Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Little parasites have no way to coerce you to kill them. Thus non equivalence.

[ChairmanPoo]

A sale would be a mutually consenting thing. How does buying an organ infringe on a person's autonomy if it was a voluntary exchange? Who is being harmed in this situation? How would accepting a donated kidney differ?

Because one makes the poor into organ farms from the rich, while the other is an altruistic donation. It should be obvious.

[Criptfeind]

Right, that is what I meant.

[Vector]

I'm saying that being anti-abortion and also thinking that the government can't demand that you give blood, donate your corpse to science (i.e. give away something you aren't even using anymore), donate unnecessary organs, or even force-inoculate you or force you to enter the bone marrow registry or any other forced medical procedure that puts you in danger and protects society is a pretty misogynist position.  If you're for all of the above then I've got to say, you're not someone I want to be in office, but I can understand the position.  What I can't stand is hypocrisy.

Why aren't women's bodies, autonomy, and decisions being protected in the same way as other people's?

[Andir]

Because one makes the poor into organ farms from the rich, while the other is an altruistic donation. It should be obvious.

And I get into trouble with slippery slope arguments... I mean, organ farms?  Really?  Maybe once in a while, but you're reaching into the realm of raising people to provide organs for other people kind of reaching.

[kaenneth]

Technically, you are the property of the government, and are only leasing your body from them.

That's why they can draft people into the military.

Licensed not Sold, like DRM'd software.

[Lysabild]

I loooove watching rightwing people discuss rights. It's seriously hilarious.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's not a slippery slope argument, it's a simple fact. Making organ sales legal would result in the desperate and destitute doing just that in order to get a temporary reprieve of whatever abusive mortgage plan they're trapped in. It's bad enough that many students have to get  frighteningly high loans in order to have a chance -a chance- of coursing their studies and improving their lot in life. Are you seriously arguing that it'd be a good thing if future generatios should pawn off their vital organs as well? Really, this whole line of argument is bizarre.

[lemon10]

Organ farms are a bit slippery slope.

But I could easily see people in debt being forced (illegally), to "sell" their organs to those they owe money too and other similar things taking place.

It's not a slippery slope argument, it's a simple fact. Making organ sales legal would result in the desperate and destitute doing just that in order to get a temporary reprieve of whatever abusive mortgage plan they're trapped in. It's bad enough that many students have to get  frighteningly high loans in order to have a chance -a chance- of coursing their studies and improving their lot in life. Are you seriously arguing that it'd be a good thing if future generatios should pawn off their vital organs as well? Really, this whole line of argument is bizarre.

Yeah, but a organ farm would be raising people for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs.
While that your saying would be horrible, it wouldn't be organ farming.

[RedKing]

I could certainly see a future in which, absent declaring bankruptcy protection, your organs would be considered part of the assets that can be liquidated to pay creditors. Up to a non-lethal point. After all, you don't actually need both lungs or both kidneys to survive.

[ChairmanPoo]

But I could easily see people in debt being forced (illegally), to "sell" their organs to those they owe money too and other similar things taking place.

No, the problem is that this policy would lead to them legally taking that path in order to repay their debts. The whole concept is bizarre. Whether it constitutes or not organ farming would depend on your definition of that term. Personally I think it's applicable to a set of policies that create a desperate underclass  on which you can rely to provide organs to the elite.

I could certainly see a future in which, absent declaring bankruptcy protection, your organs would be considered part of the assets that can be liquidated to pay creditors. Up to a non-lethal point. After all, you don't actually need both lungs or both kidneys to survive.

It doesn't even need to get to those points. Imagine that you were out of a job, the bank was about to take your house, and you can barely scrape enough to feed your children. There would be quite a bit of pressure on you to get some cash fast, even if it would only grant a temporary reprieve, don't you think? Maybe enough to make you consider doing things that you would not otherwise?

I'm not describing an extreme situation, either. Thousands of people are losing their income and homes everyday. The desperation is already there. All it takes is a policy that allows you to channel it into whatever abusive goal you have in mind.

[Andir]

That's pretty far from organ farming... and I don't have a problem with increasing the donor organ pool (which is already lean) if you can and get paid for it.

What you stated (from my reading) is that some rich person will bankrupt you just to get your organs.

[SalmonGod]

From a rich person's perspective, the poor would be an organ farm.  It's not that they would raise specific people for that express purpose.  It's that there would always be someone desperate enough.  A rich person could, at any time, go "Oh, I think it's time to replace this liver.  Let's put an ad out.", and someone would answer.  This is a situation that would exist because of wealth inequality that is intentionally perpetuated by the wealthy, because their position in society enables them to hoard wealth from the lower classes.  The upper classes already feed on the misery of the lower classes.  In this situation it would just be that much more literal.

Now you could make an argument that the poor individual who wants to do this, because it alleviates their risk of starving for the next few months, should have the right to do so.  It's their body, and they're doing what they honestly think is most beneficial for them.

It's much harder to make an argument that the overall situation is fair or just or anything other than morally horrendous and despicable... but the harsh realities of that situation are with us today, whether it includes a person's right to sell their organs or not.

[Montague]

I could certainly see a future in which, absent declaring bankruptcy protection, your organs would be considered part of the assets that can be liquidated to pay creditors. Up to a non-lethal point. After all, you don't actually need both lungs or both kidneys to survive.

Well, that would be a society where you have no ownership over your body, as any commerce related to your body, if treated as private property would need to be voluntary. Involuntary expropriation of private property is more of a left-wing dictatorship thing, that would treat an individual's body as something that belonged to the greater community, or anybody else besides one's self.

It's not a slippery slope argument, it's a simple fact. Making organ sales legal would result in the desperate and destitute doing just that in order to get a temporary reprieve of whatever abusive mortgage plan they're trapped in. It's bad enough that many students have to get  frighteningly high loans in order to have a chance -a chance- of coursing their studies and improving their lot in life. Are you seriously arguing that it'd be a good thing if future generatios should pawn off their vital organs as well? Really, this whole line of argument is bizarre.

Ok, so you are saying people's right to self-ownership stops when there is some perceived societal harm caused by exercising it so a certain point? Or is the idea that self-ownership actually victimizes the individual exercising it?

[MadocComadrin]

Ok, so you are saying people's right to self-ownership stops when there is some perceived societal harm caused by exercising it so a certain point? Or is the idea that self-ownership actually victimizes the individual exercising it?

I'd say it's both, but let him respond.