their remains? Why not cook them, and feed them...
...and it gets pretty gross from there, so I'm not gonna quote it. But you may infer from the URL that it should be taken with "heavy sarcasm" mode ON.

This website has the "facts" about aborted babies being sold as health food in China, but it's hardly an unbiased website, and it had so many DETAILS that my UL alarm went off.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortedBab...HealthFood.htm
Quote:
The following is the text of an article which originally appeared in the Hong Kong Eastern Express on April 12, 1995.

No one could accuse The Chinese of being squeamish about the things they eat - monkeys' brains, owls' eyes, bears' paws and deep fried scorpions are all items on The menu. But most dishes revered as national favorites sound as harmless as boiled rice when compared to the latest pint de jour allegedly gaining favor in Shenzhen - human fetus.
So I went over to Snopes. Snopes is your friend.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm

Quote:
The photo shown above was taken seriously by a number of important agencies who viewed it, and both Scotland Yard and the FBI investigated this matter, trying to determine when and where the picture was taken and the identities of those appearing in it. Its origin was quickly uncovered: The man in the photo is Chinese artist Zhu Yu, who performed a conceptual piece called "Eating People" at a Shanghai arts festival in 2000. The controversial photo has since been part of a number of art exhibits. As for the "baby," it was most likely constructed by placing a doll's head on a duck's carcass.

The rumor about the Chinese eating dead babies did not begin with this "work of art," however. In 1995, U.S. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia raised a short-lived media ruckus by asserting he'd encountered credible reports of Chinese hospitals' selling human fetuses to be used as health food. Citing a 12 April 1995 article from Eastern Express, an English-language daily in Hong Kong, he demanded the Clinton administration and international human rights groups investigate these allegations.

Nothing apparently came of this call to arms, leading us to believe those "credible" reports turned out to be not so reliable after all. Just like this latest scare, in fact.
BTW, you evidently didn't notice that your link is to an Urban Myth website?

http://www.studentserve.co.uk/e_zine...myth/china.htm
Quote:
(cite provided by snopes)
  #3  
Old 10-09-2001, 02:16 PM
The Flying Dutchman The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 50N West Georgia Strait
Posts: 8,604
Quote:
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
BTW, you evidently didn't notice that your link is to an Urban Myth website?

http://www.studentserve.co.uk/e_zine...myth/china.htm
Quote:
(cite provided by snopes)
[/B]
DDG, the fact that my link is to an Urban Myth website is no accident. I just discovered this phenomenon during my research on Christian universalism. I immediately sought clarification from an "unbiased source", and came up with this Snopes article which does not support your conclusion. It disputes the claims of one Mary Senander claiming the consumption of fetuses as a recent trendy phenomenon and clarifies the the sources and statements of respectable news organizations that originally reported on the consumption of fetuses. Snopes did not challenge these statements.

Your presentation of anti-abortion websites is no doubt intended to undermine the credibility of these news reports, but bear in mind that these sites are irrelevant to the issue of whether the consumption of fetuses occurs or not.

With regard to the claim that nothing came of this call to arms, and thereby suggesting the claims were bogus is ridiculous reasoning.

Now can we get back to my question?
  #4  
Old 10-09-2001, 04:09 PM
Corrvin Corrvin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 779
<<Are there laws in Canada and/or US that govern the disposal of human fetuses? Is it legal to eat human fetus?>>

In the past, there were laws saying that a fetus was NOT a person, which resulted in fetuses not being buried in cemeteries, etc. but were simply disposed of like other medical waste. AFAIK most of those have been repealed to allow grieving parents (not quite the word, the people who would have been the parents had the fetus been born alive) to bury them.

Barring that, there might be regulations dealing with what you do with biohazardous waste, but that would only apply if your fetus was delivered in a hospital or doctor's office.

Of course, if you live in a city, extract your fetus at home, and then eat it, you're probably breaking the livestock zoning laws. (I can't believe I just typed that.)

Corr, who's gonna avoid the lasagna today
  #5  
Old 10-09-2001, 05:26 PM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 14,041
Your link is for a message board, e-zine, and chat room for college students in Bristol, England.

http://www.studentserve.co.uk

I don't see any journalistic credentials in evidence, or indications of moderation or self-policing. If you're a member, you can submit whatever you want. Just because someone posted an uncredited copy of the urbanlegends.com "eating fetuses in China" story doesn't make the eating of fetuses in China a proven fact.
Quote:
this Snopes article which does not support your conclusion.
Your link is not a Snopes article. The only Snopes article dealing with eating fetuses is the one I linked to. Barbara Mikkelson doesn't even mention someone named Mary Senander. I don't know what the phrase "cite provided by Snopes" is supposed to mean, because it certainly isn't on the Snopes website.

It is, however, on the urbanlegends.com website, being copied word for word from http://www.urbanlegends.com/food/bab...r_tribune.html

This http://www.urbanlegends.com/food/baby.eating/index.html "Food--Baby Eating" page merely offers two choices: the Star Tribune, or UPI. The Star Tribune link is the one copied on the Bristol student services website.

The UPI link http://www.urbanlegends.com/food/baby.eating/upi.html merely reprints an excerpted portion of the original Hong Kong article, that is reprinted in full on the abortionTV website I linked to. And at the bottom is the same phrase, "cite provided by Snopes".

