• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Legalizing the Sale of Organs

Should people be allowed to sell their organs?

  • Yes- It's their body, their choice

    Votes: 9 60.0%
  • No- It it will only benifit the wealthy

    Votes: 6 40.0%

  • Total voters
    15

curt

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Location
Ont, Can
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Currently there are over 90,000 people in the United States waiting for an organ transplant, and of these 90,000+ it is estimated that 6000 will die because of too few donars.

Why not let people decide what's in their own best interests rather than the state decide for them? Let people sell their organs as they see fit. What we have here is a government so compassionate that it would rather see it's citizens die on waiting lists, than to permit any kind of inequlity. No one should have any right to interfere in an agreed upon contract between two parties that only affect them and no one else.

I see the Canadian healthcare system at work, and patients die on waiting list because they are not permitted to pay for the services they need. This forces one to either 1) Wait in pain 2) Die 3) Go across the border to obtain medical care.

Compassion: It kills.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
curt said:
Currently there are over 90,000 people in the United States waiting for an organ transplant, and of these 90,000+ it is estimated that 6000 will die because of too few donars.

Why not let people decide what's in their own best interests rather than the state decide for them? Let people sell their organs as they see fit. What we have here is a government so compassionate that it would rather see it's citizens die on waiting lists, than to permit any kind of inequlity. No one should have any right to interfere in an agreed upon contract between two parties that only affect them and no one else.

I see the Canadian healthcare system at work, and patients die on waiting list because they are not permitted to pay for the services they need. This forces one to either 1) Wait in pain 2) Die 3) Go across the border to obtain medical care.

Compassion: It kills.
I understand what you are saying but I have to respectfully disagree. The legal selling of organs is wholly unethical on many levels. There are far too many factors to consider...mental stability of both members of the transaction, whether duress is involved...not to mention the whole slew of criminal ramifications. I think that until stem cells are developed and can help repair damaged organs, our donor system is the very best offering our society can make.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jallman said:
mental stability of both members of the transaction, whether duress is involved.
Well these are considerations in ANY transaction, not just the sale of organs. Yet we don't make it illegal to sign any contract. I don't see why we need to make a special exception for organ sales.

jallman said:
..not to mention the whole slew of criminal ramifications.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

jallman said:
I think that until stem cells are developed and can help repair damaged organs, our donor system is the very best offering our society can make.
I disagree. If there was a free market for organs, like any other product, the people who would rather have the money than the organs would be able to get their money, and the people who would rather have the organs than the money would be able to get their organs. Everybody wins.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kandahar said:
Well these are considerations in ANY transaction, not just the sale of organs. Yet we don't make it illegal to sign any contract. I don't see why we need to make a special exception for organ sales.
Not just ANY transaction involves the exchange of integral parts of the human body...a permanent loss of resources the body needs to maintain itself. The exchange of organs without it being a donor situation involves psychological and emotional entanglements that we cant begin to predict.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Extortion, forced selling of organs, misconduct on the part of will executors when it comes to the dispensing of remains, misconduct of doctors when deciding who gets an organ and who doesnt. The offering of life for an ill person is far too sacred and complex an issue to taint with the corruption of a profit margin.

I disagree. If there was a free market for organs, like any other product, the people who would rather have the money than the organs would be able to get their money, and the people who would rather have the organs than the money would be able to get their organs. Everybody wins.
Not even true...there are people...children on lists for these organs and there is no compassion nor care in taking the current channels for their chance at life away from them. Its placing a direct value on human life...I just find that unethical.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jallman said:
Not just ANY transaction involves the exchange of integral parts of the human body...a permanent loss of resources the body needs to maintain itself.
Well if we legalized organ selling, we could include in the law something that says that a potential organ seller has to get the permission of a doctor. Then the duress and mental stability of the seller is no more of a factor than for any other transaction.

