Women are not ‘community property,’ a Georgia judge rules

[LostInSeattle]

And that's a big shame because women are about as useful as a crusted sock.

What now?

 

[collected]

Conjoined twins are not "two lives" that support each other. They have only one life, and if conjoined twins can't be separated into to separate bodies each with its own life, they go on being one life. However, conjoined twins that have two functional heads are two persons - each functional head has a right to that one life, and, if medically possible, a separate life. Conjoined twins with only one functional head are one person, and the parasitic head has no "rights" and can be removed for the well-being of the person.

I believe going more in depth on one point is more fruitful rather than touching upon the many other points that you've made in your posts.

According to you, a zygote/fetus isn't a separate biological organism:

Once implanted, it is not a separate biological organism as long as it is attached and inside of the woman's body.
If you want to prove that it is a separate biological organism, you have to separate it from that body by detaching it and removing it.

Okay so my first question to you is, if you consider a fetus attached to a human body not be a separate biological organism, why would a tapeworm also not be considered a separate biological organism?
Compared to the host, both the tapeworm and zygote/fetus have unique genome/DNA, have their own biological processes, their own growth and development directed by their own biological programming independent from the host.



Now my second question is why would the zooids, which are genetically identical, that make up the Portuguese Man o' War, each be considered an animal?
Each zooid is considered it's own organism despite having the same DNA and being in physiological continuity as they collectively function as the Portuguese Man o' War.

A zooid or zoöid /ˈzoʊ.ɔɪd/ is a single animal that is part of a colonial animal.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooid

Although it superficially resembles a jellyfish, the Portuguese man o' war is in fact a siphonophore. Like all siphonophores, it is a colonial organism, made up of many smaller units called zooids.[10] Although they are morphologically quite different, all of the zooids in a single specimen are genetically identical.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_man_o'_war

Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal



Also, if you believe conjoined twins are only one life, for my third question, how would you explain this?

No, no getting away with this because of the Texas case of the woman pregnant with twins where the fatally deformed twin was threatening the life of the healthy twin (and would later threaten her life), but the state law wouldn't let her save the healthy twin's life.

What do you mean the life of the healthy twin and then the pregnant mother's life? All three lives should be one life according to you.

 

[Loulit01]

The judge lays out a powerful argument that opposition to abortion is not moral or medical, but a political position that exists primarily to oppress women by forcing them to serve as human incubators.

"A former federal prosecutor and Harvard Law School graduate appointed to the bench by a Republican governor, McBurney didn’t mince words as he found the Georgia law violated the state constitution. He called out the “awkwardly arbitrary” limit set by the Georgia abortion law, which prohibits abortion once there is a “detectable human heartbeat.” As McBurney observed, at this stage “the ‘heart’ is a tiny cluster of cells that periodically pulse, pushing blood through the quarter-inch embryo that still sports a vestigial tail.” And why draw the line there? Georgia “was unable to articulate why a four- or five-week-old unborn child’s life was not worth enough to protect,” McBurney noted. “A five-week-old pregnancy is no more viable that a nine-week-old, but women are free to end such pregnancies (if they can detect them).

”McBurney was blunt: Georgia, he wrote, “has seized upon a point in gestation that has political salience, rather than medical or moral salience.” Blunter still, and more important, he was unsparing in his language about what it means, legally and practically, to force women to continue pregnancies against their will.

As a legal matter, “Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote,” McBurney wrote. “Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have.”

As a practical matter, McBurney was even clearer about the implications of requiring women to “serve as human incubators for the five months leading up to viability.”

“It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid’s Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could — or should — force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another,” McBurney wrote. “... When someone other than the pregnant woman is able to sustain the fetus, then — and only then — should those other voices have a say in the discussion about the decisions the pregnant woman makes concerning her body and what is growing within it.”"

Link

So well written I'm jealous.

 

[choiceone]

I believe going more in depth on one point is more fruitful rather than touching upon the many other points that you've made in your posts.

According to you, a zygote/fetus isn't a separate biological organism:


Okay so my first question to you is, if you consider a fetus attached to a human body not be a separate biological organism, why would a tapeworm also not be considered a separate biological organism?
Compared to the host, both the tapeworm and zygote/fetus have unique genome/DNA, have their own biological processes, their own growth and development directed by their own biological programming independent from the host.