Since this is an Urban Legends website, I think we may take it as read that they don't believe it, either--they're just posting it. It's assumed that if you're browsing their website, you know what an Urban Legend is, and they don't feel a need to either explain or debunk, unlike the Mikkelsons.

The UL goes:
Quote:
On the Internet, I was able to find the London Daily Telegraph article to which Senander referred. It appeared April 13, and was itself a secondhand report on an article originally printed in the Eastern Express, a Hong Kong newspaper.
I have looked around on the Telegraph's website, using their search function, and I can't find any record of them ever having reprinted this story.

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?a.../ixdfront.html

Here is the gist of the urbanlegends.com article: The author says that Mary Senander says that they're eating fetuses in China. The author cites the fact that the article has been reprinted in a mainstream Western newspaper as proof that it is indeed true. Instead of addressing the issue of whether the report is true, he addresses the issue of whether Mary Senander should be saying mean things about what may be an ancient and honorable, if peculiar, Chinese dietary practice.
Quote:
In any circumstance, eating tissue from a placenta or a fetus, however small, is guaranteed to turn most Western stomachs. But that doesn't qualify such behavior as a government-directed human rights abuse. And indeed, trying to turn fetus-eating into an abuse of power by the Chinese government is the slimiest part of Senander's argument.
The author is quibbling with Senander's semantics, not with the truth or falseness of the news report. This is a fairly common approach with Internet Urban Legends. Don't address the issue of whether or not Bigfoot exists--just quibble with the semantics of people who call it a "monster".

This anti-abortion link that I quoted http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortedBab...HealthFood.htm

contains the entire Telegraph article that is excerpted in the urbanlegends.com link. I quoted it, not because of any particular anti-abortion personal agenda, or from a desire to "undermine the credibility" of anything (BTW, you might want to ask for a refund on that mind-reading course you took), but because it was the article referred to in the Snopes link.
Quote:
these sites are irrelevant to the issue of whether the consumption of fetuses occurs or not.
Agreed, but as I have just pointed out, the reason I linked to the AbortionTV website was because it had the entire article, and the reason I linked to the other website was basically out of astonishment that this kind of stuff is out there.
Quote:
these news reports,
Which amounted to one purported reprint of a suspect article from a Hong Kong newspaper. How about a more reputable cite, like CNN, Newsweek, Reuters?
Quote:
and clarifies the the sources and statements of respectable news organizations that originally reported on the consumption of fetuses
No, it doesn't. It doesn't clarify anything at all. All it says is, basically, "Here's the article".
Quote:
Snopes did not challenge these statements.
A. Your article is not from Snopes.
B. MY Snopes article DOES seem to challenge the conclusion that "the Chinese are eating fetuses".
Quote:
The rumor about the Chinese eating dead babies did not begin with this "work of art," however. In 1995, U.S. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia raised a short-lived media ruckus by asserting he'd encountered credible reports of Chinese hospitals' selling human fetuses to be used as health food. Citing a 12 April 1995 article from Eastern Express, an English-language daily in Hong Kong, he demanded the Clinton administration and international human rights groups investigate these allegations.

Nothing apparently came of this call to arms, leading us to believe those "credible" reports turned out to be not so reliable after all. Just like this latest scare, in fact.
That sure sounds to me like, "The Chinese are not eating fetuses".
Quote:
I just discovered this phenomenon during my research on Christian universalism
According to Snopes, you have discovered an Urban Legend.
Quote:
I immediately sought clarification from an "unbiased source"
Your "unbiased source" is a college kids' e-zine.
Quote:
With regard to the claim that nothing came of this call to arms, and thereby suggesting the claims were bogus is ridiculous reasoning.
No, the "ridiculous reasoning" is in reasoning that just because something's posted on the Internet, it must be true.
Quote:
Now can we get back to my question?
Since this is a website devoted to Fighting Ignorance, and since this is the General Questions Forum in that website, where serious discussion of Urban Legends is not particularly welcome, why don't you go find some serious support for your allegation that the Chinese are eating fetuses, and then we'll talk?

Otherwise, this is like talking about whether it's legal to keep Bigfoot chained up in your garage or not.
  #6  
Old 10-09-2001, 05:55 PM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,438
:::Cackle:::

And he dared to go up against the famous Duck Duck Goose.

And he lost. Lesson learned !

<---chuckling mightily. NICEY done, Ducky.

I'll pass on the doll's head, but duck? Mmmmmm...duuuuuuuck.



Cartooniverse
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #7  
Old 10-09-2001, 08:41 PM
Primaflora Primaflora is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brisbane Q Australia
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally posted by Corrvin
<
In the past, there were laws saying that a fetus was NOT a person, which resulted in fetuses not being buried in cemeteries, etc. but were simply disposed of like other medical waste. AFAIK most of those have been repealed to allow grieving parents (not quite the word, the people who would have been the parents had the fetus been born alive) to bury them.

hijacking nitpick

Actually Corrvin most of us who lose babies do call ourselves parents. The law doesn't say that the fetus is a person, it says that it is legal to register the baby as a person after 26 weeks and get a birth certificate. Quite a few people who lose babies prior to 26 weeks do have a service and I haven't come across anyone with a baby past this time who hasn't had a funeral of some kind. It's a really individual process though. I certainly felt like a 'parent' albeit a parent of a dead child after my son was stillborn. Once I had a living baby, I was a far more blessed parent.