jallman said:
The exchange of organs without it being a donor situation involves psychological and emotional entanglements that we cant begin to predict.
If I was going to donate one of my kidneys, I might be feeling concerned or scared or proud, but I'm not particularly psychologically or emotionally attached to my kidney. I don't think very many people are.

jallman said:
Extortion, forced selling of organs,
Perhaps, but again, this is a risk with any transaction. And if a doctor's permission would require, this risk of lasting bodily harm from such a transaction would be reduced.

jallman said:
misconduct on the part of will executors when it comes to the dispensing of remains,
I think this is a petty crime that, even though it would certainly occur from time to time, it's not a sufficient reason in light of the numerous benefits of legalization.

jallman said:
misconduct of doctors when deciding who gets an organ and who doesnt.
I think this would virtually eliminate the misconduct factor. Organs on sale to the highest bidder would mean that you'd get your organ if you were willing to pay for it. And the legalization of organ sales wouldn't have to eliminate organ donations (just like blood/plasma sales haven't eliminated blood/plasma donations). You could still wait on a list for a donated organ if you wanted to.

jallman said:
The offering of life for an ill person is far too sacred and complex an issue to taint with the corruption of a profit margin.
I really don't see the problem. I'm allowed to sell things, and I'm allowed to donate organs, so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to sell my organs.

jallman said:
Not even true...there are people...children on lists for these organs and there is no compassion nor care in taking the current channels for their chance at life away from them.
This seems to be a variation on the argument that it will "benefit the rich" (as though the rich were not humans deserving of benefits). I don't see how this will make it significantly harder for anyone to get organs anyway; the operations are not cheap as it is, and all that will change if this is legalized is that it will stabilize the price of organs at the market rate (which is probably lower than the current inefficient rate).

Most people, for example, don't really NEED two kidneys. But they certainly aren't going to just give one away because they have (often misinformed) concerns about the health risks, or (often irrational) fears of the operation itself, or they just don't think about it. However, they might change their mind if they were able to get some money for it. This would increase the supply of organs available to people who need them, which would reduce the price AND save more lives.

jallman said:
Its placing a direct value on human life...I just find that unethical.
I don't. Placing a value on human life will save a lot more lives, than inefficient organ markets will. You find the idea of placing a monetary value on human life to be unethical...but what about the ethics of laws that discourage (or at least, do nothing to encourage) healthy people from helping to save lives?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But this argument may become completely redundent. In a few years time scientists maybe be able to generate whole new organs using adult stem cells from the patient. Who knows scientists might even discover the ability to turn differentiated cells, back into stem cells.

The future is bright!:twocents:
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kandahar said:
Well if we legalized organ selling, we could include in the law something that says that a potential organ seller has to get the permission of a doctor. Then the duress and mental stability of the seller is no more of a factor than for any other transaction.

A doctor's permission is an obvious addition to the transaction being that it requires a doctor to perform the surgery. However, when doctors are tempted with higher profits from an industry that traffics in human parts and pieces, what kind of integrity to the hypocratic oath do you suppose will be maintained? Right now who gets organs and who dont is decided on the basis of efficiency...who is most likely to be benefited most by a particular organ. Add profits to that system and you are going to see a corruption that I dont want to imagine.

If I was going to donate one of my kidneys, I might be feeling concerned or scared or proud, but I'm not particularly psychologically or emotionally attached to my kidney. I don't think very many people are.
No, but it is proven that there are deep emotional and psychological entanglements between people who donate and recieve organs. And I would not discount the notion that there is a psychological attachment to your internal organs...even if its just a psychosomatic attachment.

Perhaps, but again, this is a risk with any transaction. And if a doctor's permission would require, this risk of lasting bodily harm from such a transaction would be reduced.
I say this with the most respect, but I think you are intentionally trivializing the transaction and its long lasting ramifications.

I think this is a petty crime that, even though it would certainly occur from time to time, it's not a sufficient reason in light of the numerous benefits of legalization.
It is not petty crime. It is a direct infringement on the end of life rights of an individual. I, for one, have specifically detailed the dispensation of my remains in my will. I would hate to think that someone would be tempted with my profit to do anything other than what I have requested. I am quite positive that I am not alone in that sentiment. It is a crime of grievous insult to the deceased.