According to me, a zygote IS a separate biological orgasm, as is an embryo, as long as it is not implanted in the woman. Every zygote/blastocyst of every mammalian species has an internal finite life span in the female mammal's body - it can be doubled by growing it in a petri dish with a highly oxygenated supernutrient. Thus, we know theoretically that the human zygote, which has a finite life span in the woman's body of 8-10 days, could be doubled to 16-20 days if growing it in a petri dish that long were legal.

When a human blastocyst/embryo implants into the woman's body at 8-10 days, it is doing so to extend its finite life span by using the woman's uterus, endometrial tissue, organ functioning, blood oxygen/nutrients/ antibodies, etc.

Once implanted, it continues living and growing as part of her body, and if it becomes disimplanted before viability, it dies. During that implanted period, therefore, it is not a separate biological organism, because its life is 100% dependent on the woman's life, just as the life of her arms and legs and brain and stomach are.

Because it's part of her body, she has every right to decide whether or not the drain on her bodily organism is worth continuing the pregnancy.

But if it weren't part of her body, if it were a completely separate person, she would have the right to refuse to allow it to implant, and if it did so anyway, she would have the right to eject it on the grounds that she never consented to the sexual violation.

As for tapeworms, it's my understanding that they are different from human embryos inside human bodies, because, being of a different species, they never continue to live and grow as part of a human's body and therefore aren't part of it. However, once a tapeworm attaches fully to a human body, it can't be detached without dying, either.

End Part 1

 

[choiceone]

Now my second question is why would the zooids, which are genetically identical, that make up the Portuguese Man o' War, each be considered an animal?
Each zooid is considered it's own organism despite having the same DNA and being in physiological continuity as they collectively function as the Portuguese Man o' War.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooid


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_man_o'_war


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

I don't have a clue what you want from me here - I don't see any relevance.

Also, if you believe conjoined twins are only one life, for my third question, how would you explain this?


What do you mean the life of the healthy twin and then the pregnant mother's life? All three lives should be one life according to you.

First, yes, I believe that, when born, conjoined twins are only one life because there is only one bodily organism, though it is complex compared to the usual bodily organism. If there are enough body parts and the possibility of two separate bodily organisms each of which can live separately, medical professionals divide them and thus render one bodily organism as two separate bodily organisms.

In this way, the conjoined twins that have two functional heads and are two persons may fortunately each receive a separate functional body.

When a woman is pregnant, she is the living mind qua person involved, and the embryo is implanted in her body and lives as part of that body. If there are twin embryos, and they aren't conjoined, each embryo is implanted and living as part of her body, not as part of the other embryo.

Each embryo has life, just as each of her legs, her stomach, and her ears have life. If someone cut off one of her fingers, it would die. Similarly, if someone disimplanted one of the embryos, it would die. Nonetheless, we can speak of her fingers as having life, her legs, stomach, etc., having life. Yes, the woman's life and the life of each of the embryos and/or pre-viable fetuses are one life.

But when a fetus attains to viability, it is possible to demonstrate that it has a life of its own, apart from that of the woman. As long as it remains implanted, it's still really part of her life, but if people want to argue that, at that point, it has a right to life, as long as it isn't threatening to kill her or kill a fetal twin or permanently damage her body, they can reasonably do so. That entails a completely different philosophical discussion.

 

[roguenuke]

Last time I checked, abortion was a medical procedure as well.



Not just donate. She may sell her organs.



No, it's her body, her choice.

Because it gives financial incentive, advantage for rich people when it comes to organ availability, which is not ethical or fair. The richest people would get first dibs on organs, head of the line privilege, even on multiple ones, leading to deaths of those waiting fairly for their chance, and that is not okay.

 

[roguenuke]

Nope, there are trade-offs for everything. The primary question is who should decide - the woman or the state. If you believe in the right to bodily autonomy, then the woman decides.

The woman has bodily autonomy to either keep or decide to donate her organs. The transaction side of that particular choice is limited due to the ethical problems it would cause as well as societal consequences it would lead to. It is still her decision to either donate or not her body parts. The government can limit transactions, such as you cannot sell your kids. You can get some compensation for it, but it would be like you being reimbursed for actual costs.