I've known a few people who ate the placenta and who were really positive about the health benefits. I buried mine and planted roses on them.
  #8  
Old 10-09-2001, 09:02 PM
Corrvin Corrvin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 779
Primaflora corrects me, <<Actually Corrvin most of us who lose babies do call ourselves parents. >>

Thank you, I was fairly sure of the technicalities but not knowing anyone in that position, I wasn't sure which would be more appropriate. I certainly don't want to say that someone who's hoped, planned, dreamed, and experienced a pregnancy has no right to grieve, or make their own decision about how they want to consider themselves afterward.

I appreciate your being so kind in the face of my fingers running amok over such a personal subject.

Corr
  #9  
Old 10-09-2001, 10:11 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,919
Brilliant, as usual, DDG!
  #10  
Old 10-09-2001, 11:51 PM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 14,041
Aw... I'm not out for blood, you guys, just "truth".

Here is some background information on where the original "Chinese are eating fetuses" article came from. It's too long to quote without getting yelled at, so I'll just hit the high points.

http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/se...g_fetuses.html
Quote:
Beijing, 1995: The Godless Triad
The United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, was hosted live on the Internet - one of the first of such events on the Web, and thousands of women the world over logged on. Conservative Christians could not fathom why the rest of the world was not outraged by the convergence of their three arch enemies: women, the communist Chinese, and the Clintons. James Dobson...
<snip>
World Magazine's Cultural Editor Mindy Belz...
<snip>
Bruce Gilley...
<snip>
Judie Brown...
<snip>
There are too many doubts cast on the Chinese fetus eating story for any thinking person to accept it as true. There is the lack of an original verifiable source. The tabloid in which the story first appeared is now defunct, and no other verifiable sources are provided. There is the lack of physical evidence, for instance, a copy of the menu on which the supposed fetus dish appears. There is the testimony of Judie Brown, of the American Life League, stating that the clinics mentioned in Bruce Gilley's article do not exist. And there is the complete lack of followup on a topic that warrants it.
So then, of course, the question, "well, is it legal to eat fetuses?" wouldn't leave me alone, all afternoon. And I think it's clear, too, that we're not talking about stillborn babies and grieving parents here, but about the end result of abortion clinics. Stillborn babies and miscarriages in a hospital context get official death certificates, but "fetal remains" in an abortion clinic don't, depending on the state. (I did notice, as it went past, that the state of Utah requires its abortion clinics to issue death certificates for pregnancy terminations of more than 20 weeks gestation).

There's not a lot out there on "cannibalism illegal". Evidently cannibalism isn't exactly illegal.
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x16251.xml
Quote:
After I had been a lawyer for a few years, I began to realize that cases involving cannibalism constituted a much smaller portion of my practice than I had been led to anticipate. Indeed, they are pretty rare. Among the 50 states, only Idaho has bothered to outlaw cannibalism specifically.
http://www.channel4.com/plus/timeteam/2001alv_quiz.html
Quote:
Is cannibalism illegal in the UK? No.
http://198.110.216.3/apls/2000confer...t/yoksas1.html
Quote:
Cannibalism and Laws Civil and Natural
Adam G. Yoksas Northern Illinois University
One of the most instructive ways biological thought may impact the study of public policy is to answer the question of why certain acts are prohibited and not others. Some acts we feel as abhorrent, like incest, have a biological cost in terms of genetic fitness, and have civil laws to prohibit such actions. Cannibalism, however, is an interesting and unique case in terms of the relationship between biology and civil law. For while it is true that people generally (at least in the West) feel that cannibalism is a taboo, the civil law is generally ambivalent to cannibalism as a matter of survival or as a practice of culture.
Although selling human flesh as meat is.

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/manbeef.htm
Quote:
Aside from that pesky marketing problem, however, is the inconvenient fact that it simply isn't legal to sell human flesh for consumption (by other humans or anything else) anywhere in the United States (or to export it out of the USA),
OSHA considers fetal tissue to be a "regulated waste" under their "Blood Borne Pathogen" guidelines, and it must be treated as a biohazard and disposed of according to OSHA guidelines.

http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/Inter...19930201A.html
Quote:
What does OSHA mean by the term "regulated waste"?
A. The Bloodborne Pathogens Standard uses the term, "regulated waste," to refer to the following categories of waste which require special handling at a minimum; (1) liquid or semi-liquid blood or OPIM; (2) items contaminated with blood or OPIM and which would release these substances in a liquid or semi-liquid state if compressed; (3) items that are caked with dried blood or OPIM and are capable of releasing these materials during handling; (4) contaminated sharps; and (5) pathological and microbiological wastes containing blood or OPIM.
How do I dispose of regulated waste?
A. Regulated waste shall be placed in containers which are:
* Closable;
* Constructed to contain all contents and prevent leakage of fluids during handling, storage, transport or shipping;
* Labeled or color-coded in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the standard; and
* Closed prior to removal to prevent spillage or protrusion of contents during handling, storage, transport, or shipping.
16
If outside contamination of the regulated waste container occurs, it shall be placed in a second container. The second container shall be:
* Closable;
* Constructed to contain all contents and prevent leakage of fluids during handling, storage, transport, or shipping;
* Labeled or color-coded in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the standard; and
* Closed prior to removal to prevent spillage or protrusion of contents during handling, storage, transport, or shipping.
Disposal of all regulated waste shall be in accordance with applicable regulations of the United States, States and Territories, and political subdivisions of States and Territories.
However, in a non-OSHA context, what the abortion clinics do with fetal remains evidently varies from state to state. I spent a while looking, and I don't see any big general guidelines. Of course, all the anti-abortion websites insist that fetal remains are sent down the garbage disposal, but with the market in fetal tissue for research that's evident on the Web, I somehow doubt that all of it ends up that way.