I think this would virtually eliminate the misconduct factor. Organs on sale to the highest bidder would mean that you'd get your organ if you were willing to pay for it. And the legalization of organ sales wouldn't have to eliminate organ donations (just like blood/plasma sales haven't eliminated blood/plasma donations). You could still wait on a list for a donated organ if you wanted to.
I think it more appropriate to say that it would spur misconduct in the medical and insurance fields. Every human has the same right to life, regardless of financial circumstances. I understand that this is idealistic, but I cannot condone the creation of a policy that undermines so deeply the foundation of that philosophy. Our medical system is broken as it is, I am not willing to venture down a path that would create further incentive to completely destroy any equality it might have.

I really don't see the problem. I'm allowed to sell things, and I'm allowed to donate organs, so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to sell my organs.
The exchange of "things" is not on the same level with selling life. My position does not rest so much in denying your right to hand over that life...it lies more in the right of the ill to have equal chance at maintaining life.

This seems to be a variation on the argument that it will "benefit the rich" (as though the rich were not humans deserving of benefits). I don't see how this will make it significantly harder for anyone to get organs anyway; the operations are not cheap as it is, and all that will change if this is legalized is that it will stabilize the price of organs at the market rate (which is probably lower than the current inefficient rate).
The rich are just as deserving of benefits as anyone else. Thus, they are welcome to submit to the current guidelines for organ transplant. There is no market rate for organs and the gift of life. Sure there are rates for the professionals who perform the procedures, but the organs which save life themselves are not open to barter.

Most people, for example, don't really NEED two kidneys. But they certainly aren't going to just give one away because they have (often misinformed) concerns about the health risks, or (often irrational) fears of the operation itself, or they just don't think about it. However, they might change their mind if they were able to get some money for it. This would increase the supply of organs available to people who need them, which would reduce the price AND save more lives.
No, you are advocating adding extra expense for an already expensive procedure. Life is not to be bartered and bargained and put up for auction. It flies in the face of human civility and compassion that one would sincerely promote such an unthinkable policy.


I don't. Placing a value on human life will save a lot more lives, than inefficient organ markets will. You find the idea of placing a monetary value on human life to be unethical...but what about the ethics of laws that discourage (or at least, do nothing to encourage) healthy people from helping to save lives?
I am afraid you will have to be more specific in referencing such laws. I am not aware of any laws that prohibit the freedom to assist another. There are guidelines which restrict how you go about it and there are also laws that protect those who do try to help those in dire health. Please point to these laws or situations (I am not asking for a link, just some examples) and we can consider them on a case by case basis.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jallman said:
A doctor's permission is an obvious addition to the transaction being that it requires a doctor to perform the surgery. However, when doctors are tempted with higher profits from an industry that traffics in human parts and pieces, what kind of integrity to the hypocratic oath do you suppose will be maintained?
I doubt it would be too terrible. Doctors receive all kinds of benefits from various drug companies. Does this influence their prescription choices? Perhaps. But do most doctors actively prescribe medications that will harm, or not produce the maximum benefit to their patients? No.

I think it would be the same for organs. Actually, it might even be better since the doctor wouldn't see any of the profit from the sale of the organ other than the cost of the operation itself.

jallman said:
Right now who gets organs and who dont is decided on the basis of efficiency...who is most likely to be benefited most by a particular organ.
No it isn't. It's decided by a combination of money, influence, having someone in your family with a compatible organ, time spent on a waitlist, and luck. If you want to describe the current system of deciding who gets an organ, "efficient" is not an adjective that should come to mind.

jallman said:
Add profits to that system and you are going to see a corruption that I dont want to imagine.
Why is it always a default assumption that anything involving profits is inherently corrupted? Maybe there will be some corruption in a few cases, but certainly you have to also consider the many many more organs that would certainly be available to help save lives.

jallman said:
No, but it is proven that there are deep emotional and psychological entanglements between people who donate and recieve organs. And I would not discount the notion that there is a psychological attachment to your internal organs...even if its just a psychosomatic attachment.
As long as people are made aware of the risks (including psychological risks) ahead of time, they should be able to make their own decision.

jallman said:
I say this with the most respect, but I think you are intentionally trivializing the transaction and its long lasting ramifications.