This is not comparable to abortion. She can also not get compensation for, sell fetal tissue from abortions for a similar ethical reason.

 

[collected]

According to me, a zygote IS a separate biological orgasm, as is an embryo, as long as it is not implanted in the woman. Every zygote/blastocyst of every mammalian species has an internal finite life span in the female mammal's body - it can be doubled by growing it in a petri dish with a highly oxygenated supernutrient. Thus, we know theoretically that the human zygote, which has a finite life span in the woman's body of 8-10 days, could be doubled to 16-20 days if growing it in a petri dish that long were legal.

When a human blastocyst/embryo implants into the woman's body at 8-10 days, it is doing so to extend its finite life span by using the woman's uterus, endometrial tissue, organ functioning, blood oxygen/nutrients/ antibodies, etc.

Once implanted, it continues living and growing as part of her body, and if it becomes disimplanted before viability, it dies. During that implanted period, therefore, it is not a separate biological organism, because its life is 100% dependent on the woman's life, just as the life of her arms and legs and brain and stomach are.

Because it's part of her body, she has every right to decide whether or not the drain on her bodily organism is worth continuing the pregnancy.

But if it weren't part of her body, if it were a completely separate person, she would have the right to refuse to allow it to implant, and if it did so anyway, she would have the right to eject it on the grounds that she never consented to the sexual violation.

Right now we are discussing whether or not a fetus/embryo is part of the woman's life and/or has it's own life - not rights / consent.

The only reason you gave is that it's not a separate biological organism because its life is 100% dependent on the woman's life as the life of her arms and legs and brain and stomach are. For the reasons below I believe that you're wrong:

• The fetus has unique DNA. No organ in the human body possesses a different genetic identity from the person it belongs to but a fetus always does.
• Dependency doesn't eliminate individuality or what is considered to be a separate organism as evidenced by tapeworms and the Portuguese Man o' War.
• The fetus has it's own development dictated by its genetic code and biological processes that's separate from the mother.
• Immunological evidence that the fetus is treated as a distinct entity by the mother’s body because its composed of foreign genetic material while an arm or leg are not.
• After being developed enough, a fetus can be removed and still live independently even if it requires life support. In contrast, the mother’s organs cannot be removed and function independently as they would perish once separated from her.
• If the Portuguese Man o' War's zooids, which are animals, genetically identical, functionally dependent, and incapable of survival apart from the colony are still considered individual organisms, then the fetus must also be acknowledged as an individual life.

As for tapeworms, it's my understanding that they are different from human embryos inside human bodies, because, being of a different species, they never continue to live and grow as part of a human's body and therefore aren't part of it. However, once a tapeworm attaches fully to a human body, it can't be detached without dying, either.


End Part 1

Species differences are irrelevant to biological individuality. You have to articulate why being a different species matters. Both the tapeworm and the fetus maintain distinct biological identities. The Portuguese Man o' War is made up of animals that are of the same species and DNA, can't live on their own, and yet they are STILL considered separate biological organisms.

You also argue that a tapeworm doesn’t grow as part of the host’s body, but neither does a human embryo/fetus. The fetus develops according to its own self directed biological programming and not as an extension of the mother’s organs or tissues.

So what reasoning do you have to explain why a tapeworm isn't part of the human body while a fetus is?

 

[collected]

I don't have a clue what you want from me here - I don't see any relevance.

It's very relevant: The animals that make up the Portuguese Man o' War have the same DNA, are the same species, have a high amount of interdependence, and cannot survive outside of the host organism colony. The relevance of the Portuguese Man o' War analogy is that it demonstrates how biological individuality is not erased by dependency or interconnectedness. In the Portuguese Man o' War, each zooid is entirely dependent on the colony for survival, yet each is still recognized as a distinct organism.

First, yes, I believe that, when born, conjoined twins are only one life because there is only one bodily organism, though it is complex compared to the usual bodily organism. If there are enough body parts and the possibility of two separate bodily organisms each of which can live separately, medical professionals divide them and thus render one bodily organism as two separate bodily organisms.

In this way, the conjoined twins that have two functional heads and are two persons may fortunately each receive a separate functional body.

When a woman is pregnant, she is the living mind qua person involved, and the embryo is implanted in her body and lives as part of that body. If there are twin embryos, and they aren't conjoined, each embryo is implanted and living as part of her body, not as part of the other embryo.