http://www.stateaction.org/alternati...1&artnumber=10
Quote:
Fetal Remains Disposal. Some states specifically control post-abortion disposal or examination of fetal tissue.
So, ya know, folks, to address the OP, I interpret this all to mean that yes, it's probably legal to eat fetuses, depending on where you live, and provided you obtained them legally somehow.
  #11  
Old 10-10-2001, 02:26 AM
The Flying Dutchman The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 50N West Georgia Strait
Posts: 8,604
Quote:
Originally posted by Guinastasia
Brilliant, as usual, DDG!
Yeah, about as brilliant as your description of the Marshal Plan.

Well I could respond toDDG line for line, but it occured to me that just about every reference was to sites using the original information for their own purposes. No one has provided any evidence to the contrary or in country assertions to contradict.

In order to support her assertion, DDG refers to a college students website as run by kids? Hmmm

What really bugs me is her assertion that a reputable Hong Kong newspaper is not reputable. She prefers to have her news from some American news agency. That is arrogant.

In order to ascertain just what kind of newspaper (Eastern Express) broke the story in 1995, I found this article in the Columbia Journalism Review, Jan/Feb 94

You will find an article dealing with the foreboding implications for a free press with the Chinese takeover by 1997 and the brave launching of an "upscale" English language newspaper by the publisher of the Oriental Daily , the leading Chinese language daily in Hong Kong.
Pay particular attention to the credentials of the editor Stephen Vines and the target audience of bilingual Hong Kong residents.

Obviously the newspaper and its parent is no longer publishing, and the author is not available for cross examination, but unless some reporter follows up on the wide open trail of inquiry left by the author, I will keep an open mind as to the veracity of his claim.

As an aside, canabalism is not all that unusual.Even some Americans eat placentae. I remember some documentary that concoctions made from Egyptian mummies
were popular in Europe. I don't think you will find that on CNN though. Chew on that DDG

Anyhow, thankyou for your efforts on answering my question.
  #12  
Old 10-10-2001, 02:56 AM
douglips douglips is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 1,375
I'd like to point out why "cite provided by snopes" is confusing to some people.

Snopes is both a web page and a person who posts/posted to alt.folklore.urban, so when you come across some alt.folklore.urban FAQ (which is what urbanlegends.com is) and see something like "snopes said X", it may not refer to the web page. Note, however, that the web page is run by the afu poster.

From The Den Of Iniquity - Alt.Folklore.Urban


Quote:
What is snopes?
snopes is AFU's trollster extraordinaire. He has been known to incite violence on a regular basis, especially in any thread involving Canada. Do not believe any message posted by snopes, in fact assume whatever he says is false unless you have direct proof to the contrary. snopes is to be avoided at all costs. Do not even make the attempt to flame him in a thread he has started. This will only make you troll-bait, no matter what you have to say. Basically, the nature of AFU has put snopes in a no-lose situation, and you can't do a thing about it. Just follow his trail of devastation as newbies fall hook, line and sinker for his obvious falsehoods and post in to correct. It can be quite fun to watch.
So, with regard to the article on urbanlegends.com, it is likely that a thread on afu first posted many years ago led snopes to post the article you have found. Since then, snopes' wife has written a more up to date version at snopes.com.
  #13  
Old 10-10-2001, 08:23 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,371
Not sure if eating placenta is legal in China. I have heard ancedotal stories of people who have eaten a placenta soup. I can tell you it is not a widespread practice.

As for foetuses, get real. I don't understand why normally rational people can suspend all disbeleaf when it comes to something in China, but it happens a lot.
  #14  
Old 10-10-2001, 09:36 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,919


grienspace-so I got it confused with the Berlin Airlift-so WHAT?
  #15  
Old 10-11-2001, 12:21 AM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 14,041
Quote:
originally posted by China Guy:
As for foetuses, get real. I don't understand why normally rational people can suspend all disbeleaf when it comes to something in China, but it happens a lot.
Here is a good explanation of that.

http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/se...g_fetuses.html
Quote:
Blood Libel: Eating Childen
Blood libel [1] is the practice of accusing one's enemy of eating children. Originally traced to pagans slandering early Christians it quickly adopted the form it would take for the next two thousand years - that of Jews murdering and eating Christian children, primarily for Passover. The practice of blood libel has been revived in the US by Christian conservatives, and is now aimed at their latest enemy, and most promising market: the Chinese.
Quote:
originally posted by Grienspace
...just about every reference was to sites using the original information for their own purposes. No one has provided any evidence to the contrary or in country assertions to contradict.
You mean evidence that says that the Chinese are so eating fetuses? Well, my position is that they aren't eating fetuses, and I've provided cites that agree with me, and I might add, cites that show to my satisfaction that it's an Urban Legend. Now it's your turn. Your position is that the Chinese are in fact eating fetuses. So, go get me some cites to prove it, besides a reprinted page from the urbanlegends.com website, which is what your only link so far IS, and which, being from an Urban Legends website, may be taken to prove that they are NOT eating fetuses.
Quote:
In order to support her assertion, DDG refers to a college students website as run by kids? Hmmm
Grienspace, the college kids' website was YOUR link. That was YOUR cite. That was YOUR so-called "unbiased source" from which you sought confirmation of the "fact" that the Chinese are eating fetuses, after you "discovered" it during your research on Christian universalism.