It is not petty crime. It is a direct infringement on the end of life rights of an individual. I, for one, have specifically detailed the dispensation of my remains in my will. I would hate to think that someone would be tempted with my profit to do anything other than what I have requested. I am quite positive that I am not alone in that sentiment. It is a crime of grievous insult to the deceased.
It's a petty crime in the sense that a few cases of people ignoring the wishes of the deceased, is not a sufficient reason to deny the right to purchase an organ to thousands of living people who need them to survive. That doesn't mean it should happen, but the possibility of this happening is certainly not a very high priority even on your own list of possible crimes associated with this.

jallman said:
I think it more appropriate to say that it would spur misconduct in the medical and insurance fields. Every human has the same right to life, regardless of financial circumstances.
I agree. If 100 people in a given city are willing to donate their organs, but 10,000 people are willing to SELL their organs, one hundred times as many lives will be saved if organ sales are legal. The fact that they might not be the SAME people (and might tend to be more wealthy on average) doesn't change the fact that one hundred times as many lives are being saved, and by your own standard every human has the same right to life regardless of financial circumstances. So saving 10,000 wealthy or middle-class people is better than saving 100 random people, would you agree?

jallman said:
I understand that this is idealistic, but I cannot condone the creation of a policy that undermines so deeply the foundation of that philosophy. Our medical system is broken as it is, I am not willing to venture down a path that would create further incentive to completely destroy any equality it might have.
I simply don't see how you can support a policy like this simply because of an interest in financial equality, when obviously many more organs will be available to save lives if the market is allowed to exist. You seem to imply that it's not fair that poor people should die without organs when rich people get them (and therefore it should be random or based on time on a waitlist). But how exactly is it fair that people who need organs should die without organs, when healthy people have organs they don't need that they're perfectly willing to sell?

jallman said:
The exchange of "things" is not on the same level with selling life.
I was mainly referring to organs that you don't really need to survive, like a kidney, or a piece of an organ. Organs that you'll die without are a matter for another thread, I think.

jallman said:
My position does not rest so much in denying your right to hand over that life...it lies more in the right of the ill to have equal chance at maintaining life.
Let's use the hypothetical city again, where there are 100 willing donors and 10,000 willing sellers. Now let's assume that there's 20,000 people in the city waiting for an organ. Under the donation system, they have a roughly "equal" 0.5% chance of receiving an organ. Under the sales system, they have a slightly-less-equal 50% chance of receiving an organ. Which is truly more fair?

jallman said:
The rich are just as deserving of benefits as anyone else. Thus, they are welcome to submit to the current guidelines for organ transplant. There is no market rate for organs and the gift of life. Sure there are rates for the professionals who perform the procedures, but the organs which save life themselves are not open to barter.
A market rate exists, whether a free market does or not. Simply banning it doesn't mean that it has no value, just as there's a "going price" for cocaine in any given area.


jallman said:
No, you are advocating adding extra expense for an already expensive procedure.
What extra expense did I add? Under a sales system, there would be the cost of the operation for the donor, the cost of the operation for the recipient, and the value of the organ itself. This is the same as it is under the donor system, minus a few layers of government or hospital bureaucracy.

jallman said:
Life is not to be bartered and bargained and put up for auction. It flies in the face of human civility and compassion that one would sincerely promote such an unthinkable policy.
Just because it may sound repugnant doesn't change the fact that it's good economic sense. The benefits just seem to far outweigh the costs: I think the tradeoff of putting a price on life (which is only a philosophical "cost") is worth the tangible, real-world benefit of saving a lot more lives.

jallman said:
I am afraid you will have to be more specific in referencing such laws. I am not aware of any laws that prohibit the freedom to assist another. There are guidelines which restrict how you go about it and there are also laws that protect those who do try to help those in dire health. Please point to these laws or situations (I am not asking for a link, just some examples) and we can consider them on a case by case basis.
Well, there are laws that prohibit my freedom to assist someone by selling him an organ for a price we both agree on. Conversely, the same laws prohibit my freedom to assist someone by purchasing an organ for a price we both agree on.