Each embryo has life, just as each of her legs, her stomach, and her ears have life. If someone cut off one of her fingers, it would die. Similarly, if someone disimplanted one of the embryos, it would die. Nonetheless, we can speak of her fingers as having life, her legs, stomach, etc., having life. Yes, the woman's life and the life of each of the embryos and/or pre-viable fetuses are one life.

But when a fetus attains to viability, it is possible to demonstrate that it has a life of its own, apart from that of the woman. As long as it remains implanted, it's still really part of her life, but if people want to argue that, at that point, it has a right to life, as long as it isn't threatening to kill her or kill a fetal twin or permanently damage her body, they can reasonably do so. That entails a completely different philosophical discussion.

A fetus is not biologically analogous to body parts because a fetus has a distinct and complete genetic identity from the mother and also the fetus has it's own development dictated by its genetic code and biological processes that's separate from the mother. Just as the zooids in the Portuguese Man o' War are physiologically connected and dependent on one another yet retain their status as distinct organisms, the fetus also maintains its biological individuality throughout pregnancy which demonstrates that it is a separate organism.

 

[choiceone]

Right now we are discussing whether or not a fetus/embryo is part of the woman's life and/or has it's own life - not rights / consent.

The only reason you gave is that it's not a separate biological organism because its life is 100% dependent on the woman's life as the life of her arms and legs and brain and stomach are. For the reasons below I believe that you're wrong:

• The fetus has unique DNA. No organ in the human body possesses a different genetic identity from the person it belongs to but a fetus always does.

This is not actually true. Suppose an embryo or fetus adsorbed a twin in the uterus who was a fraternal but not an identical twin and somehow had a body part that had alien DNA from it. I remember an episode of the TV series House in which it took the diagnostic geniuses ages to discover the problem and save the patient. The point is that an organ in that human body CAN possess a different genetic identity. And it's still an organ.

• Dependency doesn't eliminate individuality or what is considered to be a separate organism as evidenced by tapeworms and the Portuguese Man o' War.

Tapeworms and the Portuguese Man o'War are different species, so stop trying to compare them to an intraspecies phenomenon. No matter how you try to parse and label it, an embryo is NOT an organism separate from the woman's body unless you sever all organismic connection of the two. If you do that, the embryo always dies.

• The fetus has it's own development dictated by its genetic code and biological processes that's separate from the mother.

Want it to be separate? Then disimplant it and get it out of the woman. If it isn't viable, it will always die, and that's how you know the life in it doesn't belong to it.

• Immunological evidence that the fetus is treated as a distinct entity by the mother’s body because its composed of foreign genetic material while an arm or leg are not.

==

• After being developed enough, a fetus can be removed and still live independently even if it requires life support. In contrast, the mother’s organs cannot be removed and function independently as they would perish once separated from her.

Yes, after being developed enough. However, an embryo or pre-viable fetus can't be removed and live independently. The woman's organs can be removed and continue to live for several hours if kept under certain conditions. An embryo or pre-viable fetus can't do that. It dies immediately.

• If the Portuguese Man o' War's zooids, which are animals, genetically identical, functionally dependent, and incapable of survival apart from the colony are still considered individual organisms, then the fetus must also be acknowledged as an individual life.

Can't use other species to argue that a human embryo or fetus is a separate living entity from the woman to whose body it is continuously connected.

Species differences are irrelevant to biological individuality. You have to articulate why being a different species matters. Both the tapeworm and the fetus maintain distinct biological identities. The Portuguese Man o' War is made up of animals that are of the same species and DNA, can't live on their own, and yet they are STILL considered separate biological organisms.

You also argue that a tapeworm doesn’t grow as part of the host’s body, but neither does a human embryo/fetus. The fetus develops according to its own self directed biological programming and not as an extension of the mother’s organs or tissues.

So what reasoning do you have to explain why a tapeworm isn't part of the human body while a fetus is?

I have argued that a human embryo is incapable of living apart from the organism into which it implants before sufficient development occurs. It is therefore not separate. Who cares whether it's individual or not - my point is that it is inseparable from the woman's body and is, therefore, part of her body, because it cannot continue to live except as part of the life of her body.

