Should organ donation be mandatory? - Page 47

ILOVEJESUS · 02-07-2012, 06:00 AM

Sorry Victus. I am with you on much of your vendetta against anti capitalist mumbo jumbo, and over regulation. I just cannot see how opening up a market place that would require huge regulation, and be open to massive neglegence even with that, is the solution.
I also find it hard to understand how you are willing to value a criminals life above a poor person, which is what will be the case in your organ world view. Surely poor people will be better off and safer in prison. At the expense of the taxpayer? Kind of like where we are heading at the moment in many ways.
Putting people into positions where they have to lose or risk their lives, for the profit of a company, not the benefit of a country as you would have in a war, is a little unethical to me. How can some say no? You would be putting people into situations where desperation costs their lives. However a criminal can murder a whole lot of people and be looked after by the state in a prison? Odd.

Stargazer · 02-07-2012, 06:02 AM

Here's a question I hadn't thought of yet, Victus.

THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL!

What if a woman were pregnant and decided, at six months gestation, to have to fetus removed from her body and sold it for $200,000?

Would you support that?

Victus · 02-07-2012, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Stargazer wrote

Here's a question I hadn't thought of yet, Victus.

THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL!

Admit it, this has been what you've been plotting all along!

Quote:

Star wrote

What if a woman were pregnant and decided, at six months gestation, to have to fetus removed from her body and sold it for $200,000?

Would you support that?

I don't see anything inherently wrong with this.

If abortion is legal, then terminating/ending/killing/whatever the fetus is legal. If that's legal, then why shouldn't removing the fetus and selling the remains be legal?

Stargazer · 02-07-2012, 06:17 AM

Another advantage to the scheme described above:

A year later, the woman could repeat the procedure, ad infinitum, and have a regular income for many years.

Just think of all that profit, Victus!

Victus · 02-07-2012, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Stargazer wrote

Another advantage to the scheme described above:

A year later, the woman could repeat the procedure, ad infinitum, and have a regular income for many years.

Just think of all that profit, Victus!

And for a woman doing it, it might be very profitable indeed. Of course, I wonder who, if anyone, would pay $200,000 for a fetus. They could probably pay less just to get rent-out the woman's womb to bring a fetus to term.

But what would be wrong with it, exactly? Or is it just another thing you find to be not seemly?

Stargazer · 02-07-2012, 06:38 AM

Just pulling your chain.

Couldn't help myself, sorry.

ILOVEJESUS · 02-19-2012, 02:10 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761 Who knows what we will be growing next lol.

Stargazer · 02-19-2012, 03:19 PM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761 Who knows what we will be growing next lol.

Suddenly, I'm considering being a vegetarian.

Cool, but the description was too detailed in places.

For me.

ILOVEJESUS · 02-26-2012, 03:26 AM

Kind of interesting. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-hundreds.html

Stargazer · 02-26-2012, 05:35 AM

Yeah, brings up something the "organ selling market debate" didn't consider. Organs that are harvested, but get too damaged in transport, or are otherwise unfit for use. They're already removed from the donor, and paid for. So then what?

This alone tells me it is not a viable "market."

.

Victus · 02-26-2012, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Stargazer wrote

Yeah, brings up something the "organ selling market debate" didn't consider. Organs that are harvested, but get too damaged in transport, or are otherwise unfit for use. They're already removed from the donor, and paid for. So then what?

This alone tells me it is not a viable "market.".

It depends on the contract, but from the seller's point of view they've already taken the risk of surgery/donation. That the organ ultimately proved useless isn't their problem. Caveat emptor applies to organs as well.

ILOVEJESUS · 02-26-2012, 08:03 AM

Victus my dear fellow, think of another marketplace lol.

Stargazer · 02-26-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Victus wrote

It depends on the contract, but from the seller's point of view they've already taken the risk of surgery/donation. That the organ ultimately proved useless isn't their problem. Caveat emptor applies to organs as well.

Argh!

What you say here is just such an argument for artificial organs.

Victus · 02-26-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Stargazer wrote

Argh!

What you say here is just such an argument for artificial organs.

Why? Caveat emptor would apply there as well.

Stargazer · 02-26-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Victus wrote

Why? Caveat emptor would apply there as well.

No, Victus. This example, more than any other, should show us that organs harvested from living beings are not commodities to be bought and sold. It's not like buying a bag of potato chips.

Or a used car.

Especially a used car.