Certainly these laws have costed many people their lives. I think it's idealistic to assume that feeling good and denying that such a market exists, outweighs the benefits of actually saving these lives.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Australianlibertarian said:
But this argument may become completely redundent. In a few years time scientists maybe be able to generate whole new organs using adult stem cells from the patient. Who knows scientists might even discover the ability to turn differentiated cells, back into stem cells.

The future is bright!:twocents:
I agree. Hopefully we'll be able to grow or clone new organs within ten years.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One of the reasons why I am not a organ donor is that I do not want a doctor looking at me as though I was a new rolex or fancy sports car while coming in for a minor operation.Second thing is that I find it seriously messed up that a donors's organs were given for free and the doctors charges a patiant a arm and a leg to do the translplant surgery.
The way I look at is if the doctors and who everelse is going to make money off of you then you or your family should be compensated as well.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I remember watching a 20/20 show a few years back on the selling of fetal body parts. They did an investigation concerning abortion and the fetal body parts industry.

They reported that a black market industry has grown up around tissue and organs from aborted unborn children, donated to help medical research, then marketed for hundreds or thousands of dollars.

They also reported that tissue retrieval companies took fetal tissue from woman who had NOT consented TO DONATE THEIR UNBORN CHILDREN TO THIS RESEARCH.

What was horrifying was that 20/20 found a price list of these fees.....

(I just did a search for this program and it aired on March 8, 2000.)

This was the price list........$325 for a spinal cord, $550 for a reproductive organ and 999$ for a brain.

Dr. Miles Jones a Missouri pathologist said that he hoped to run his own abortion facility in Mexico so he can get a greater supply of fetal tissue by offering cheaper abortions....He was quoted as saying,"If you control the flow, its probably the equivalent of the invention of the assembly line."

SICK ISNT IT?

The slaughter continues agaisnt the unborn child.

Children being brutally murdered and dismembered only for the concern that people are improperly making money off of donated body parts.

Where the hell are we going?

Some of you say its ok to sell body parts.........Would it be ethical for woman to become pregnant for the sole reason of making money off their unborn childs body? Those who say abortion should be the womans choice.........how ya going to answer this question?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Australianlibertarian said:
But this argument may become completely redundent. In a few years time scientists maybe be able to generate whole new organs using adult stem cells from the patient. Who knows scientists might even discover the ability to turn differentiated cells, back into stem cells.

The future is bright!:twocents:
And it could be done much faster and better using embryonic stemcells.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
jamesrage said:
One of the reasons why I am not a organ donor is that I do not want a doctor looking at me as though I was a new rolex or fancy sports car while coming in for a minor operation.Second thing is that I find it seriously messed up that a donors's organs were given for free and the doctors charges a patiant a arm and a leg to do the translplant surgery.
The way I look at is if the doctors and who everelse is going to make money off of you then you or your family should be compensated as well.
SO you will rather let that patient die? Not very prolife, is it?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
doughgirl said:
I remember watching a 20/20 show a few years back on the selling of fetal body parts. They did an investigation concerning abortion and the fetal body parts industry.

They reported that a black market industry has grown up around tissue and organs from aborted unborn children, donated to help medical research, then marketed for hundreds or thousands of dollars.

They also reported that tissue retrieval companies took fetal tissue from woman who had NOT consented TO DONATE THEIR UNBORN CHILDREN TO THIS RESEARCH.