This doesn't require any other explanation or species comparison or anything. It is participating in the woman's life in order to avoid dying. If she wants to let it do so, that's her own business. Because the embryo has no mind, it is not an instance of living human mind and is therefore not important, just as her appendix isn't important.

 

[choiceone]

It's very relevant: The animals that make up the Portuguese Man o' War have the same DNA, are the same species, have a high amount of interdependence, and cannot survive outside of the host organism colony. The relevance of the Portuguese Man o' War analogy is that it demonstrates how biological individuality is not erased by dependency or interconnectedness. In the Portuguese Man o' War, each zooid is entirely dependent on the colony for survival, yet each is still recognized as a distinct organism.

If a zooid of this species is not dependent for survival on one other zooid biologically, then the comparison is irrelevant. A baby depends on a human community, but it does not physiologically depend on the body of anyone else. That's why we have to turn to conjoined twins for examples. But if there are two functional heads of conjoined twins and one complex organism that would have to be separated into two for each to have its own organism, then both persons have a claim to the organism. In the case of a woman and embryo, the woman's body preexisted the embryo, and she alone is/has a living mind, so the embryo doesn't have any cause to claim her body as its own.

A fetus is not biologically analogous to body parts because a fetus has a distinct and complete genetic identity from the mother and also the fetus has it's own development dictated by its genetic code and biological processes that's separate from the mother. Just as the zooids in the Portuguese Man o' War are physiologically connected and dependent on one another yet retain their status as distinct organisms, the fetus also maintains its biological individuality throughout pregnancy which demonstrates that it is a separate organism.

I've read your same rant repeatedly. I don't give a crap about DNA, and I don't think the woman is a mother to anything until she has given birth to it and I never will. That's why I'm not a Catholic and not a Greek or Russian Orthodox Christian and not some Southern Evangelical Christian and I wouldn't ever be willing to be. I do not accept their interpretations of scientific materials.

There are plenty of people in developmental biology who don't agree with you. One is the eminent Scott Gilbert at Swarthmore, who has written major texts on the subject of developmental biology and does not view pregnancy and embryos and fetuses as you do. I am within my rights and reasonable scientific philosophy not to agree with you, and I'm not doing it.

Individuality is not separation. My left ring finger is different from my left pinky, and it is possible to argue that they are individual fingers, but they are both functions of my left hand without which they can't live, so my left ring finger does not have a life separate from that of my left hand.

 

[aociswundumho]

This is not comparable to abortion.

It is directly comparable. If she chooses to sell one of her kidneys, it doesn't harm anyone else. It's nobody else's business. If you believe in the right to bodily autonomy, then she has the right to sell her organs. The problem is, you don't believe in the right to bodily autonomy. You believe greasy politicians should control her body.

 

[Lursa]

It is directly comparable. If she chooses to sell one of her kidneys, it doesn't harm anyone else. It's nobody else's business. If you believe in the right to bodily autonomy, then she has the right to sell her organs. The problem is, you don't believe in the right to bodily autonomy. You believe greasy politicians should control her body.

Selling is commerce. She has the right to have her kidney removed (if she finds a Dr to do so) and give it away or throw it away.

I am making a separate argument, related ONLY to bodily autonomy. I do support prostitution, decriminalization of drug use, possibly even selling organs, depending on the protections involved.

For example, I believe people should be allowed to take drugs. But not sell them. That's business, commerce. I see benefits in society for regulating that and I dont see it as violating someone's rights.

 

[aociswundumho]

Because it gives financial incentive, advantage for rich people when it comes to organ availability, which is not ethical or fair.

Why is it unethical? Rich people will bid up the price, which benefits her.

No one else is being harmed, and no one has a right to any of her organs without her explicit permission. If she chooses to give her organ to the highest bidder, how is that morally wrong?

 

[aociswundumho]

Selling is commerce.

Suppose a woman needs an abortion. One doctor will donate his time, and perform the procedure for no money. Another, different doctor is also willing to help her, but he will charge her $600 for the abortion.

Explain to me why a politician should be allowed to interfere in the second scenario, but not the first.

 

[Lursa]

Suppose a woman needs an abortion. One doctor will donate his time, and perform the procedure for no money. Another, different doctor is also willing to help her, but he will charge her $600 for the abortion.