And if the point of this otherwise pointless comment is that you're quibbling about my characterizing college students as "kids", do allow me the luxury of looking down from the eminence of my forty-something years and indulgently viewing everybody under age 20 as "kids". I'm old, humor me.
Quote:
What really bugs me is her assertion that a reputable Hong Kong newspaper is not reputable.
You have absolutely NO WAY of knowing that the Hong Kong Eastern Express was a reputable newspaper. To me, the fact that it would publish an article like this, which according to the jesus21.com guy's research (did you bother to read the entire link, Grienspace?), is to a large part unfounded in fact, proves that it was probably NOT a "reputable newspaper", or at least, one that didn't mind skating close to the edge.

I will remind you, if you didn't already know, that Generoso Pope, when he set out to make the National Enquirer the leading tabloid in the U.S. in the 1960s, paid good money for leading journalistic talent. Just because the Columbia Journalism Review, almost as an afterthought to its 1994 speculation on the possibilities of a free press after the Chinese takeover in 1997, chose to drop a few non-committal remarks about a new paper that was starting up, doesn't mean that the Hong Kong Eastern Express was a reputable newspaper.

Here are their non-committal remarks, from your link. Bolding mine. http://www.cjr.org/year/94/1/hong_kong.asp
Quote:
Meanwhile, a new, upscale English language daily -- Eastern Express -- is scheduled to appear at the end of January. The publisher is Oriental Daily, Hong Kong's largest-circulation Chinese-language paper, with a circulation of more than 400,000, lots of money, and state-of-the art presses. That the launching of a new paper is occurring at this time and place in Hong Kong's history is remarkable.

The editor of Eastern Express is Stephen Vines, a respected British journalist who has been a correspondent for The Observer and The Guardian and who was, until recently, president of the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club. Eastern Express has recruited twenty-five of the most highly regarded members of the South China Morning Post staff, as well as top advertising sales people. Other staff members are being taken from Dow Jones's Far Eastern Economic Review.
This blurb does NOT say, "There is a new, reputable newspaper starting up". This blurb says, "There is a new newspaper starting up." It says, "It is upscale. It is daily. It is English-language. The editor is, in our opinion, a respected British journalist. He has recruited 25 of the competition's best staff members, as well as their top sales people."

This blurb is NOT necessarily saying, "These are all reputable journalists who would never in a million years dream of publishing something that wasn't true." This blurb is saying, "There is a lot of money behind this." Gene Pope paid big money and had some of America's most "reputable" journalists working for him, writing stories about rapes and sex crimes and aliens. They took the money and ran. Just because there was a lot of money behind the National Enquirer didn't make it a reputable newspaper.

You should read I Watched a Wild Hog Eat My Baby! A History of the Tabloids by Bill Sloan.
Quote:
She prefers to have her news from some American news agency. That is arrogant.
No, I do not prefer to have my news from "some American news agency"--I merely prefer to have my news from some "reputable" news agency. There are Far East news outlets with good reputations, such as BBC-Asia Pacific, BBC-Far East, and the South China Morning Post, still Hong Kong's biggest English-language newspaper. Their news always looks fairly unbiased. None of them, to my knowledge, have broken a story about the Chinese eating fetuses.

A single cite from a defunct Far East newspaper of unknown reputation is not good practice. I would prefer to have my news from a REPUTABLE news agency, not from what was possibly the Hong Kong equivalent of the National Enquirer.
Quote:
Pay particular attention to the credentials of the editor Stephen Vines
Okay, he's described as a "respected British journalist who has been a correspondent for The Observer and The Guardian and who was, until recently, president of the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club". How does merely having been a correspondent for other newspapers make him a paragon of journalistic integrity? How does the application of the relatively neutral adjective "respected" by the Columbia Journalism Review make him a paragon of journalistic integrity?

If it's the same guy, there's a Stephen Vines who is working as a financial columnist for Quamnet.

http://tdc.quamnet.com/fcgi-bin/colu...?par2=5&par3=2
Quote:
Stephen Vines is a well-known broadcaster journalist and writer living in Hong Kong
So he's a columnist, so he maybe once ran the Eastern Express, so what? It doesn't prove that he never went against good journalistic practice and okayed a dubious article by Bruce Gilley on the Chinese eating fetuses because he knew it would help sell newspapers. Gene Pope, at the National Enquirer, personally approved every single story that they ever ran. All the sex crimes and rapes and alien stories--he personally reviewed those and gave them the go-ahead.
Quote:
...and the target audience of bilingual Hong Kong residents.
I have no idea what this is supposed to signify. Is it somehow "better", more "reputable", if the Hong Kong Eastern Express is aimed at a bilingual audience? Are you saying that English-speakers would never, ever fall for sleazy tabloid-style journalism? That English-speakers are more upscale, more intelligent, more discerning in their choice of newspapers? Isn't that a teeny bit, well, racist?