What was horrifying was that 20/20 found a price list of these fees.....

(I just did a search for this program and it aired on March 8, 2000.)

This was the price list........$325 for a spinal cord, $550 for a reproductive organ and 999$ for a brain.

Dr. Miles Jones a Missouri pathologist said that he hoped to run his own abortion facility in Mexico so he can get a greater supply of fetal tissue by offering cheaper abortions....He was quoted as saying,"If you control the flow, its probably the equivalent of the invention of the assembly line."

SICK ISNT IT?

The slaughter continues agaisnt the unborn child.

Children being brutally murdered and dismembered only for the concern that people are improperly making money off of donated body parts.

Where the hell are we going?

Some of you say its ok to sell body parts.........Would it be ethical for woman to become pregnant for the sole reason of making money off their unborn childs body? Those who say abortion should be the womans choice.........how ya going to answer this question?
Abortion has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Stop beating the straw man.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think people would automatically be on the organ donor list unless they specifically request to be off. That way, we'll have a lot more organs, and people won't have their rights infringed upon...something that gyst (sp?) brought up..
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hornburger said:
I think people would automatically be on the organ donor list unless they specifically request to be off. That way, we'll have a lot more organs, and people won't have their rights infringed upon...something that gyst (sp?) brought up..
Organ donor lists are nice, but they only matter after you're dead.

Since we're talking about people selling their own organs, I'm assuming the original poster was referring to organs while one is still alive, such as a kidney or a piece of an organ. But I'm not positive.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, sorry! Misunderstood the question lol.

Well, then I say sure, it will encourage people to donate their unneeded organs, and the more organs we have the less people die.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hornburger said:
Oh, sorry! Misunderstood the question lol.

Well, then I say sure, it will encourage people to donate their unneeded organs, and the more organs we have the less people die.
Should people be forced to give their bodily organs even if they don't want to, as long as it won't kill them?

That would be the prolife positionj, after all, that saving a life is worth anything that doesn't kill another life.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Should people be forced to give their bodily organs even if they don't want to, as long as it won't kill them?

That would be the prolife positionj, after all, that saving a life is worth anything that doesn't kill another life.
That's not what the thread is asking, now is it? Please try sticking to the topic at hand.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
SHOULD PEOPLE BE ABLE TO SELL THEIR ORGANS? My questions are valid and pertain to this subject.

Pro-life would say no to this..........pro-choice would have to say yes.......they say the child belongs and is part of the womans body.....

So........why is this question so different?

A woman should be able to sell anything in her body including the fetuses parts and organs she carries inside her.

I think its a horrendous question and I am NOT for it,,,,,but I ask those who are pro-choice.... what would be so wrong with legalizing the sale of the unborn childs organs?
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GAH

Please don't bring abortion into this, they are completely different subjects, and there are plenty of threads if you wish to talk about abortion.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hornburger said:
That's not what the thread is asking, now is it? Please try sticking to the topic at hand.
You are right. Sorry about that.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
steen said:
SO you will rather let that patient die? Not very prolife, is it?
The patient dies if they can not afford the transplant surgery and I do not want a doctor looking at me as though I was Christmas bonus if I come in for a check up.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jamesrage said:
The patient dies if they can not afford the transplant surgery and I do not want a doctor looking at me as though I was Christmas bonus if I come in for a check up.
If organ sales were legal, the doctor wouldn't benefit from your decision in any way, other than the cost of the operation itself. But the same operation costs would apply even if organ sales were NOT legal and you wanted to donate the organ. In either case, the doctor might suggest "Have you ever considered donating/selling a kidney?" to fatten his own wallet, but there's not really any significant difference between the cases that means organ donation should be legal but organ sales should be illegal.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
jamesrage said:
The patient dies if they can not afford the transplant surgery and I do not want a doctor looking at me as though I was Christmas bonus if I come in for a check up.
The patient will also die if they can afford the transplant but are unable to obtain an organ because you selfishly hold on to yours.
 
Top Bottom