Explain to me why a politician should be allowed to interfere in the second scenario, but not the first.

What does this have to do with bodily autonomy?

 

[aociswundumho]

What does this have to do with bodily autonomy?

Everything. If the woman has the right to bodily autonomy (which she does) then the politician should be told to f off in both scenarios.

 

[Lursa]

Everything. If the woman has the right to bodily autonomy (which she does) then the politician should be told to f off in both scenarios.

No, it has nothing to do with BA as she has no restrictions on getting the abortion. Please try again.

 

[aociswundumho]

No, it has nothing to do with BA as she has no restrictions on getting the abortion.

You're not following your own argument. You claimed that politicians should control her body (regarding organ sales) because "selling is commerce". When a pregnant women hires a doctor to perform an abortion, that's commerce - the doctor is selling the service of abortion and she is buying that service. This is commerce, so should politicians be permitted to stop the sale in this case? If no, then you don't really believe the pretense of "commerce" should allow some politician to violate her right to bodily autonomy.

Please try again.

I have to keep trying because you refuse to answer any hard questions.

 

[Lursa]

You're not following your own argument. You claimed that politicians should control her body (regarding organ sales) because "selling is commerce".

That's not controlling her body. REmoving something is allowed. That's her body and regards BA.

SHe can eat that part, throw it away, etc. But selling it is different. That is business, commerce. It involves another individual and it does NOT affect her BA at all.

When a pregnant women hires a doctor to perform an abortion, that's commerce - the doctor is selling the service of abortion and she is buying that service.

I agree. But if someone donates that procedure, why cant she choose it? And...currently she can. There's no issue about charging for abortion. THere is an issue about doctors performing it, period.

This is commerce, so should politicians be permitted to stop the sale in this case? If no, then you don't really believe the pretense of "commerce" should allow some politician to violate her right to bodily autonomy.

Why would they? What argument are you making? They can charge for their services, she can choose to use them or not. She can perform her own, a doctor can donate his services. None of these...WITH HER CONSENT...violates her BA.

And btw, again, is the current state of the law. I have no idea what you are trying to get at here.

I have to keep trying because you refuse to answer any hard questions.

I am answering very precisely.

 

[aociswundumho]

SHe can eat that part, throw it away, etc. But selling it is different. That is business, commerce.

I don't see it as different. If you own something, then you have the right to destroy it, decorate it, give it away, trade it for something else, or to sell it.

You're basically saying that there is no human right to trade with other humans. That's absurd.

 

[Lursa]

I don't see it as different. If you own something, then you have the right to destroy it, decorate it, give it away, trade it for something else, or to sell it.

You're basically saying that there is no human right to trade with other humans. That's absurd.

It's not about ownership of property. It's about bodily autonomy...the right to protect or use your body as you choose. None of that involves another person.

When it comes to sales or even trade, IMO that is different. I'm not even objecting to it...just making it clear that a right to BA is not the same as the right to sell something.

Just like a right to free speech doesnt give you the right to sell a book. You can write the book...that is exercising your right to free speech. Sales has zero to do with that. Just because current laws allow it dont make it a right. If there is such a 'right', it's not the right to free speech.

 

[aociswundumho]

It's not about ownership of property. It's about bodily autonomy...

Your physical body is your property. If you cut your finger off by accident with a chainsaw, and that finger falls to the ground, that finger is your property, and nobody on the entire planet would contest your property rights to that finger on the ground. Your body is your property.

 

[Lursa]

Your physical body is your property.

It is also more than that and bodily autonomy (as a right) has nothing to do with property. It has to do with consent.

If you cut your finger off by accident with a chainsaw, and that finger falls to the ground, that finger is your property, and nobody on the entire planet would contest your property rights to that finger on the ground. Your body is your property.

Doesnt make your point.

 

[roguenuke]

Why is it unethical? Rich people will bid up the price, which benefits her.

No one else is being harmed, and no one has a right to any of her organs without her explicit permission. If she chooses to give her organ to the highest bidder, how is that morally wrong?

It harms society. Rich people should not be able to "bid up the price" for things, especially donated organs. People are being harmed, especially those who are now stuck on waiting lists to basically die while only the rich can afford organ transplants. Very few poor people, and even middle class will be able to afford organs since no one will donate at all, everyone would expect compensation.