And I might point out that the National Enquirer is of course published in English.
Quote:
...but unless some reporter follows up on the wide open trail of inquiry left by the author,
Well, actually, the jesus21 guy did, but since you didn't read the link, you couldn't be expected to know that.
Quote:
I will keep an open mind as to the veracity of his claim.
Well, that's fine, Grienspace, you just go ahead and keep an open mind as to whether the Chinese are eating fetuses. It's good to have an open mind, especially about Urban Legends, because you never know when they might turn out to be true after all, and then won't Barbara Mikkelson and Cecil look stupid when it turns out that Mountain Dew really does shrink your 'nads...

Re mummies:

http://www.bib-arch.org/aoso99/rev2.html
Quote:
As far back as medieval times, mummies were pulverized for "mumia," a powder believed to cure abscesses, fractures, epilepsy, ulcers, poisons, pulmonary bleeding and a litany of other ailments.
http://www.sis.gov.eg/online/html4/o250621a.htm
Quote:
At first it was believed that the embalmed bodies had medicinal properties bordering on the magical. "A confusion between the black resin used in the preparation of mum/mumia, a Persian/Arabic word for bitumen or mineral pitch, held to have therapeutic powers, led to ground mummy becoming a staple of apothecaries' shops in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries," write Salima Ikram and Aidan Dodson.
  #16  
Old 10-11-2001, 01:52 AM
The Flying Dutchman The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 50N West Georgia Strait
Posts: 8,604
Well first off, the assertion that I am a racist is utter bullshit, hateful, and indicative of the true nature of the validity of your argument when you have to assassinate my character DDG.
If you read any Hong Kong dailies, you would know that most bilingual readers are Chinese, not white. People who are bilingual are generally better educated.


Quote:
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
No, I do not prefer to have my news from "some American news agency"--I merely prefer to have my news from some "reputable" news agency. There are Far East news outlets with good reputations, such as BBC-Asia Pacific, BBC-Far East, and the South China Morning Post, still Hong Kong's biggest English-language newspaper. Their news always looks fairly unbiased. None of them, to my knowledge, have broken a story about the Chinese eating fetuses.
This is a beauty.
Oh really? Their news "always" look fairly unbiased ?
Am I being led to believe that you are a regular reader? I've go a bridge in Brooklyn.......

I haven't got the time or inclination to refute DDG's unfounded assertion that the Eastern Express was a tabloid paper, and all her other repeated irrelevant assertions as well as her claim that the jesus21site qualifies as an in country investigation.
  #17  
Old 10-11-2001, 02:31 AM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ass end of Alberta
Posts: 17,897
My GF takes placenta tablets every day, and has made attempts to get me to take them too. My reaction is, "But, I'm vegetarian!" (She is, too.) Go figure. Here's her website.
I'm holding the box in my hand right now. If anyone is interested, I'll scan it in and post it.

The english on the box says: (in part)
Quote:
SUGAR COATED
PLACENTA TABLETS


EACH TABLET CONTAINS DESSICATED PLACENTA 0.2GM.

INDICATIONS: UNDERDEVELOPMENT NEURASTHENIA PROMOTE LACTATION AND GENERAL TONIC
DOSAGE: 3 - 5 TABLETS THREE TIMES A DAY

Sugar Coated Placenta Tablets known as a notable tonic in China since ancient times, are made from Placentae of healthy mothers through scientific process. Clinical adoptions in recent years have proved that the Tablets when administered continuously, are efficacious against marasmus with or without a cause, weak limbs, poor appetite, weariness and insomnia.

Sugar Coated Placenta Tablets in regular takings, promote bodily strength and alleviate consumptive cough as well as long time asthma and when administered with other medicines, accelerate the cure of such complaints.

Sugar Coated Placenta Tablets in addition to the preceding cures, give metabolizing effect, eradicate pimples in grown-ups, and are a good remedy for recovery after confinement and as a galactagogue.
They are bought (legally) in Vancouver's Chinatown, and are imported from The Central Medical Manufactory & Co. in Tientsin, China.
  #18  
Old 10-11-2001, 12:56 PM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 14,041
Larry: I will confine myself to pointing out two things.

1. A placenta is not the same thing as a fetus.
2. Not all placenta available as nutriceuticals and cosmetics additives in the U.S. comes from human placenta. A good deal of it comes from animal placenta, especially sheep. "Swiss lamb placenta" seems to be popular, for some reason.

http://www.vegfamily.com/animalingredients.htm
Quote:
Placenta. Placenta Polypeptides Protein. Afterbirth.
Contains waste matter eliminated by the fetus. Derived from the uterus of slaughtered animals. Animal placenta is widely used in skin creams, shampoos, masks, etc. Alternatives: kelp.
So your GF must be some kind of lacto-ovo-placenta vegetarian, huh?

*******************

Quote:
Originally posted by grienspace
Well first off, the assertion that I am a racist is utter bullshit, hateful, and indicative of the true nature of the validity of your argument when you have to assassinate my character DDG.
For the record, the point I was trying to make was that saying that people who speak English are better-educated than people who don't sounds racist. However, as that was evidently not the point you were trying to make, I withdraw the adjective, and any possible hint of character assassination. However, the point you were trying to make remains unclear. Let us explore it further.
Quote:
If you read any Hong Kong dailies, you would know that most bilingual readers are Chinese, not white. People who are bilingual are generally better educated.
Now this, on the other hand, does sound, if not "racist", then at least "bigoted".

Posited: most bilingual readers are Chinese.
Posited: most bilingual people are better educated.
Therefore: most Chinese are better educated, and according to this line of reasoning, it's because they speak English.
Therefore, people who speak English are better-educated than people who don't. Maybe "bigoted" isn't the word I want--"Anglo-centric"?

It sure sounds an awful lot like the tip of the "Orientals are much more intelligent than other races" iceberg. "Oh, the well-educated bilingual Chinese would never go for a sleazy Enquirer-type tabloid, so if a newspaper was published in Hong Kong for bilingual Chinese readers, therefore it must have been a reputable newspaper."

You know, I saw a quote from the current publisher of the Weekly World News in that Bill Sloan book, in which he confesses that over half of their mail subscriptions are taken by college students. I've got a news flash for you, Grienspace: intelligent, bilingual people read sleazy tabloids.

Obviously the majority of people who read bilingual newspapers in Hong Kong are going to be Chinese, just because a majority of people in Hong Kong are Chinese, period. So saying "most bilingual readers in Hong Kong are Chinese" has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

As for this:
Quote:
People who are bilingual are generally better educated.
I don't suppose you've got any kind of cite for that?

Because I can think of lots and lots of examples on the other side of the fence, namely, that a talent for languages doesn't mean anything about a person's relative intelligence or how much education he's had, and that there are many places in the world where people routinely speak more than one language, but that nevertheless have low percentages of college graduates and low literacy levels.

Many people in Europe routinely learn English as a second language, and sometimes other European languages, too, and I'm not talking about college professors, Grienspace, I'm talking about the tour guides and the cab drivers, the bellboys and the secretaries, the people who run the movie theaters and the hot dog stands.

Or moving away from the Anglo-Saxon bias, how about India and Pakistan?

There are 1,650 different languages in India, and 350 of those are recognized as "major".

Here is a really cool map showing where all these languages are spoken. (Obviously they aren't all on there.)

According to this website, English is spoken as a second language by 10 million Indians, and that's not just the college professors, Grienspace, that's also the tour guides and the cab drivers, the bellboys and the secretaries, the people who run movie theaters and hot dog stands.

This website also has a list of the ones that are spoken by at least a million people each. These aren't quaint fringe dialects, these are mainstream languages, some of them spoken by tens of millions of people. In order to get along in India, you sometimes have to know not only the language you grew up speaking, from whatever Indian state, but also Hindi, English, and other Indian languages.

Hindi is the official language of 8 Indian states, including the Punjab, which was split in 1947 between India and Pakistan. So if you live in the Indian Punjab, not only do you speak Punjabi, you also have to learn Hindi, if you're going to get along with the rest of India. Other languages that are spoken in the Punjab include Bagri, Bhili, Dogri-Kankri, Haryanvi, Kashmiri, and Marwari.

And then there are the Pakistani languages., which it might not be a bad idea to learn, seeing as how they're right next door. Urdu is the official language of Pakistan, English is the communication language of most organizations and ministries, then there's Punjabi (of course), Sindhi, Pashtu, and Balochi.

Now, are all the citizens of Pakistan and India who speak more than one language then "better educated"?
Quote:
This is a beauty.
Oh really? Their news "always" look fairly unbiased ?
Am I being led to believe that you are a regular reader? I've go a bridge in Brooklyn.......

You got some kind of problem with me reading the news from Hong Kong every day? Maybe it's not Anglo-centric enough for you? Why should I be concerned about what's going on in the lives of a lot of slant-eyed gooks who eat fetuses, is that it?
Quote:
I haven't got the time or inclination to refute DDG's unfounded assertion that the Eastern Express was a tabloid paper,
Well, um, if you had been reading for content instead of merely skimming out of peevishness, you might have noticed that I didn't exactly "assert" that the Eastern Express WAS a tabloid newspaper. My point was that we have no way of knowing what kind of newspaper it may have been, and it's just as likely that it was a tabloid as it was the Hong Kong version of the New York Times, especially based on the one surviving article from it, which turns out to be an Urban Legend. I was "suggesting" that it MAY HAVE BEEN a tabloid, not "asserting".

And implicit in that suggestion was the suggestion that you try to keep an open mind about what kind of newspaper it was. Instead, you're so determined to keep an open mind about the Chinese eating fetuses that you're going to keep your mind stubbornly closed on the issue of whether your only cite for the factoid might have been from a suspect source.
Quote:
and all her other repeated irrelevant assertions
Please show me where I have said anything irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, other than my opening remarks about eating fetuses.
Quote:
as well as her claim that the jesus21site qualifies as an in country investigation.
Not sure what you mean by "in country investigation". Do you mean, you think I'm saying that the Jesus21 guy performed the equivalent of going to Hong Kong and doing his best imitation of Sam Spade, tracking down all the particulars of the case? No, I'm not saying that.

But I do think that the Jesus21 guy sending e-mails to the folks involved in the original article, and having them decline to respond, is a good enough debunking for me. I don't need to have a full-scale Woodward-Bernstein investigation to prove it isn't true, ESPECIALLY when, and follow me closely here, your original cite is from an Urban Legends website.

Your only support for this entire thread is an UL. Now, if you had come in here and said, "Hey, guys, I know it's an Urban Legend that the Chinese eat fetuses, but what I wanna know is, if you were going to eat them, would it be legal?", that would have been different. But instead you're in here, in the General Questions Forum on a website devoted to Fighting Ignorance, and you're saying, "Hey, guys, the Chinese are eating fetuses--is that legal?" And your ONLY cite for this is from an Urban Legends website.

If your OP was, "Is it legal to keep Bigfoot chained up in your garage?" and your only cite for the discussion was from a seemingly serious article thundering against people who consider Bigfoot a monster and want to chain it up in the garage, and if that cite turned out to be from an Urban Legends website, then I wouldn't need Woodward and Bernstein to tell me that there probably aren't people out there really abusing Sasquatches by chaining them up in their garages.

You've had your OP answered, Grienspace. "Yes, it's probably legal to eat fetuses."
  #19  
Old 10-11-2001, 01:49 PM
The Flying Dutchman The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 50N West Georgia Strait
Posts: 8,604
Quote:
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
You got some kind of problem with me reading the news from Hong Kong every day? Maybe it's not Anglo-centric enough for you? Why should I be concerned about what's going on in the lives of a lot of slant-eyed gooks who eat fetuses, is that it?
Just can't resist your racist innuendo can you.
  #20  
Old 10-11-2001, 04:13 PM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ass end of Alberta
Posts: 17,897
Quote:
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Larry: I will confine myself to pointing out two things.

1. A placenta is not the same thing as a fetus.
2. Not all placenta available as nutriceuticals and cosmetics additives in the U.S. comes from human placenta.
DDG, you seem to be intent on turning this into an emotional argument. My post did not suggest that placenta=fetus, I'm only pointing out that placenta is a common ingredient in traditional chinese medicine. There is absolutely no value judgement. And for your information, yes, it is human placenta that is primarily used in chinese medicine. It is nutritionally very complete and loaded with hormones. There is nothing racist in pointing out that this is true. (For what it's worth, this use of human placenta is not limited to China-- Western midwifery often has the mother eat the placenta after delivery to mitigate post-partum depression.) In China, it's a bit different because it's commodified. I'm sure that people with strong anti-abortion feelings mixed with a liberal amount of xenophobia are responsible for blowing it up into an "Aborted baby trade."

Here's a link to the straight dope about human placenta in chinese medicine.
Quote:
Human placenta is a product mainly produced in the People's Republic of China. The placenta is provided by healthy, young mothers. The fresh placenta is cleaned, cooked and processed at a special biotechnology laboratory under the scrutiny of the Ministry of Health. Each placenta is individually tested for any viral or other contamination. This is a highly refined process and the end result is a unique, absolutely safe and incredible tonic substance.

Only buy placenta from a dealer you know and only purchase placentas that are in perfect condition. As sold in America, they look very much like puffed rice cakes. They are a light yellow color and should be individually packaged. Each placenta should be perfectly circular.
I'm sure that the blithe description of human placenta as "sweet and salty" could potentially upset some sensitive people. There are plenty of things that are more repellent to me, though. Hell, people eat tripe and nobody even claims it's beneficial. They just like it.

As for fetus-eating, does anybody believe for a second that this happens?
  #21  
Old 10-11-2001, 06:17 PM
manhattan's Avatar
manhattan manhattan is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 9,134
Everyone is to knock off the sniping in GQ. You know better than that. We have a forum specifically dedicated to that so as to keep it out of GQ!
  #22  
Old 10-11-2001, 10:46 PM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA
Posts: 14,041
Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Mudd
DDG, you seem to be intent on turning this into an emotional argument.
I made a statement of fact: A placenta is not the same thing as a fetus.
I made another statement of fact: Not all the placenta you buy in the U.S. is from human beings.

Please show me how either of those statements is "emotional".
Please show me how either of those statements is an "argument".

Quote:
My post did not suggest that placenta=fetus, I'm only pointing out that placenta is a common ingredient in traditional chinese medicine.
Right, and we were all talking about eating fetuses and you brought up the subject of eating placentas. Fetuses and placentas are two completely different things. We were talking about X--you brought up a completely unrelated Y.

And again, these are just statements of facts.
  #23  
Old 10-12-2001, 01:17 AM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ass end of Alberta
Posts: 17,897
Quote:
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Please show me how either of those statements is "emotional".
Please show me how either of those statements is an "argument".
The OP begins:
Quote:
According to this cite , the trade and consumption of human placentae and fetuses are traditional in China although in no way prevalent.
As no one has asserted in this thread that anyone actually is eating fetuses, I did not find it necessary to restate: "Nobody eats fetuses." I provided an anecdote that underlines where this misunderstanding comes from.

It seems to me that you replied as though I was offering support for the alarmist claims of the lunatic fringe that inscrutable orientals and misguided newagers were involved in a Satanic plot to get Americans to eat babies. My apologies if I misread the tone. Just trying to fill in details. I have a girfriend who eats 3 grams of dried placenta every day. That's over a kilo per year. Dry. This is something that is very foreign to many people's way of thinking, and it's not hard to imagine prolifers trying to sell people the idea that it's part of a big abortionist conspiracy. (Unfortunately.) But that's why we have the Straight Dope.

cheers
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017